HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-18-2003 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
February 18, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday,
February 18, 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.
The Invocation was given by Rev. Dr. Joel Hawkins.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Please be seated.
The Clerk: [inaudible] and honor you as pastor of the day.
Mr. Mayor: Employee?
The Clerk: Employee of the Month, yes, sir.
RECOGNITION:
A. Employee of the Month Award
Mr. Glenn Dukes
Department of Public Works/Construction Shop
The Clerk: Please join the Mayor here. The Employee of the Month Selection
Committee has selected Mr. Glenn Dukes with the Public Works and Engineering
Department as Employee of the Month for January, 2003. Mr. Dukes has worked for the
City of Augusta for over ten years. Mr. Dukes is employed as an Electrician I in the
construction shop. He was nominated by Operations Manager Steven E. Fowler, who
gave the following reasons for his nomination: “Mr. Dukes performs his duties as
Electrician I very admirably. He meets with the Operations Manager ever morning to
ensure that all electrical projects are scheduled. Glenn also, on his him own time and
without being asked, did the electrical take-off for the new addition of the [inaudible]
Park. Glenn always offers to work any special events to ensure all goes well. He has
received two letters of appreciation for working weekends and special events. Both
letters state that he performed professionally, both in attitude and tradesmanship. He is
instrumental in wiring up the City’s Christmas tree every year. He always offers
constructive suggestions; for example, the Augusta Common or any other concern that
may arise at the construction shop. It does not matter if it’s electrical or not, Glenn cares
about our shop and he will give suggestions to help where he can. Glenn is a team
player. As Operations Manager, I’m very impressed with how Glenn has developed files
on all electrical projects completed and scheduling projects to be completed. Glenn
performs material listings for most electrical job projects and I can say he never leaves
1
out a single piece of material needed to complete the job. Glenn is a valued employee to
our shop. He is helping to make our shop to the next level in bringing more
professionalism. Glenn always welcomes training and will offer his gained knowledge to
anyone that asks him.” The Committee felt that based on Mr. Fowler’s recommendation
and Mr. Dukes’ attributes, he should be awarded Employee of the Month. Mr. Fowler
further states: “Mr. Dukes is a role model for all Electrician II’s and his appearance is
always neat and appropriate.” Congratulations, Glenn Dukes, you are making a
difference in the City of Augusta.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will go ahead and call the next item under Delegations.
For a five minute presentation, we have Mr. Donald E. D’Antignac.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: That’s on the deletion agenda? Okay. I don’t have it on my deletion.
The Clerk: [inaudible] requested [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s look at the additions and deletions and then we’ll
move forward from that point.
The Clerk:
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Delegation Item – Mr. Donald D’Antignac
Item 58
The Clerk: As the Mayor has stated, Mr. D’Antignac has requested that this item
be postponed and he will try and reschedule at another date.
Mr. Mayor: And you have another deletion, item?
The Clerk: Item 58. At the request of staff from Engineering and Public Works.
The Clerk:
ADDITION TO THE AGENDA:
1. Discuss GMA Membership Poll regarding the adoption of a time-limited
excise tax on alcohol and tobacco products. (Requested by Mayor Young)
2
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to deleting these two items? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: We also have the deletion of item 34.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: The issue has been resolved with the Health Department and request
removal from the agenda.
Mr. Mayor: All right. So we have three deletions and one addition. Is there any
objection to deleting any of those items or adding one item? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I may have one other deletion. It’s on the Finance
agenda. If I could speak with Counsel just a second.
Mr. Mayor: That will be fine. We’ll give you a moment. Mr. Boyle?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to also pull item --
Mr. Mayor: We’re not pulling items, we’re deleting from the agenda.
Mr. Boyles: I’m sorry, to delete item 40. That’s already been worked out.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] worked out [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: So you want to pull item 40?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: The Attorney would like to pull item 40.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, is that pull or delete?
Mr. Wall: Delete.
Mr. Bridges: Delete? Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Pull from the agenda. Delete from the meeting. Okay, is there any
objection to any of those actions? No objection is heard. We will move forward,
Madame Clerk, with the consent agenda. And then we will move to the committee
agendas to see if we can develop some consent agendas from those. And then we’ll
proceed with specific items.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay?
3
The Clerk: Our consent agenda -- and the correction is items 1 through 25.
Items 1 through 25.
For the benefit of any objectors to our planning petitions, once I
read the planning petitions, if there any objectors to any of the petitions would you please
signify your objection by raising your hand? I will start with item 1.
PLANNING:
1. Z-03-10 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) streetyard
conforms to the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance with trees outside the
required fencing; 2) no access to Glass Factory Road; and 3) no variance to be
requested to the 50’ activity spacing requirement, a petition by Lou Moore, on
behalf of CMC Augusta and Jean Hornsby Williams et al., requesting a Special
Exception in a HI (Heavy Industry) Zone for the purpose of expanding an existing
salvage yard at 1752 Old Savannah Road as per Section 24-2 of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at
1752 and 1890 Old Savannah Road and 7 additional parcels that total 1.41 acres on
Glass Factory Road. (existing yard Tax Map 73-1 Parcels 93 & 94, new parcels Tax
Map 73-1 Parcels 96-100 and Tax Map 59-3 Parcels 577 & 578) (POSTPONED from
the January meeting) DISTRICT 2
2. Z-03-13 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following condition that 7 parking spaces
in front of the building be reserved for customer parking; a petition by Ann Colley,
on behalf of Deans Bridge Road Sites, LLC, requesting a Special Exception in a B-2
(General Business) zone to operate a paint and body shop per Section 22-2 (a) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 2403 Milledgeville Road and containing 1.94 acres (Tax Map 71-
4 Parcel 20). DISTRICT 5
3. Z-03-14 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following condition that the site plan
conforms to the concept plan submitted with this petition; a petition by Marshall
Turner, on behalf of Sean X. D’Antignac, requesting a change of zone from Zone R-
1C (One-family Residential) to Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) affecting
property located at 1710, 1718 and 1720 Hicks Street and containing .42 acres. (Tax
Map 35-2 Parcels 517.01, 579 & 518). DISTRICT 1
4. Z-03-15 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions that the subdivision
plan substantially conform to the concept plan submitted with this petition and 2)
that approximately 19 acres shall be donated to the Richmond County Greenspace
Program; a petition by Nordahl & Company, Inc, on behalf of Vern Adkins,
requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1C (One-family
Residential) affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of
Peninsula Drive, 450 feet north of the northeast corner of the intersection of Pillar
Lane and Peninsula Drive adjacent to Bridgeport Subdivision and containing 40.17
acres (Tax map 40 Parcel 75). DISTRICT 3
4
5. Z-03-16 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions that the site must
reasonably conform with the County’s mobile home park standards and seek
variances where it cannot 2) the roads shall have all weather surfaces and 3) the
park must connect into public sewerage when it becomes available; a petition by
William B. Mims requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-
MH (Manufactured Home Residential) affecting property located where the
northwest right-of-way line of Patterson Bridge Road intersects with the northeast
right-of-way line of Nunnery Drive; and is known as Patterson Bridge Estates
manufactured home community containing 43.48 acres (Tax Map 193 multiple
parcels) DISTRICT 8
6. Z-03-17 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by James M. Newman requesting a
change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting
property located at 3319 Gordon Highway and containing .44 acres. (Tax Map 104
Parcel 05). DISTRICT 3
7. Z-03-18 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Horace Foss requesting change of
zone from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business)
affecting property located at 2619 Milledgeville Road and containing .64 acres. (Tax
Map 71-3 Parcel 25). DISTRICT 5
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Want me to do the alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: Let’s do the alcohol, too.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
11. Motion to approve a request by James R. Mobley for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Augusta
Lighthouse located at 2911 Washington Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 7.
Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services February 10, 2003)
12. Motion to approve a request by Ashok Shah for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Deans Bridge Travel Center located at
3333 Deans Bridge Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
February 10, 2003)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk. Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure
with respect to the consent agenda?
5
Mr. Williams: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. A second?
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, would you like to pull any items? Mr. Shepard, you
wanted --
Mr. Shepard: Well, I was going to add some finance items.
Mr. Mayor: We’re going, we’re going to get to that.
Mr. Shepard: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go through this first and then we’ll get to the committees. Mr.
Williams, did you want to pull something?
Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor. But I wanted to add one, item 27, to the consent
agenda as well, if possible. [inaudible] item 27. But I’d like to pull two item, maybe
three.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, did you get the addition of 27 to the consent agenda?
Is there any objection to adding 27 to the consent agenda? None is noted.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull item 1, item 2 and item 7.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams is pulling items 1, 2 and 7. Anyone else? Mr.
Wall?
Mr. Wall: Insofar as item number 22 is concerned, don’t know whether you want
to pull it, but just for clarification, this would exclude the trousers as contained in the
backup. The motion does not state that, but it would exclude the trousers.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Hankerson, you wanted to pull something?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I want to pull number 2. And number 27 been pulled to the
consent?
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Did you want to have some discussion on that?
6
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I want to.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll pull 27 then. We’ll keep it as a free standing item.
Thank you. Anyone else? We have a request to pull items 1, 2, 7, and we’ll keep 27 off
the consent agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA:
PLANNING:
1. Deleted from the consent agenda.
2. Deleted from the consent agenda.
3. Z-03-14 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following condition that the site plan
conforms to the concept plan submitted with this petition; a petition by Marshall
Turner, on behalf of Sean X. D’Antignac, requesting a change of zone from Zone R-
1C (One-family Residential) to Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) affecting
property located at 1710, 1718 and 1720 Hicks Street and containing .42 acres. (Tax
Map 35-2 Parcels 517.01, 579 & 518). DISTRICT 1
4. Z-03-15 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions that the subdivision
plan substantially conform to the concept plan submitted with this petition and 2)
that approximately 19 acres shall be donated to the Richmond County Greenspace
Program; a petition by Nordahl & Company, Inc, on behalf of Vern Adkins,
requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1C (One-family
Residential) affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of
Peninsula Drive, 450 feet north of the northeast corner of the intersection of Pillar
Lane and Peninsula Drive adjacent to Bridgeport Subdivision and containing 40.17
acres (Tax map 40 Parcel 75). DISTRICT 3
5. Z-03-16 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions that the site must
reasonably conform with the County’s mobile home park standards and seek
variances where it cannot 2) the roads shall have all weather surfaces and 3) the
park must connect into public sewerage when it becomes available; a petition by
William B. Mims requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-
MH (Manufactured Home Residential) affecting property located where the
northwest right-of-way line of Patterson Bridge Road intersects with the northeast
right-of-way line of Nunnery Drive; and is known as Patterson Bridge Estates
manufactured home community containing 43.48 acres (Tax Map 193 multiple
parcels) DISTRICT 8
6. Z-03-17 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by James M. Newman requesting a
change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting
property located at 3319 Gordon Highway and containing .44 acres. (Tax Map 104
Parcel 05). DISTRICT 3
7. Deleted from the consent agenda.
7
8. ZA-R-155 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to Section 34, entitled Location
and Maintenance of Zoning Maps, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County. The purpose of the amendment is to adopt the zoning
layer of the Augusta- Richmond County Geographic Information System as the
official zoning maps of Augusta. This action would not change the zoning
classification of any property, but rather it would convert existing paper maps to
computer based mapping.
9. FINAL PLAT – PEPPERIDGE SUBDIVISION, SECTION 16, PHASE II –
S-622-II - A request for concurrence with the Augusta- Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl
& Co., Inc., requesting final plat approval for Pepperidge Subdivision, Section 16,
Phase B. This development is located on Danvers Avenue, adjacent to Pepperidge
Subdivision, Section 16, Phase One and contains 38 lots.
10. FINAL PLAT – PINEHURST SUBDIVISION, SECTION II – S-641 - A
request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission
to approve a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Co., Inc.,
requesting final plat approval for Pinehurst Subdivision, Section II. This
development is located on Pineview Lane, adjacent to Pinehurst Subdivision,
Section One and contains 29 lots.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
11. Motion to approve a request by James R. Mobley for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Augusta
Lighthouse located at 2911 Washington Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 7.
Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services February 10, 2003)
12. Motion to approve a request by Ashok Shah for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Deans Bridge Travel Center located at
3333 Deans Bridge Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
February 10, 2003)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
13. Motion to approve the reclassification of the Accounting Technician III
position to Administrative Assistant I in Fleet Management. (Approved by
Administrative Services February 10, 2003)
14. Motion to approve disability retirement of Mr. Levi Grayson under the 1977
Pension Plan. (Approve by Administrative Services February 10, 2003)
15. Motion to approve 2003 Cost-of-Living increases for retirees. (Approve by
Administrative Services February 10, 2003)
16. Motion to approve the appointment of the Citizens Advisory Council for
Minority Employment and Small Business Opportunities utilizing the same process
used in appointing the SPLOST IV Citizens Advisory Committee – Commission
appoints two members and Mayor one = 21 member council with the council
electing a Chairman from among themselves. (Approve by Administrative Services
February 10, 2003)
8
PUBLIC SAFETY:
17. Motion to authorize purchase of replacement PCs for the Augusta 9-1-1
Center. (Approved by Public Safety Committee February 10, 2003)
18. Motion to approve Amendment to Augusta-Richmond County Code Title 2,
Chapter 1, Section 3 Subsection (a) to provide a $72.00 administrative fee.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee February
10, 2003)
19. Motion to approve the purchase of ammunition for year 2003 for the
Training Range Section. (Approved by Public Safety Committee
February 10, 2003)
20. Motion to approve purchase of licenses and implementation services for
George Butler Associates (GBA) software to enable management of customer
complaints, work orders and resources. (Approved by Public Safety Committee
February 10, 2003)
21. Motion to approve TeamIA Scope of Work for performing the analysis for
the Optika Imaging Engine replacement and the upgrade to a browser-based Public
Access. (Approved by Public Safety Committee
February 10, 2003)
22. Motion to approve the low bid award for the purchase of Uniforms and
Accessories for the Sheriff’s Office to Command Uniforms. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee February 10, 2003)
Mr. Wall: This would exclude the trousers as contained in the backup and
the motion does not state that, but it would exclude the trousers.
23. Motion to approve the low bid award for the purchase of Gortex Rain
Jackets and Pants for the Sheriff’s Office to Command Uniforms. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee February 10, 2003)
24. Motion to approve the low bid award for the purchase of Uniforms for the
Sheriff’s Office (School Patrol) to Sidney’s Department Store. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee February 10, 2003)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
25. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held Monday, February 3, 2003.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. Any discussion? All in favor of the
motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: I need to abstain on item 15 [inaudible].
9
Mr. Mayor: All right. The record will show that Commissioner Boyles has
abstained on item number 15.
Mr. Bridges: And Mr. Mayor, could the record show that I voted against Sunday
sales on item 11?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. The record will so reflect.
Mr. Colclough: As well, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Boyles abstains.
Motion carries 9-1. [Item 15]
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Colclough vote No on Sunday sales portion.
Motion carries 10-0. [Item 11]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 3-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-25]
Mr. Mayor: All right, now if you’ll move ahead, we’ll go to the Finance
Committee agenda and defer to our Finance Chairman. Could we get a consent agenda
out of your items?
Mr. Shepard: We’re going to try, Mr. Mayor, and thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Shepard:
The Finance Committee would offer as a consent agenda item 29,
subject to purchase of tickets as requested by individual Commissioners; item 30; 31; 32;
So
33. 34 has been deleted already. 35; and 36, I think the Attorney wants to discuss.
we’ll offer as consent agenda 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 35.
Mr. Mayor: That’s your motion?
Mr. Shepard: My motion.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second to that. Okay. Would anybody like to pull any of those
items?
Mr. Williams: I’d like to have a little discussion on item 30. We didn’t have
[inaudible] and so I would like to have a little discussion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ll pull number 30 then.
FINANCE COMMITTEE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
10
29. Consider a request from the Richmond County Neighborhood Associations
Alliance, Inc. regarding City sponsorship of their Seventh Annual Alliance Banquet.
32. Motion to approve reclassification of the Accounting Technician III position
to Administrative Assistant I in Fleet Management.
33. Motion to authorize Resolution for Security Transactions for the Joseph R.
Lamar School Trust Fund.
34. Deleted from the agenda.
35. Motion to approve to retain Cherry, Bekaert & Holland CPA’s for the
required annual financial audit.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the agenda consent from Finance. All
in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next we’ll move to the Engineering Services items. Chairman Andy
Cheek, you want to make a consent agenda here?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. We’re going to have to do couple of things
here. We have items 38, 39, 45, and 51 we’d like to defer back to Committee.
The Clerk: 38, 39 --
Mr. Cheek: 45 and 51. Item 50 we need to have discussion on. It’s a
briefing by one of our Deputy Administrator concerning flood mitigation. We’d
offer for the consent agenda items 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56,
57, 58, 59, 60 --
The Clerk: 58’s deleted.
Mr. Cheek: 58’s deleted. 59, 60, and 61 for consent agenda, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Would anyone like to pull any of those items?
ENGINEERING SERVICES COMMITTEE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
38. [Referred back to Engineering Services Committee]
39. [Referred back to Engineering Services Committee]
40. [Deleted from the agenda]
41. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 131, Parcel
372.02, which is owned by WEC 98H-23 LLC, for an easement on the Butler Creek
Interceptor Upgrade Project, more particularly described as 17,518 square feet,
11
more or less, of permanent easement and 17,711 square feet, more or less, of
temporary construction easement.
42. Motion to settle claim of Jessie W. Taylor and Diana M. Taylor for $5,500.00.
43. Approve award of contract for painting of the railings at Riverwalk to the
low bidder, A & D Painting, Inc. of Marietta, Ga. in the amount of $64,766.00. The
contract is to include all sections described in the Request for Bids and is to be
completed using the alternate coating system with a seven-year warranty.
44. Approve award of Bid Item #03-049 to low bidder(s) for each bid section as
follows:
??
Section I - Metro Termite and Pest Control - $8,040.00
??
Section II - Bert Hall Exterminating - $4,116.00
??
Section III - Bert Hall Exterminating - $7,908.00
??
Section IV - Metro Termite and Pest Control - $1,728.00
For a total annual cost of $21,792.00 funded by the departments
receiving the service under object code 52.13117.
45. [Referred back to Engineering Services Committee]
46. Approve Capital Project Budget (CPB# 324-05-201150430) in the amount of
$500,000.00 to be funded from Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST)
Phase IV for JLEC Roofing and Waterproofing. Also approve Capital Project
Budget (CPB# 324-05-201150400) in the amount of $350,000.00 to be funded from
Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) Phase IV for the JLEC Exterior
Finish. Finally, authorize Public Works and Engineering to award a contract to the
lowest and best bidder, Commercial Roof Management Services, in the amount of
$17,600.00 to perform an analysis of existing conditions and develop an effective
action plan. This contract will also be for construction, the fee to be 13% of actual
construction cost. The fee includes all overhead and profit.
47. Approve Change Order No. 4 (Final) to Blair Construction Inc. to make final
quantity adjustments (under-runs and over-runs) in accordance with the terms of
the unit price contract in the amount of a deduction of $33,073.06.
48. Approve Change Order No. 1 to Barnett Construction Inc. to make final
quantity adjustments (under-runs and over-runs) in accordance with the terms of
the unit price contract in the amount of a deduction of $34,350.20.
49. Approve the award of a design contract to HNTB Corporation in the amount
of $43,542.00 for the preparation of construction documents for the relocation of a
12-inch water main on US Hwy. 25.
50. Report from Dep. Administrator Fred Russell regarding the flood
mitigation work group.
51. [Referred back to Engineering Services Committee]
52. Motion to approve the execution of a Local Government Project Agreement
with the Georgia Department of Transportation assuming responsibility for public
and private utility relocations and adjustments on the S.R. 4/U.S. 1 @ Butler Creek
Bridge Replacement Project. Currently there are no costs associated with this
agreement.
53. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Change Number One (CPB #324-
04-201824044) transferring $15,558.00 from project contingency to construction.
Also approve Change Order Number One to APAC-Ga., Inc. in the amount of
12
$15,557.50 for Resurfacing Various Roads, Phase VII (Capital Project Number 324-
04-201824044) adding pavement marking to the contract.
54. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Change Number One (CPB# 322-
04-201822661) adding $24,900 for utility relocations on the S.R. 121 @ Windsor
Spring Road Upgrade Traffic Signals Project to be
funded from One Percent Sales Tax Phase III, Recapture.
55. Motion to authorize the Public Works and Engineering Department to award
a consultant services agreement to Rochester & Associates, Inc. in the amount of
$150,878.09 subject to receipt and approval of executed documents for the Belair
Road Improvement Project (CPB #323-04-201823332).
56. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Change Number One (CPB #323-
04-201823102) adding $31,000.00 for right of way and railroad permitting for the
ARC Drainage Improvements, Phase II Project to be funded from County Forces
Grading and Drainage, Phase III.
57. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Change Number One (CPB #323-
04-201823101) authorizing $1,342,000 for right of way, construction and
contingency on ARC Drainage Improvements, Phase I
Project to be funded from County Forces Grading and Drainage, Phase
IV. Also grant approval to let.
58. Deleted from the agenda.
59. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget #324-04-201824055 in the amount
of $1,163,462 for the Neely Road Improvement Project to be
funded from the Special One Percent Sales Tax Phase IV Paving Dirt Roads
Program. Also authorize the Public Works and Engineering Department to award a
Consultant Services Agreement to EMC Engineering Services, Inc. in an amount
not to exceed $63,692 subject to
receipt and approval of executed documents.
60. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Change Number Two (CPB #323-
04-201823101) in the amount of $45,000 to be funded from Special One Percent
Sales Tax Phase III Recapture.
61. Motion to approve Access Easement in favor of Tobacco Road Warehouse,
LLC across the right-of-way on the north side of Tobacco Road at the site of an
existing driveway.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll move ahead with the vote then. All in favor of the
Engineering Services consent agenda please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: Point of clarification. Item on Finance, item 31, can I add that to
the item we pulled, 31?
13
Mr. Mayor: Well, we’ve already approved the consent agenda and that was -- the
item’s been approved. If you want to bring it up for reconsideration?
Mr. Williams: Yes, I would just like -- I’d like to have some discussion on it,
please, if [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: I’ll need a motion to reconsider item 31.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll make that motion.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. All in favor then please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right, so we’ll reconsider item number 31, then Mr. Williams,
thank you.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor:
And that brings us to the Pension & Audit Committee. And we’ll
see if we can take items number -- and I’ll need somebody to make a motion since I
Items 65, 66, 67, 68, and 69, if we can
can’t, but I’m the Chairman of this Committee.
take those as a consent agenda.
Mr. Shepard: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Would anyone like to pull any of those items?
PENSION &AUDIT COMMITTEE:
65. Consider recommendation from the P& Committee to add as additional
options for employees’ investments in the 1998 Pension Plan. (Approved by Pension
& Audit Committee February 11, 2003)
??
Gartmore Large Cap Value Fund – Class A
??
Invesco Small Company Growth Fund – Investor Shares
??
Strong Investments – Advisor Common Stock Fund – Class A
66. Consider the recommendation of the P&A Committee to terminate Laurel
Capital Advisors as equity manager for the City/County Pension Funds 1945, 1949,
and 1977. (Approved by Pension & Audit Committee February 11, 2003)
67. Consider the recommendation of the P&A Committee to assign equally
(50%) the plans portfolio assigned to Laurel Capital Advisors to Atalanta/Sosnoff
and MDT. (Approved by Pension & Audit Committee February 11, 2003)
14
68. Receive as information report from the Internal Auditor. (Received as
information by the Pension & Audit Committee February 11, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: All right. Everyone is silent. All in favor of the consent agenda
from Pension & Audit, please vote aye.
Mr. Beard: I’m sorry, Mr. Mayor, but I didn’t quite get all of the [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Items 65, 66, 67, 68, and 69. It does not include item number
70, which is the pension advisors. Madame Clerk, if you’ll publish the vote.
Mr. Beard not voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Beard: I’d like some clarification on item 68.
The Clerk: 68?
Mr. Mayor: Well, we’ll have to reconsider it because we have already voted.
Mr. Beard: I haven’t voted.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry?
Mr. Beard: I haven’t voted yet. I didn’t vote.
Mr. Mayor: That’s your prerogative not to vote, but nine people voted for it, is
what I’m saying.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I was asking for -- I told you I didn’t get those that were
noted, and I think if I didn’t get those numbers that were noted, then I didn’t vote. And I
needed the clarification to vote. Now we’re not going to rush this through so that, you
know, people can’t respond to that.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t think anybody has indicated anything is being rushed
through.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’ll move for reconsideration of item 68.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to reconsider item number 68. All in favor of
reconsideration, vote aye..
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
15
Mr. Mayor: The first item we’ll take up, Madame Clerk, will be item number 26.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, point of information. Is it possible for 71 and 72 to be
included as consent?
Mr. Mayor: Make a motion to take those two up and we’ll dispose of them.
OTHER BUSINESS:
71. Authorize Letter of Consent for Augusta Recreation through MACH
Academy, Inc. to be a direct recipient of grant funds from the Governor’s Children
and Youth Coordinating Council.
APPOINTMENT:
72. Consider the re-appointment of Mr. Harry James to Augusta-Richmond
County Land Bank Authority for a four-year term.
Mr. Bridges: I move we add to the consent items 71 and 72.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor then please vote aye.
The Clerk: 71 and 72 as consent items.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll move ahead now to item number 26.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Let her read the caption, Mr. Hankerson, then I’ll come to you.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
26. Discussion of proposed Fire Administration Offices in the ANIC Office
Building.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This, this came up a few weeks ago, and
I know that I was very concerned about it. And with no intentions of calling for a
territorial war. Because we all here to try to provide the best service to all of our
constituents. But what I would like to see done that we can all go away with being
16
satisfied. Last year, my first year on Commission, I met with Highland Neighborhood,
and we showed them a sketch of a Fire Administration building/Recreation building
because the funds were not available there to build a Recreation facility. And they
consented to that and we were asked to go back and get funding for it. Well, the Fire
Department or Fire Chief found the funding and this was presented again. I noticed when
I saw the contract for ANIC that the contract ended in August of 2002. And I consulted
about the penalties and so forth, and the penalties were exceeding $9,000 per month. So
what I thought would be cost saving that if the Fire Administration office would move
directly into the building on Highland if we would get that erected, rather than to move
into ANIC building. It was not against not anything being on Laney Walker Boulevard.
I thought that maybe -- as I find out it was sensitive, that maybe we could have had some
other offices to move in there that would have some ongoing type services going in the
ANIC Building. The lease is $67,000 a year. But that is a very sensitive issue and
people are stirred up about it. But it was be no means that it, that it was done to stop
anything going on on Laney Walker, but also it was done to make sure that the citizens in
the Highland neighborhood would have an adequate place for recreation as such. So I
thought a $100,000 saving would be a good stewardship of government property. But it’s
sort of, it’s been discussed, and some misunderstanding, misconceptions about what it’s
all about. But it’s definitely about trying to satisfy the constituents in Highland and also
in the Laney Walker area. Maybe in the future, maybe we consider, will consider the tag
office being moved in Laney Walker in ANIC building where you have revenue coming
in, people coming in and out, or one of the Human Relations or something that there
would have a contract there, would be there for years to come, rather than a one year
contract. But what I’d like to do and hope that it come to a resolve, that I make a motion
-- want both areas to be pleased, and I know that we do have representatives here from
Laney Walker, we have representatives here from Highland, also. I’d like to make, put in
the form of a motion that we, we would extend the contract on Laney Walker Boulevard
for three years and also go forward with building the Admin/Recreation facility in
Highland.
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second from Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m very pleased to see such participation
from our neighborhood associations. I think this is good government when you come
down to see what we are doing down here. And I would like to try and put this all in
perspective and possibly craft a motion that would create a win-win situation but forth
groups here that have come down this afternoon. I’m going to make a substitute motion,
but I’d like to make some clarifications here and put this all in perspective prior to the
motion that I’m going to make. Some time ago, there was a commitment by former
Commissioners and others that they would construction a Recreation facility in the
Highland Park area. However, there was no funding source for this. Someone came up
with the idea that they could do this by funding a Fire Administration/Recreation building
which, with projected revenue surplus from six fire stations, that was allocated through
our SPLOST funds. There was also a commitment made by the Commission and was
17
voted on and approved that we would lease spaces for two agencies, HND, Housing &
Neighborhood Development, and the Fire Administration in the ANIC building on Laney
Walker Boulevard. We also in the process of constructing six fire stations throughout
this City. Three are under construction at this time. One of those is located in the
Highland Park with a community room in it. The Fire Administration/Recreation
building is not in the SPLOST budget. Nor has it been authorized by the Commission.
Therefore, there are no funds available at this time for a Recreation building in the
Highland Park area. The $1.6 million that has been referred to, this is available, but it
My motion is thatwe authorize a three-
must be spent toward Fire-related activities.
year lease for Housing & Neighborhood Development and Fire Administration to
the ANIC Building on Laney-Walker, waiving all penalties involved in the current
lease, and we go on record as giving the Recreation building on Highland Park top
priority in funds available. Also authorizing the Administrator to do a complete
analysis as to the location of the Fire Administration building.
Now the last part of
my motion and the rationale behind that is that we are in the process of building a
Judicial Complex here. We are going to renovate this building, we are going to put a
wing out on the other end. And this is for our judicial building. And this is why I’m
saying that we should do an analysis of where that Fire Administration building is. It’s
my understanding that the most concern here is the Recreation building in the Highland
Park area. We also have to build a City Administrative building in the next few years,
besides what we have here, so that the people in here would be able to relocate in the City
Administration building. We need to analyze this for future needs and we don’t need to
just rush and build a building, and I don’t think you want us to just build a building to
satisfy people. I think we have a great opportunity here to really analyze the situation, do
the best for the citizens of Augusta, also it would help revitalize and give an economic
boost to the Laney Walker area. So we are serving both communities. And we are going
to stand on that promise that we are going to look out for the Highland Park area and we
are going to assist you in getting a community building up there. The other thing is with
the Judicial Complex, you are going to have the judges down here, you have the marshals
down here, and you are going to have possibly the Sheriff’s Department down here. Why
can’t the Fire Department come down here in that building? Now that need to be looked
into and see if this could be done. And we have two representatives. Mr. Kuhlke is,
Commissioner Kuhlke is chairing that, and I’m sure he’s going to be looking at that in the
next few weeks. I’m on that committee and we promise you that we will look at that and
see what can be done. And Mr. Mayor, that is my motion. And hopefully this is a win-
win situation for everybody.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion from Commissioner Beard. Is there a
second to that motion?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I’ve heard from two of my single District
thst
Commissioners, one in the 5, one in the 1. And also where the Highland Park area,
18
residents of which you have somewhat of a dividing line in there in the Super District,
which makes up also District 2. One thing I would like to add to Mr. Beard’s substitute
motion, but in not changing it, but from an informative standpoint. He is correct, and I
want to make this very clear, as the Commissioner from District 9. And sometimes folks
in District 1 and District 5, the Super District Commissioner -- I’m sure Commissioner
Kuhlke agrees with me in District 10 -- that many times with our single District
colleagues, we have to put on that striped referee shirt and referee to a point of getting to
some type of conclusion where it works out for everybody. I made a commitment some
time ago to both Districts, one that is contained in Mr. Beard’s motion for the
Administration building to go there in the ANIC building on Laney Walker, as well as a
concept plan commitment as Chairman of Public Services, Public Services, which houses
the Recreation Department and a commitment at that time to then neighborhood president
who has been ill, Charles Evans. And to get that project off the ground. That was then
under the leadership in District 5, Commissioner, former Commissioner Henry Brigham.
That commitment from this Commissioner of that Super District still stands. I am not
backing off of that commitment to get Recreation in that area. But what happens so
many times is that there has be hierarchies and date lines set on anything that you do. I
don’t mind when new monies are found that if we can move to new ideas. But what we
also have to consider is that when you set priorities and you put them on a scale to get
things done, if you change them every time that you get a different priority, you will
never build anything in this City. Two new Commissioners come on, three come on next
year, to a possibility we can’t go back and do, undo what’s promised two different
neighborhoods. I’m going to keep my commitment to both of those neighborhoods
because I think what we can do is what Commissioner Beard is saying, is that I want to
make sure that Highland, when we build the Recreation center, quite frankly, does not get
short-changed. I’ve heard about the slash situation of an activity room. There is a
possibility that if we put it at the top of the priority list on SPLOST and put it in
Recreation, that there is a strong priority list there that it may be a even better and bigger
Recreation center that can be built in the Highland Park area. There is a still a time frame
in order to get that done. The worst case scenario for Highland Park is that there will be a
regular Fire station built with a community activity room that will be in it, if it stays on
the schedule that it is on. And that is scheduled to be done. So that’s going to be there.
So I think in doing that, it still does not relinquish our commitment and sincerity to do for
Highland Park. It does not back off the economic stimulus package which leads us to
Laney Walker, and we’ve talked about savings, is that savings is what led us to go to
Laney Walker in the very beginning. Moving from the riverfront and canceling those
leases puts us in a position to save 50% of the costs that we were paying for downtown
on the river with the rent in the very first place in order to go to Laney Walker. The
second thing is that I’ve heard about the penalties, and I’m glad that in Mr. Beard’s
motion -- I hope that my colleagues will vote for the substitute motion and it being
waived. Because we’ve heard about the penalties, but then again, and I won’t dwell on
that, but it gets us to into a situation of which comes first, the chicken or the egg? We
approved this, and in order to fill an Administration building, you must first have signed
leases that are in place in order to get financing from people that are doing it. You cannot
in an inner city area that has been plagued with red lining, plagued with financing efforts
before, agree to do a lease and then do not get the leases signed until months later down
19
the road. Now I could open that keg, gentlemen, but I won’t, because I think this should
end in a gentlemanly fashion. And I’ll leave that where it is. This is a win-win situation
with the substitute motion. I think that can be done. It does not back us off, and I
applaud my Commissioner from District 5 of wanting to push very early with it. I got on
the Commissioner from District 2. He wanted to change the whole world when he first
got here, too, and I said Marion, there are priorities we must keep. He wouldn’t admit to
this day some things that we are finally getting done in Savannah Place it’s taken nearly
four years to get them done. But they are getting done. And they will get done. The
young man that you saw receive the Employee of the Month award, Glenn Dukes, just
finalized a lot of that work along with prison crews to get [inaudible] Park done. These
things will happen, but everybody cannot eat at the table at the very same time when you
set priorities. But I think commitments are what’s important. They can stay in place.
And I’m going to do for all the District areas that I represent, Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 that I
represent by direct vote, and as I say many times, the other four where I don’t have a vote
at. And I don’t see -- I’m going to say this, Mr. Mayor, and I’m going to shut up. I don’t
see our lady from District 7 here, but one commitment that we have in place, Mr. Boyles,
is in your District. She’s been, Fran Stewart has been coming here for Brentwood when
you were the Recreation Director. That commitment with this Commissioner, and I don’t
have a vote in Brentwood, but I’m going to make sure hopefully before I leave in three
years that we’ve got her situation cured, too. Because if she’s been waiting, quite
frankly, as long as the people that have been waiting or longer than Savannah Place, and
just as long as the people in Highland Park, so we have to stay committed and on a
priority schedule. If you don’t, if it turns into hodge-podge, then we’ll change priorities
from week to week. You cannot do that in a city, you cannot do that with the money
you’re spending. And I hope my colleagues will support the substitute motion. Even
though both of them are good motions that are on the floor, I hope you will support the
substitute motion by Mr. Beard.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I just have one question, and it was due to the fact that
when this news broke about the double moving of the Fire Department there was a figure
thrown out of $100,000 and I just want to ask was that just a figure that because of
double moving that we got into a lot of news discussion about, and if we go ahead with
the substitute motion that’s kind of null and void now?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, can you respond to that?
Mr. Kolb: I’ll have to defer to the Fire Chief on that.
20
Mr. Mayor: Here he comes. Chief, can you come to the podium and respond to
the Commissioner’s inquiry?
Mr. Gillespie: Thanks. I’ve got Deputy Chief Mike Rogers back here with some
of the financial figures, also. I’ll have him come forward when he gets a chance. But
part of the, part of the answer to that, Commissioner, is that yes, part of it was monies
that would take place because you double move.
Mr. Boyles: Uh-huh [yes].
Mr. Gillespie: The other part of that is monies that would continue to be spend
for a lease, even though they may be less money than would be spent at the Riverfront
Plaza, it is still lease money, where you could have a facility that you would own if you
built your own building. So no different than renting a home or buying a home. You still
have costs associated with that. That’s really the short answer. If you need more than
that, I can certainly have Mike bring the figures up for us.
Mr. Boyles: Well, I’m kind of satisfied that the $100,000 that was talked about
was in the double moving from one to the other and then to another. And I think the
substitute motion probably takes care of that, the way Mr. Beard explained it to m. So
I’m satisfied, but I just wanted to clarify the part about the $100,000.
Mr. Gillespie: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I just wanted to make this note, that it’s not that I rush into
anything, and I’m not comparing with any other Commissioner because I’m unique, I’m
my mama’s only son. And I just, when I see things and I see cost savings and that’s what
I look at or target to save the City money. And we brought this before the committee,
and you know, my problem with it, why just going on and on and on is because of the
fact that it was never -- when we brought it before the committee, the instruction was to
go back and find fundings. So the fundings were identified, and that is why I thought it
was a go-ahead. But apparently it was more involved than that, as I hear about the
contracts, wasn’t signed and that’s, you know, the first of my knowledge about that. But
when I pulled the contracts -- when I go to my attorney I expect to have things legit. And
I pulled the contract and I saw that to me what it appeared to be was that ANIC was in
trouble. I mean when I say that, I mean about the penalties. And the penalties, it said 12
month lease, and if they’re not, if the Fire Administration office is not in the building by
August, 2002, then the penalties -- we had to keep the commitment but the penalties will
be there. And I asked about the penalties. The penalties exceeded $9,000 a month,
which was already $36,000, so I thought I was helping ANIC out by getting them out of
the contract since we just did the groundbreaking in November. But apparently that was
wasn’t the whole truth of the matter or it was misconception of --
Mr. Mayor: The Commissioner is speaking. Hold it down, please.
21
Mr. Hankerson: -- when that time starts. So I just wanted to just clear that up.
To me it just makes business sense to do that. And as long as I’m on the Commission,
I’m going to try to make business sense to do that and at other things I’ll [inaudible] at
but that’s a part that I have to learn in, I guess, in political science 202.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anything further? We have a substitute motion from
Commissioner Beard on the floor. Call the question on that. All in favor of the substitute
motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Hankerson votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item, Madame Clerk, we’ll take up item number 62.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
62. 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. (Requested by
Commissioner Bill Kuhlke)
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor, if I could?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Will the maker of the motion also agree to waive the second
reading of this ordinance?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve waiving the second reading.
Discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote aye.
Mr. Mays: Ms. Bonner?
22
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] clear that out.
Mr. Mayor: We show you with a no vote, Mr. Mays.
The Clerk: Show you with a no vote.
Mr. Mays: Okay. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] yes, but I meant no.
Mr. Mayor: You got no. You got no on the record.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Hankerson: No, no. I was distracted by one of the objectors I wanted to
speak to [inaudible] Highland. That’s why I didn’t hear what --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, you do not show a vote at all right now.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Were you voting, Mr. Hankerson? You do not have
a yes or a no next to your name. Okay. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I don’t have any, and I know [inaudible] by the Chair
[inaudible] on the ordinance [inaudible] for the next two months on this particular
ordinance. I do think there is one person that wanted to speak to us on it, and I don’t
think he is on the agenda.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, my, my voting, too. I’m, I’m [inaudible] this is 62?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, this is 62.
Mr. Williams: Ms. Bonner, change my vote.
The Clerk: All right, I cleared you out.
Mr. Mayor: Got a lot of vote switching going on here. Mr. Williams?
23
Mr. Williams: I been quiet all afternoon.
Mr. Mayor: Well, you don’t show any vote at all right now.
Mr. Williams: I’m trying to remain that way.
The Clerk: Are you going to vote?
Mr. Mayor: She’s cleared your vote.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And we voting on 62?
The Clerk: Item 62.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
The Clerk: Public demonstration ordinance.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
The Clerk: The Mayor votes yes.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams, Mr. Mays and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion ties 5-5.
The Mayor votes Yes.
Motion carries 6-5.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you said somebody wanted to say something?
Mr. Mays: Yes, I think he wanted to speak before we voted, but I [inaudible] we
were going to vote, but I believe Mr. Walker wanted to address us on that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Walker, did you want to speak to this? We’ve just approved the
ordinance?
Mr. Walker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: If you’d like --
Mr. Walker: If I could, I’d like to speak.
Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you a moment before we move on.
Mr. Walker: No problem. First of all, thank you for giving me this opportunity.
My purpose here today is to not cast blame on our governmental body. It is simply to
appeal to this elected body of servants to set the record straight about the real issue of
24
why we cannot come to a consensus of a new protest ordinance. But I believe the answer
is simple and spelled out clearly. The public’s perception is that the [inaudible] to change
the existing protest ordinance [inaudible]. Simply put, it smells like a conspiracy. Like it
or not, the [inaudible] protest will become the biggest, irreparable public relations
nightmare that Augusta has ever seen. Augusta will suffer great economic harm if we are
not pro-active. Augusta is already known around the world as one of the most racially
and politically polarized cities in the United States. Our challenges have been magnified
and exaggerated at the hands of the irresponsible and seductive media. Why is Atlanta so
great? Why is Savannah the second most rapidly growing city in Georgia? And why do
we fall short when compared to Macon? Why are political campaigns so racially
charged? Augusta, Georgia is in the spot light, the world’s spot light once again.
Gentlemen, as leaders of Georgia’s second largest city, I urge you to take the opportunity
today to show the world that Augusta is progressive and forward thinking. Your
constituents deserve the truth. The [inaudible] has been used and abused by all. One
thing is evident, and that is this: every [inaudible] understands the color of money. This
issue is about the color of money. This issue is about green and plenty of it. On one
hand, we have money. On the other hand, we have the green jacket. I’m not here to
argue whether or not a woman should be able to wear it or not. That is not my job. The
issue versus private versus public is not my concern, either. I don’t see race as the issue.
The only color I see is green. Do we have a leg to stand on? My question is, what is the
problem with passing the new protest ordinance? The public needs to know. How would
the image of Martha and Jesse Jackson being arrested impact the image of Augusta? Can
the local authorities handle 25,000 or 100,000 protestors? Does the City pay for the
private fight? The negative perception that our political apparatus is interfering with the
right to peaceful demonstrations at this prestigious, private golf club, one of the most in
the world, would not only cast this community in a negative light, but also awaken the
[inaudible] of activists and civil libertarians around this country. And guess where they
will be in April? Right here in our own back yard. Currently there are close six million
registered members of at least one of the organizations reportedly prepared to protest.
This issue, gentlemen, must be the turning point for Augusta. To become the city of
diversity instead of the infamous city of adversity. I urge you to remove any and all
barriers, including any personal agendas, if they exist. Egos and fear of the press to stand
hand-in-hand, and respect the constituents of each of your colleagues regardless of color.
There appears to be, without a doubt, a lack of sensitivity that prevails in the media. Just
because we think and react differently based on our orientation and cultural background
does not mean that our Commissioners are racist or incompetent or even that our existing
governmental structure is flawed. In fact, there is a long-standing tradition of distrust in
our community [inaudible] and distorted by the media. It is time that you as leaders deal
with it. I admire each of you for taking the heat, for unfairly being labeled as a bunch of
self-serving pirates who bicker and fight and never accomplish anything. I ask you to
consider the following: and now that the vote has been taken, it seems to be too late.
Delay today’s vote until there is a meeting with the potential protestors, Martha Burk and
Jesse Jackson. I have already spoken with them and they are willing to meet. Ms. Burk
and the Sheriff have already talked. They were concerned about the Mayor’s comments
about not being his job to mediate the conflict. After talking to the Mayor, I understand
that his concern was a legal concern and not an issue of not wanting to get involved and
25
talked to the parties concerned. Perception, however, is reality. The signals right now
are crossed. My role is to facilitate and find a solution and use this opportunity to turn
this issue into a turning point for a diversified Augusta. And I need it, your cooperation.
Today Augusta is already losing money and it will only get worse. We have a terrible
and the perception is getting worse. Both Jesse Jackson and Martha Burk have agreed to
a face-to-face meeting or a conference call to discuss the details of the new ordinance. I
have asked also for, in addition, that we have town meeting scheduled sometime early
next month. I invite each one of you Commissioners to attend and take part in this
meeting so that the constituents can hear your opinions and see for themselves that this
body does indeed work together and promotes diversity. This is the time [inaudible]
what could be a disastrous setback that we can change the negative headlines to positive
headlines that would finally attract industry. This issue could be just as divisive as the
Confederate flag issue. It is not good for Augusta, it is not good for Georgia, and we
must not allow this vote to be tried in the media. As Commissioner Hankerson has
stated, this ordinance simply appears to limit freedom of speech. Commissioner Boyles
had it right when he said at the meeting that it seemed like a common sense solution.
That’s what I believe we should be working for. I recommend that we have a series of
town meetings [inaudible] various sectors of the community, and that we expedite the
hiring of a public relations person to handle this most sensitive issue. I have no comment
about which way the Commissioners have voted. I just ask that we do not let the media
try us and give the perception to the world that we are racially divided and that we do not
want protests in Augusta. This is not the City’s fight. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll move on to item number 70.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Might I respond one second to --
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: -- one comment that Mr. Walker made, and that is in reference to the,
to the meeting with the proposed protestors. As an individual and as a member of this
Commission that officially represents half of this City, I have no problem with meeting
with anyone in that capacity. I do think, though, that the record will show that four
weeks ago the suggestion that you made in reference to sitting down and doing that, I
made it. Two weeks late, Mr. Boyles made it again and made is as a form of a suggestion
in a committee that handles this. He then made the motion on the Commission floor,
which I seconded. That motion failed at that time to get enough votes to do just that in
terms of that suggestion. So while it did not succeed in an official capacity as a part of
this City in terms of still the individual responsibilities that we bear, both individually
and collectively, I think that there is sill room to deal with that and to do that in a
respectful way, that there is nothing wrong ever with dialog and talking with those
parties. But that’s something particularly that Tommy and I suggested that’s been going
26
on this month and was finally brought to a vote two weeks ago, but did not carry enough
votes in order to get that done in an official capacity. And I thank him for bringing that
about. Two old friends, one with a little darker tan than the other one, but it was still our
suggestion in terms of where we went with it, but unfortunately that did not prevail.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 70, Madame Clerk.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, may I make a brief comment, please?
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’re trying to get to these pensioners who are here.
Mr. Cheek: I understand. I would blow up if I didn’t.
Mr. Mayor: I wouldn’t want you to do that.
Mr. Cheek: The City of Augusta has just put an ordinance on the books that
assures the rights of free speech. It puts the burden of proving why a group is denied the
right to free assembly and free speech on the burden -- it’s placed back on the
government to prove that there is just cause for not allowing that protest, which is where
it should be. We as a Commission could not allow this City to be left with an
indefensible ordinance as it pertains to protests. As to the color of green, we are all
aware of the many, many issues facing the world and this nation as it comes to quality
and rights and so forth. Make no mistake, the color of green is much in the eyes of the
two leaders that have come to this City as they seek to further their cause nationally over
the fact that a private club will not allow women into the club. They are looking at green,
too. We as Augustans have to fight to ensure the rights of free speech, but we cannot
allow an institution that has been such a wonderful neighbor to the people of Augusta and
a major contributor to this economy to be downtrodden and run roughshod over without
having governance in place to protect the people that attend the tournament, the people
that live in the area, and the people of this city who depend on that tournament for their
economic well-being. I say this, and I’ll say it now and any other time -- we’ve got a lot
of problems in this world, and if the height of the civil rights movement is to come to
Augusta and worry about women and the membership, then things must be going pretty
good. The thing that’s absent, in my impression of this whole thing, is that there is no
conversation given to discuss other less prevalent organizations that are women-only,
minority-only, or exclusive in any other manner. These folks, if they can’t grab
headlines, then they don’t deal with it. They’re trying to grab headlines in Augusta. And
that’s all this is about. Cause there’s a lot worse things going on. And I just hope the
people of Augusta will unite to guarantee them a safe visit to our city, but also to hold
that gem that is Augusta’s crown jewel, the Augusta National and the Masters Golf
Tournament, and protect it and take good care of it, because it is special. It makes us
unique in the world.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. All right, item number 70, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
27
JOINT PENSION/AUDIT & FINANCE COMMITTEES:
70. Selection of pension advisor. (No recommendation from the Joint
Pension & Audit and Finance Committees February 11, 2003).
Mr. Mayor: We came out of the joint Pension/Audit & Finance Committee
meeting last week without a recommendation. The Chair will recognize Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make the same motion I made in the
Joint Pension & Audit Committee, which is that the City negotiate a contract for
pension advisor with Salomon Smith Barney.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is your hand up, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: For discussion.
Mr. Mayor: I was going to recognize you. I thought your hand was up.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, for discussion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Go ahead.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Several months ago I was on that committee
[inaudible] members, and as we heard the presenters present their company to us and we
were given a score sheet to score each one of them. A couple of weeks later, after a week
later, I received two copies that I have here of the scores. And the total points. And I
thought this was why we was doing this, that according to our RFP that we go by the
scores and so forth and also they qualify, to make sure that we get qualified people to do
the job. And the scoring, I came to the meeting, the following meeting, and I know you
were there, too, Mr. Mayor, that the scoring was 652, 565, 420. Now according to that,
Gray and Company received the highest score. I remember that morning when they
made their presentations, each one of these companies, these firms. I stayed until the
entire process. I didn’t get up and leave. I stayed because I wanted to do what I was
appointed to do. That I heard from some of the pensioners, some negative comments on
one of the firms. And a comment was made that we need to get rid of them. So that had
a lot of bearing on the process, because it was discussion also among the pensioners.
And I think if we are going to do what is right, that we need to go according to the
scoring. So that means if we change the scoring process because it didn’t turn out the
way we wanted it to turn out, then why should we be, a penal be set, why should we have
RFPs? Because Gray and Company had 652 votes, and that morning of the meeting that
we were going to decide to announce this, all of a sudden it was changed that someone
suggest instead of using this scoring system, to change the method and use a percentage.
That’s not right. Now I now that I may be accused of being quick and anxious and a new
Commissioner, but I intend to come on, I intend to do what I was elected to do as far as
28
being just right. And I don’t see how we can change where we had a scoring system.
Some may not like it, but that’s why we had a scoring system, to make that decision.
And I have it here in black and white. So I don’t see how we are going -- if we are going
to set that kind of precedence, then when other RFP’s come in, then we change the
method, and design it to whoever we want to receive it. That is not right. Hear me now.
Can you hear me now? That’s not right. And I, I’d like to make a substitute motion that
Gray and Company, since they received the highest scores, that they would receive this
contract.
Mr. Mayor: That’s subject to negotiating a contract with Gray and Company?
Mr. Hankerson: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard asked to speak and then Mr. Shepard and Mr. Cheek and
we’ll go down the line.
Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just, I was not on the committee that did the
scoring, nor was I listened to any of the presentations. I was going by simply what Rev.,
Commissioner Hankerson has alluded the scores. So he has spoken to that. I just want to
read something from the Grand Jury that they said in one of their presentations, give me a
minute here, I’ll try to read it. They talked about the present company that managed the
pension fund, that managed it since 1989. However, there is no mechanism to promote
competition to fund management, other firms may be able to manage these funds with
higher rates of return or lower management fees. And their last quote here, the
recommendation, [reading] “to remain with one firm for a long time may seem
financially sound, but opportunities might be missed that could yield benefit for the
retirees. [inaudible] hear proposals from other fund managers should be investigated.”
Now we’ve taken everything else the Grand Jury said and we, we’ve gone with it. So I
just want to remind my colleagues this is what the Grand Jury is saying. They studied
this. They’ve studied this for four years now. So I guess they, this is what they came up
with. So I just wanted you to know I wasn’t on the committee, I didn’t hear the
presentations, so I’m going to have to rely on my colleagues as what they brought back.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I agree with my colleague, Mr.
Beard, that this exercise was the result of the Grand Jury recommendation. I think we
were charged to go through the process. We were not charged to come up with a certain
result. And I think the scoring system which has been alluded to as being nearly
infallible was in fact quite fallible in what it didn’t take into account. Number one, it did
not take into account that the other two finalists, other than Salomon Smith Barney, did
not have a local office. And I think it’s important that when we have a co-fiduciary with
29
ourselves that they be accessible and they be accessible to the pensioners. Neither did
that scoring system take into account any kind of innovation. And I say innovation in the
presentation of Salomon Smith Barney in that they said that they wanted to set up a plan
to counsel with each retiree to develop their various retirement options. I saw none of
that from the other two presenters. And I think, quite frankly, it was a surprise and it was
a pleasant surprise, and I think that’s the kind of innovation that the Grand Jury hoped
would be forthcoming from this process of competition, and it happened to come forward
from the group that manages the funds currently, and I think we need to take that into
account. I think the scoring system was a way of helping us reach a decision, but this
Commissioner feels that it did not accommodate these two very important factors.
Finally, in the Pension & Audit Committee, Mr. Mayor, we took a show of hands. And
before we take this vote, I hope we’ll have the representative of the pension plan
participants -- I see him here, Stan Jackson -- that he would address us and we’d also find
out the sense of the pensioners as to who they think is a good co-fiduciary. And I
remember in the Pension & Audit Committee it was unanimous, and when they stood up
to vote, to let us know their sentiments, that they wanted to continue with the present
manager. And one of the most impressive things has come out of the fact finding in this
whole process has been the fact that the contributions to this plan for the last few years
have largely been the contributions of the employees, not the contributions of the City.
So we’re not bound by that, but I think we should take that into account and their vote is
very persuasive to me and that’s why I have made the same motion today that I made in
the Pension & Audit Committee. And I do think that we had a process that resulted in
three finalists, but I think because of the reasons that I’ve stated, that Salomon Smith
Barney has earned the right to continue as our pension advisor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just to follow on what Commissioner
Shepard said, and he said a lot of things I planned on saying, but the thing that needed to
be included in the equation is the impact on those that this program serves, and to a
person, everyone that has called or that I’ve talked to has said keep it local. And
therefore, that is one part of the scoring process that I think should have been added to
that process, but since it wasn’t and there is overwhelming support to keep it local, that is
what motivates this Commissioner to vote to keep it local.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All of the fireman in the ’49
Pension I know personally, Mr. Mayor. I was under that pension myself. I got no
problem with whether it stays in Augusta or not. But I’d like to bring something to the
table that we discussed, and that was with our parking situation, with the Radisson hotel.
And we bid it a year ago and we came up with local people who had the expertise to
handle our parking, but since we bidded it out, and I think Commissioner Bridges said it
would be unfair to not give it to them cause they was the only one that came to the table.
I don’t have any, I don’t have a dog in that hunt, and it really doesn’t matter. If the
pensioners satisfied with keeping it with Smith Barney then I can work with that, too.
But I been another advocate of trying to do what’s right. If we bidded it and this
company was the high bidder or had the best performance that came back to us, and I was
30
in that meeting, Commissioner Hankerson, I was in that subcommittee meeting when we
met where we tallied up all the numbers, and the numbers came up with one firm, then it
was changed on how we going grade that firm. And then we waited until this point, some
three or four months now. This should have been decided a long time ago. I’ve got no
problem, like I said, going on with the ’49 pension people to keep it with Smith Barney
or wherever they wanted to go to. But I do want to say that if we going to play, Jim, I
need your, your, your attorney expertise on this. If we go and give it to someone, and
someone else have won this bid fairly, will the City be liable? I brought it back in my
mind that, you know, folks came down about the bookstore and nobody wanted the
bookstore. Well, the bookstore carried us to court and they going, and they able to open
up and we are going to have to pay them because we as elected officials voted not to let
them operate, not to let them open up. But Jim, as a legal opinion from you now, I mean
I have no problem voting with the ’49 pension people to keep it with who they got it
with, but legally, Jim, what’s your take on that? Can we, can we give it back, can we
keep it where it is, if someone else had won this bid? Or if that’s not [inaudible], I got no
problem.
Mr. Wall: Commissioner, I was not involved in the process with the interviews.
My understanding is that it was a request for qualifications and it was scoring on the
qualifications. And since this is professional services, I don’t know that -- I mean it’s
different than a low bid. You’re not bound by --
Mr. Williams: I guest need a yes or no answer, can they sue us or not? We being
sued now by the bookstore, and you know, with your expertise, I just need to know.
Mr. Wall: Well, obviously, we can be sued. Do I think they can prevail? No, I
don’t.
Mr. Williams: Okay. If that’s your opinion and you the legal representation, Jim,
that’s fine.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go back to Commissioner Hankerson and then Commissioner
Mays.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I have several concerns, and I’m a little bid different with
just whether it matter who gets it. I want to do what is right, and coming and looking at,
like I said, the scoring and the qualifications, if that’s what I’m on the committee to do to
decide by my scoring the qualifications and I wasn’t the only one that scored. Really,
truthfully, I thought that when I heard that the Gray & Company had the highest score, I
was shocked because I mean, my decision was another company. Well, I gave another
company the very good score with a good presentation. But if Mr. Wall said we scored
on the qualifications and then I heard my co-chairman of Finance and we worked
together and so forth, but we saying that a local office -- we’ve hired a lot of firms that
didn’t have a local office. After they received the contract they placed a office here
locally. I believe in giving our local businessmen a fair shot at it. But it’s hard for me,
when I hear, and as I said again, pensioners rumbling on the morning of was dissatisfied
31
with the company that is motioned to receive it. Now that’s kind of hard for me to accept
that. Then we say we are going to let the people decide. Let the pensioners decide by a
vote. Other employees, when we change insurance companies, benefits, and all of that,
we don’t let the employees decide. We make the decision that we think that is best. So
we going to have to do things correctly. Now according to this qualification, as the
question was asked the Attorney, that this scoring system was for the best qualified.
Well, if we look at this sheet and say then who is the best qualified, well, then, Salomon
Smith Barney is less qualified than all of them. That’s what the scoring said. That’s
what the percentage said. Even looking at the percentage. Either way. I don’t know
either one. When I made my decision, I never met to my knowledge Salomon Smith
Barney, I never met Gray & Company, I never met Scott Springfellow, Inc. Any of
them. So mine was strictly based on the presentation and also slightly to the response
that I heard from the pensioners. That’s how I made the decision, and I don’t think that
we as stewards, good stewards of government property, finances, can just change like
this. If that’s the case, then we are going to have a lot of arguments in the next three
years, four years that I’m on the Commission, a lot of things going to come up and we are
going to want to change. Why do we have a grading system? Why do we have an RFP?
And then we just decide, going to just design it and give it to who want to give it to.
[inaudible] I would have been doing something else that morning from the time that I sit
in this, sit up here and listen to all these presenters. We did have a lot of Commissioners,
well, some Commissioners did walk out and leave. I should have did the same thing. I
should have went. I don’t play golf. Play basketball. Or something. But I sit here. And
I was thinking that according to the system that we have in place, that we are doing
what’s right. If we going to get this City on the right track, we got to do what is right,
and not just change. Thank you.
Mr. Mays: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me say this right off. I probably will
support Mr. Shepard’s motion if amended, and it depends on a couple of things out of the
discussion. First, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to ask a question. How long is this current
proposal for? I just want to get that for refreshing my mind and for the record. It was
negotiated.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask the Administrator. In the RFQ that we put out, did we
put a specific period of time for the length of the contract?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, I don’t recall that that was in the RFQ. It just asked for
qualifications. I think it’s negotiable when we sit down and negotiate with the persons
you select.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Mays: Okay. But is there any suggestion, Mr. Mayor, I guess then from
Administration/Finance as to whether it’s this pension program or any other pension
program, when it will come back before us to discuss again?
32
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, no, it would be up to the
Pension & Audit Committee to approve a term contract, so you would have to decide
whether -- the committee would have to decide what term they want to see the contract
developed.
Mr. Mayor: And then the approval of the contract itself would come back before
this Commission?
Mr. Kolb: Correct.
Mr. Mays:
Mr. Mayor, I’m no longer on that committee. I served two years
during the time that I was Mayor Pro Tem. And it’s a little hindsight, but I think
something that’s this important, number one, and I may be wrong on it, I think some
things you can negotiate after the fact. I think some you negotiate before the fact. I think
on any term limit involving eight figures of money, that basically should have been
included in the RFP to negotiate a term process, be it two years, three years, whatever it
was, in order to do that prior to even going out. Because a lot of firms will not even draw
an interest to come and to apply if everything is going to be negotiated on the back end.
But that’s not my main point for bringing it up. It’s good to see a lot of the pensioners
here today. So many of them I inherited when I came here, in this same room, in January
of 1980, elected in 1979. And those that, my hair is not quite as gray yet in some cases,
it’s coming. This seat will do it to you. It’s good to see you out. But if I might changing
the blowing of this wind for just a little bit, Mr. Mayor, I think, and I’ve addressed some
pensioners, some that I didn’t get a chance to call back, some that I’ve talked to in
person. And I’ve said this to them, one, the record needs to be set clear that we’re talking
about first the people that handle and who place the money of their being local. Because
there is confusion that the money goes out of town. Well, the real truth is all the money
goes out of town basically anyway. Whoever places, whether in town or out of town
does placement with people everywhere in terms of placing money. But I’m glad to see
the District Attorney here today, because what I said to my former colleague,
Councilman Baker the other evening and to some others, the whole while that I was on
the Pension Committee, Mr. Mayor, and in fact I never saw this, and I’m going to say this
in defense, of [inaudible] and I guess it’s first being an old City boy and then coming to
the County, that good money was made through a lot of those investments. I think first
we got to be fair about that and say that openly that it was. We are in a volatile time now
to a point that war may start at any moment. We’re seeing some folks go from rags to
riches back to rags, with the way the stock market has gone. It’s not a plaything in terms
of how you handle these folks’ money. Some of the biggest arguments I had and George,
they were not with you. They were earlier. But what happened, I think that you have
such a concern, is that so many of these people that are in pension fund and the County’s
old one, came to us, and I was glad to see us pass the cost of living increase without that
getting into a controversy today. So many times it’s been before us in the past where
we’ve argued about it and where people did not want to even do that for some of the City
employees that were the lowest paid statute. Well, what does that have to do with our
question today? Many times in those meetings, we heard comments and I guess
sometimes you have to, the statement you have to watch what you pray for, the grass may
33
not always be greener. We would have those complaints. I would watch our current
providers sit and sometimes [inaudible] was tough, in those rooms that maybe money was
not being gained enough. Now let’s be real honest about something now. This is not to
all the pensioners. But how this thing got off the ground and got over into the hands of
being put out in the very beginning was because part of your group was saying that the
current provider was not doing a good job, that we needed to change, that what monies
you were getting on a yield, it wasn’t enough. And quite frankly, even though I may
have disagreed and thought that we should have gone ahead with the cost of living raise
that we did, which we finally got those to prevail, some of the statements of getting this
over to the Grand Jury did not come from the Commission. They came out of the
pension group itself. So now, if you all are unified by the petition that’s in this book, if
you are unified in the cause that you’ve got, and I said when I first started talking I could
probably support Steve’s motion with an amendment. I think a copy of the proposal that
you’ve made as a petition, you want us to keep Smith Barney, it’s basically your money.
I think something else that wasn’t mentioned by the Grand Jury, that we had within the
confines of the old City -- Stan, you probably remember, Chief Beck, Oscar, that even
though the council members were the trustees of the money, there was still seats that
were made provisions for on the pension board that the pensioners selected and had a
place that they could officially attend pension meetings and would not just be there as
spectators, but they were a part of that pension committee. I think that if you are going to
do this, and if you are going to stay, then I think the majority of those should be those
charged with the representation and who have that fiduciary responsibility, being
Commissioners. I also think there should be an official spot or spots there for selected
pensioners to be there so that you will know what’s going on at all times with your
money. I don’t have a problem with that. But I think if you are going to protest this
loudly, if we are going to hear you loud and clear, then your petition also needs to go,
quite frankly, to two places. Not just us. It needs to go to the District Attorney that’s
over there on the wall and it needs to go downstairs to the Grand Jury, from the
standpoint that we got in that boat in the first place because it was said that we were not
getting the type of money, that you were dissatisfied with it, and I’m just saying to a
point if you want that level to stay where it is, if we went out in the very beginning,
because there were complaints and you were raking these folk over the coals, now either
you folk had a complaint then, either they wasn’t representing y’all, who came to
represent you -- let’s be real clear about that. Either folk who came to represent you were
not representing you or did not speak in your voice. So let’s be truthful about the whole
deal. Cause when I look at all the stack of names and addresses and calls that I’ve got,
I’m also getting calls and stacks in here from the same folk that said you ought to get rid
of the folk that you got. Now to me the case was never made. Personally speaking.
That’s just personally speaking. But I think if you are going to do that and if you are
we need to include that in the motion, Mr. Finance
going to have that support,
Chairman, that a copy be sent to Mr. Craig, a copy be sent to the Grand Jury, and
the same people who raised the question to a point that they were dissatisfied ought
to be put in on record to a point that they are now happily satisfied with the
financial people that are controlling their money.
Because if I can be investigated for
three years, if I can get raked over the coals with it, if this can be a part of the
investigation, and now you turn out en masse to say you want it, well, I’m willing to give
34
it to you, but I’m willing to give it to you from the standpoint that it got started, because
out of your group that I dearly respect, that’s where the argument first came from that
you were not being duly represented. So if you want it, you have no problem in getting a
vote out of this Commissioner to do it, but I think that ought to be a part of the motion,
and that the governing body that sent it there in the first place ought to know it and it
ought to land with the District Attorney and it ought to land downstairs with the Grand
Jury, and that’s all I got to say about it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to direct this to you. I’m looking at the
minutes of your meeting. And you’ve got eight people on your Pension Committee; am I
correct?
Mr. Mayor: I think that was at the joint meeting, Pension & Audit and Finance.
Mr. Kuhlke: And all of those people voted on the tabulation sheet?
Mr. Mayor: On the tabulation sheet, not every person voted for each one of the
three firms.
Mr. Kuhlke: Did they have the opportunity to vote?
Mr. Mayor: Well, they did, but they may not have voted because they were not
present for those presentations.
Mr. Kuhlke: So the tabulation, you know, if you don’t have a complete tabulation
of everybody there, how in the world can you go by what you have anyway?
Mr. Mayor: That’s why they put the averages on there, to reflect non votes for
some of them.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, clarification, please, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Bill, I hear what you are saying, and I agree with
you, and that was my question as well. But everybody did have an opportunity to stay
and vote if they wished to do so. And those who did not vote did not wish to vote. Now
Commissioner Hankerson is right, I was on that committee myself. We sit here, those
who was interested, sit here and listen to everything they had to say. I say again to the
people, I’m going to support you. If you want to go with the same people, that’s fine.
But let’s be fair. Let’s put the cards on the table now. Jim, you need to be, you need to
bring a large ball. That little ball you give me ain’t big enough for everybody to see.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
35
Mr. Williams: If we going to play ball, let’s play the same ball all the time.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t think, I don’t think there is any dispute that the tabulation
sheet which has been handed to the Commission today speaks for itself. The numbers are
there and they speak for themselves.
Mr. Williams: Yeah, but we changed the way we was grading now, and that’s
how come we waited four months to come. Just need to know the truth. We waited four
months. We got in the committee room and we asked the question, hey, something been
changed, why are we grading different? We dropped everything. Nobody said a word
thth
until the 11. We came back on the 11 and met in this room and all the pensioners
showed up.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have some of the pensioners who would like to
address this body. Commissioner Bridges, did you want to speak, and then we’ll --
Mr. Bridges: I yield to the pensioners.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Jackson, you going to speak on behalf on the group?
Mr. Jackson: I think Sheriff Beck, who is the president, wants to address the
Commission very, very briefly.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Jackson: And then I then I’ll speak.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Before you start, Chief, I’d like to get a show of hands of
those people who are City pensioners who are here. Not the general public, the City
pensioners who want to keep Salomon Smith Barney, would you please raise your hands?
Get a count.
(27 pensioners indicate their support for Salomon Smith Barney)
Mr. Mayor: All right, those pensioners who want to make a change, would you
please raise your hands? All right, Chief, give us your name and address for the record,
and go ahead, please.
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, my name is James Beck, and I’m a retiree from the City of
Augusta under the ’49 Pension Act. And some time, several months ago, several years
ago we organized an organization, the 1949 Pensions Act as a non-tax entity. This past
year, they saw fit to elect me president of it, and Coroner Sims is vice president, and
Debbie Reeves is the secretary-treasurer. I’d like to address the fact that Mr. Mays
mentioned the Grand Jury. Well, I’ve told a couple of the Commissioners that they were
listening to a couple of people, and they were, they were downgrading this firm that we
have now. I told them they should listen to everybody, and that’s why I proposed the
36
forms that we sent out with all the names on it. And last meeting we had, we had a group
of people in here that filled up this room and everybody raised their hands. We are in
favor of them keeping Smith Barney. This group that we’re looking at, they don’t pay
any taxes here, they don’t have any offices here, and these people, I don’t know how
much they pay or what they do, but they got to have a big organization to do the job
they’ve done. And of course, you know, when they took over this thing in 1988 or ’89,
we had $26 million in our treasury. And they raised it up through the years to $72
million. And of course, everybody that knows that has invested in the stock market that
people have lost money in the last four or five years, and we are no exception. And we
understand that. And we’ve talked about this. We have had meetings about this. Most
of the group has come to the meetings and talked to us. And I would plead with you to
leave it with these people in Augusta because they’ve done us a good job. When we
started, we had $26 million, I’d say, and it was sitting there, nobody had done nothing
about it, and you know, we could have been making money then. And the City of
Augusta stopped funding this organization in 1988. And these people, if you’ll notice
most of them, they got one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel, including
myself, and they need, they need some help. We’ve got some people that need help.
And I’d like to introduce Mr. Stan Jackson. These people authorized us to contact an
attorney and we went through several, as you probably know. And we can up with Stan
Jackson and I’d like to introduce Mr. Stan Jackson as our representative for the ’49
Pension Act.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I rise to talk a little bit about
history. I rise to talk about trust. I rise to represent the pensioners. This act was passed,
of which you are the trustees, 1949. As Commissioner Mays corrected noted, he and I
knew each other back when, when he was a city councilman and I was the city attorney,
and through that period of time it has always been that statesmen and statesmanship and
trust comes ahead of whatever is politically expedient. We heard earlier from Mr.
Walker, who said one thing we must remember, as he presents to you, is we must
remember that we are a group that should not be known for adversity, but for our
diversity coming together in strength. He mentions, Mr. Walker does, and I think he was
quoting one of my dear friends, Sen. Howard, when he said don’t think black of white --
he didn’t say it exactly this way, but this is how Mr. Howard always said it -- always
remember green. Well, when we rise to represent the pensioners, remember whose green
it is. Whose green is it? The City has only the obligation of the ’49 Act to make any
discrepancies or shortfalls. The City has not made a contribution, has not made a
contribution to the Pension Act, for the ’49 Act since, for some 14 years, and then it was
$860,000. Ever since that date, 14 years ago, still the workers and pensioners that have
been continuing to work have had the burden of 8% on their backs taken out of their
paychecks to support this pension. It is their money, and you sit not as newly-appointed
trustees of this money but as long-standing trust holders. Back when Mr. Mays and I --
and I remember writing B.L. Dent’s will -- were serving in somewhat close vicinity, I
remember we believed in statesmanship. I remember when I wrote Papa Dent’s will we
believed in statesmanship and when we talk about doing right, we’re talking about doing
37
right for these people for whom you sit not as elected officials, but by the whim of a
Legislative Act as trustees, and as trustees only. And when we thing about the best
interest of the City and the pensioners, remember that the City depends on its tax
revenues. I think all of us can remember a time that we had big industries and big
businesses, such as Georgia Pacific and Merry Land had their home bases here in
Augusta. Well, we have a opportunity to support a local business. Now why is that
important for the pensioners? Well, the pensioners want a responsive, someone that they
can talk to, somebody I can call up, I don’t have to go to Atlanta or New York, somebody
local that I can deal with. But additionally, additionally it is important for the pensioners
who work here, who worked to served this city, who worked in their capacity hard, and
this county, to have somebody responsive to them and also taxpayers like they are. We
asked, just to give some idea of how much this really means and why we should really
support local business, to call on the local administrator for the Smith Barney office, Ms.
Mullis, to take the podium if she would --
Mr. Mayor: This is very improper, Mr. Jackson, to have one of the vendors who
is contention to come before this body and speak without the benefit of the other
companies being afforded the same opportunity, so I’m going to have to rule that we will
not be able to hear from her.
Mr. Jackson: Well, then let just state that it is my understanding that they hire
some 45 people in downtown Augusta. They have an office down on the riverfront. If
you have followed the course of the riverfront and downtown Augusta, through UDAG
grants, through matching urban development grants, and through funds of the City of
Augusta, we have spent, oh I’m sure, Mayor you can correct me, but well in excess of
$10 million, $20 million, just to bring businesses and industry back and have them in
downtown Augusta, supporting -- and we call upon private businesses to do likewise and
match those funds. It is important, it’s important to be supportive of those local
businesses. Now when we talk about scoring of all these companies, we have to
remember that they all scored exceedingly well. They are all quite capable. But
responsiveness to the pensioners is very important, and we should protect those pension
benefits because if we go back to Mr. Beard’s comments on the Grand Jury and
Commissioner Mays’, it started about 1988 that things started happening with our
pensioners’ funds that maybe were not be treated as if it is their money and not your
money. It is a trust. In 1988 there was property bought on Reynolds Street and the funds
were [inaudible] from the pension funds but the property wasn’t put into the pensioners’
plans. There had been some other questions, aspect in the Grand Jury report that needs to
be addressed. It was asked to be addressed in the letter of Jack Long to you. We still
want those issues addressed. But I’ll rise to say this, is that in the committee meeting we
had 110 pensioners there voting unanimously to keep it local, keep it with Smith Barney,
and most importantly, keep it in their interest. Because it could be any trustee. Just so
happens you are seated here as trustees, not as elected persons by virtual of an act of a
Legislature. And that trust is not this year. It is not last year. It is 54 years long. And
we want you to rise, to raise to the interest of the pensioners. And I take to heart Mr.
Mays’ suggestions that we should have continual input in those thoughts, because we are
dealing with their money and not money that was solely contributed by the City. And
38
with that I, since the poll has already been taken of those here in body, I urge you, I urge
you to put aside any considerations of political favoritism. I urge you to put aside all
interests, as you must, as you must, except for those you are looking to benefit, when you
take this vote.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges, you wanted to --
Mr. Bridges: I would, Mr. Mayor, and I appreciate it. There has been a lot of
discussion about how the voting went on, and I voted on all three of them, gave them a
point, and I don’t know who didn’t. Some of the Commissioners didn’t. But, you know,
if I had known at the time that we could weight these voted by whether we voted or not, I
wouldn’t have voted for two of them and I would have cast the one vote. But you know,
my concern was we grade them fairly and properly on that. And so I did that. But I think
the real numbers, the real voting that goes on is shown on the -- I’m just using the ’49
Plan here, the historical account -- the City has not paid into that account since 1987.
That was $28,500,000 at the time. Now it’s over $60 million. We haven’t had to match
any funds into that. It’s more than doubled. And that’s after four years of the stock
market. So I think those, that is the record we need to look at. And the company that has
had that has done a fabulous job with it and I have a problem with getting rid of
somebody that’s meeting all the standards that this City has asked them to meet and
exceeded them and has maintained a good financial position in those funds. So I think
the Commission needs to look at that and continue on with Smith Barney.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll hear from the two motion makers who have asked to be
recognized and then we’ll proceed with the vote on this. Mr. Hankerson and then Mr.
Shepard.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Jackson brought out some very
good points and I want to assure him and the pensioners and the City of Augusta there is
not no favoritism coming from this Commissioner, because I mentioned in the beginning
I didn’t know either one of the firms. I wouldn’t know Mr. Salomon Smith Barney if
he’s in here. I don’t even know him. I don’t. So there’s no favoritism. Only thing that I
know that who made the presentations, and we talked about -- I didn’t want to say
anything, but you talked about what Mr. Walker said about diversity and all of that. And
how many employees that was presented and diversity was showing in the presentation. I
have a question for you, Mr. Jackson. How many minorities are in this firm?
Mr. Jackson: I don’t know. I don’t represent that firm. I only represent the
pensioners.
Mr. Hankerson: The pensioners?
Mr. Jackson: Yes, sir. I cannot speak to --
Mr. Hankerson: I thought you said that they had 45, you know about how many
employees they had, and I --
39
Mr. Jackson: I was informed. I was going to call on Ms. Mullis to respond. I
don’t know. I was informed by her this morning that they had 45 employees. That’s
what I was passing on. And I can’t answer directly those questions.
Mr. Hankerson: I thought you knew cause you was mentioning how many
employees and we talking about a city of diversity and all that. That’s not an issue but
you brought it up, and I know that when they made the presentation everybody that came
forth, they had diversity shown. Also, if you scoring according to everything that we
asked, it’s diversity in the pensioners, is everything, but all of these things amount to your
scoring, and I’m just only bringing that out. It’s not favoritism. Someone asked the
question about -- I think Mr. Kuhlke -- asked the question about how many people voted
or did everybody have a chance to do this. Well, if we even look at that, eight individuals
voted for Gray and Company, seven voted for Smith, Salomon Smith Barney, six voted
for Scott and Springfellow. And Scott and Springfellow received higher scores and
percentage than Smith Barney. So it doesn’t matter about how many voted. Everybody
had the opportunity to vote. And I’m not going to say anything else on this. I just, you
know, know how I’m going to vote. I’m going to always vote is right, using the right
guidelines that we have to go by. That’s the way I’m going to vote. But I have a
question to ask, Mr. Mayor. Who asked us to do this?
Mr. Mayor: What?
Mr. Hankerson: The selection committee?
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, I don’t follow your question.
Mr. Hankerson: Where did this come from? Why did we have to --
Mr. Mayor: Well, because we did individual seats just so you could evaluate and
then we asked the Director of Finance to consolidate.
Mr. Hankerson: But I mean why was the process done? Why was the process for
Commissioners to come and make some kind of decision? Why did we have to do that?
Mr. Mayor: It was recommended by the Grand Jury and agreed to by this
Commission that we seek RFQ.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. So it was recommended that we do that. Because I’m
saying here, why did we even do this if now we reversing it? It seems to me that the
pensioners needed to be up here instead of the Commissioners. If this is the way we are
going to tally and accept the results, the pensioners needed to make -- because we’re
saying now let the pensioners make the decision. So in other words, then, this just is no -
- there was no need for us to spend time to, to go through this process, if we’re not giving
any respect, any regard to the process. That’s the only thing I’m saying. Are we going to
do what’s, what’s right? Are we going to follow the guidelines of how we supposed to
40
make our selection? That’s [inaudible] by favoritism and, you know, I reject that, your
comment of them even thinking that it’s favoritism.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And we all know that the original motion
is with the body now, and in response to what Mr. Mays said a few minutes ago, I would
with consent of the body amend the main motion to make a part thereof the expressed
preferences of the pensioners and that is expressed in a series of sheets that were in our
agenda book titled “petition” at the top, and I’m going to hand that to the Clerk right now
and ask her to make that an exhibit to the motion and that the petition be transmitted as
requested by Commissioner Mays to the District Attorney and to the Special Grand Jury.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the main motion? Okay. Mr.
Cheek, and then we’ll try to vote.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if nothing else, this exercise has demonstrated that
periodically this City is going to conduct performance evaluations of all of those that do
business on behalf of petitioners or with the City. I guess the question I had is how long
is the term of this contract going to be for and do we intend to have a performance review
on this say in three years or so?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, in answer to Mr. Cheek’s
question, after you’ve done this we will sit down and ask for a proposal from the person
that you select as your advisor. At that time the term, length of the contract, performance
measures, whatever else you want to put in that contract, will be negotiable.
Mr. Cheek: Well, if nothing else, competition is healthy, and whenever we have
the review of performance on a regular basis, that lets the people that do business with us
know that we are watching the quality of their product, and I encourage that process.
This has been a very good exercise in that.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, clarification, please.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Commissioner Cheek had a good question and the Administrator
answered, but I’m kind of confused. Are you saying that we vote to give the contract,
then we negotiate the length of the contract? I mean can’t we make a decision on what
time line, whether it three years or five years? I mean that’s really putting the cart in
front of the horse when you go ahead and do that. Jim, you know me and you on these
41
contracts, I’m sticking about voting on something, then going back, and that’s why these
people are here now. We need to, we need to be clear.
Mr. Wall: You’re not approving a contract. You are approving the successful
bidder and then there will be negotiation of the contract and be brought back.
Mr. Williams: So the contract will be brought back?
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct. The contract will be brought back for approval. So
this issue will be back before us again.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called by Commissioner Kuhlke. There has
been adequate debate. We have a substitute motion we’ll vote on first, and that was
Commissioner Hankerson, to enter into a contract with Gray and Company. All in favor
of the substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Williams, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Mays, Mr. Cheek and Mr.
Shepard vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion fails 2-7-1.
Mr. Mayor: This takes us back to the original motion, which now incorporates
the amendment articulated by the Finance Chairman. All in favor of the original motion,
please vote yes.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Beard and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, thank you for your attention and
your time. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Baker, you have --
Mr. Baker: I just want to thank all the Commissioners for voting to leave it where
it’s at. And we certainly appreciate it. We appreciate what you have done for us in the
past. Y’all have done a big benefit to the pensioners and we thank you from the bottom
of our hearts. Thank you.
42
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Baker. Madame Clerk, I’ve had a suggestion put in
my ear by the Mayor Pro Tem so we will take a five minute recess and then we will
resume our meeting.
(Recess)
The Clerk:
28. Discuss the recent events of the sex offender registry case.
28A. Adopt a Resolution of support calling for a state investigation of the recent
sex offender registry case. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Richard Colclough)
Mr. Mayor: Mayor Pro Tem Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I don’t read the newspapers and I
very seldom watch the news, but when I come home at night and I have my constituents
calling me to explain a situation that I knew nothing about, then I think it’s time to do
something now. I don’t have the pull or all the particulars on this case, but what I read, I
feel that something need to be done so that this will not happen again. But I feel that an
investigation need to take place to find out -- and I’m not accusing anybody of doing any
wrong thing, but child molestation is a very serious thing to me, and I feel that someone
dropped the ball, as Marion can say, and what I said was put together or ask the Attorney
to put together a resolution to send to the State to have them look into this situation. I
feel that child molestation is very crucial and I think that any adult who has to molest a
child needs to be registered or put in jail, and this is why I put the resolution together.
Mr. Mayor: Are you moving adoption of this resolution?
Mr. Colclough: I so move that we adopt this resolution.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to that. Madame Clerk, you have a copy of it?
The Clerk: The resolution?
Mr. Mayor: Do you have a copy of the resolution?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, Mr. Mayor, first of all, I couldn’t agree more with my
colleague, Mr. Colclough. My question I guess is where did this take place, if somebody
could answer that for me?
43
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Craig is here.
Mr. Colclough: Where did what took place?
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, you were talking about molestation and where did --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Craig, can you come forward and respond to the Commissioner’s
question? He’s asking where this took place?
Mr. Craig: Yes. Good afternoon. The prosecution of this case took place in
Columbia County. This is the Augusta Judicial Circuit, which is one of 49 Circuits in
Georgia. And the Augusta Circuit is made up of Columbia, Burke and Richmond
Counties. If you need more information about the Circuits, I’ll be happy to get that.
Mr. Kuhlke: No, I just -- you know, my question is -- while I’m not opposed to a
resolution against molestation, I’m just questioning whether -- do we have any
jurisdiction to express any concern over this?
Mr. Craig: May I respond?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Craig: There are major jurisdictional issues, but if you would all allow me, I
would like to lay them aside because Mr. Colclough is just simply asking for information
and been kind enough to provide to me a copy of this resolution. It has questions in it
that you deserve an answer to, and I’ll be happy to answer them if I can. But I just can’t
imagine that -- you know, we do have a matter of public concern here, and it’s been
written about sufficiently I think. And I just think you deserve an answer to your
questions, so at the appropriate time I’d be happy to answer.
Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to allow that.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Craig, since you’re here and you’ve waited patiently
for two hours so I think we owe you the courtesy of allowing you to.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could I make one point? I’d like to see the resolution. I
understand Mr. Craig is going to speak from it. I’d like to see a copy of it. I haven’t seen
anything yet.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Madame Clerk, if you’ll do that. It’s my understanding
the Commissioners were all supplied with a copy of it yesterday.
Mr. Colclough: Everybody [inaudible] have a copy.
44
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Craig, if you’ll go ahead and we’ll supply Mr. Bridges a copy of
the resolution.
Mr. Craig: I could give you a long civic lesson which, you know, I think we
[inaudible] to a different time. There is an awful lot that I would like to say to you to
explain to the role of a judge in our state, which is very much the same as judges in all of
the 50 states, and the role of the district attorney or the prosecutor or whatever name he
might be given. And then also the role of citizens and how they are, they should be
entitled to interact and the role of other people who would be in contact with judges and
prosecutors. If you have specific questions along those lines, I’ll be happy to answer
them later. I just don’t know if you want to go through that sort of an extensive
background at this time. But let me just address your questions, Mr. Colclough. First,
when was the original felony charge of child molestation changed to a misdemeanor?
And forgive me, I won’t be any more long-winded than I have to be, but I have to explain
to you that a prosecution ensues in our society, in Georgia, that is, when a Grand Jury
says a prosecution ensues. That’s one of the things I say to a Grand Jury. No case goes
to trial unless a Grand Jury says that it goes to trial. And so the first people to actually
review a case insofar as what are appropriate charges on which facts is the Grand Jury.
And we’re very careful to protect the secrecy of the Grand Jury. It’s one of the parts of
their oath. It’s not a word I use. Secrecy is a part of their oath. And so we don’t even
tell people what cases we’re taking to Grand Jury or when we’re taking them to a Grand
Jury, for protection of witnesses and otherwise. Once a case is indicted by a Grand Jury,
then we engage in what is called a pretrial process. Mr. Shepard happens to be an
attorney here in Augusta with whom we interact on a regular basis, and I hope that he
will correct me or add to, if he thinks that anything has been left out. As we go through
the pre-trial process, one of the things that the State does is provide to the defense a copy
of our entire file. Now in a perfect world, what we would like to get under what we refer
to as reciprocal discovery is a copy of the defense’s entire file. But we don’t. the truth is,
we very seldom get very much at all from the defense lawyers except maybe a day or so
before trial they’ll send us a list of witnesses, then we hurridly send out the investigators
that you pay and you’ve authorized us to hire in order to try to round up these witnesses
and to talk to him. During the course of the pre-trial proceedings, the prosecutor and the
defense lawyers, again in a perfect world, will talk and the prosecutor will discuss the
strengths of his case with the defense lawyer, and the defense lawyer will fully explain
the strengths of his or her case. In this case, the defense lawyer was a she, so I use that
pronoun. I didn’t prosecute this case. I have 16 assistant district attorneys on my staff,
and the prosecutor in this particular case has been on my staff for about seven years. He
is presently on active duty. He got called up to active duty for the military about two
weeks. He is as fine a young lawyer as you are going to find, and I take full
responsibility for everything that happened here, and then I want to add that everything
that happened here during this prosecution was good and effective and it led to an
optimum result. That is, this prosecution led to a conviction for the crime which we
could prove in this case, sexual battery, and nothing more and nothing less, because we
could prove nothing more and we were unwilling to take anything less. And it also
resulted in a conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Again, stop
me if you don’t want all these facts, but at the time of the arrest of the defendant, based
45
upon the initial complaint that was made with regard to child molestation, police,
Sheriff’s deputies in Columbia County conducted a search of the home of the defendant,
and upon that search they found in his bedroom four plastic bags of marijuana, each one
containing about half an ounce. We had a total of 2.5 ounces of marijuana. I know that
your last question was what happened to the ten pounds of drugs, and I don’t know who
told you that and I don’t want to know who told you that. But there was not ten pounds
of drugs here. There was 2.5 ounces of marijuana. What caused us to ask the Grand Jury
to indict this case for possession with intent to distribute marijuana as opposed to
possession of marijuana, both of which carry the exact same parameters for sentencing,
by the way, was the way that it was packaged. We feel like if a person has four bags of
marijuana in his possession totaling 2.5 ounces, that the separate packaging of them, and
there were also extra empty bags around the house, as well, not just around the house but
in the vicinity of the marijuana. The separate packaging gives the jury at least a basis
upon which they could consider returning a verdict of possession with intent to distribute,
that is that it’s not simply the man possessed it with an intent to personally use the
marijuana, although I can’t stand the term personal use. So as we, the prosecutor and the
defense lawyer proceeded to trial, they exchanged their information, and they determined
basically whether this is a case that can be resolved before trial by what we call a
negotiated plea. Now plea negotiations take two different forms in our country. About
40% of the jurisdictions in our country use what is referred to as sentence bargaining, this
is where the prosecutor will actually recommend a certain sentence in a case, and that’s
an agreed-upon sentence and when you go to sentencing, then the court can either accept
or reject the sentence as recommended through the negotiated plea. We don’t do that.
We actually engage in what’s called charge bargaining, which is employed in 60% of the
jurisdictions throughout the United States, where what we do is we will agree, if we can,
if we go through our indictment and we feel like in an effort to resolve the matter without
a trial, that certain charges can be dismissed at the time of sentencing, while sentencing
takes place on others, or if we believe that none can be dismissed or reduced then we
engage in charge bargaining and we leave the sentencing to the court. I do that for a very
important reason, and that is though this particular prosecutor, as I told you, has – I think
he joined me in ’95 so he’s actually been with me almost eight years – although he had
the experience where he could negotiate sentences, most of the lawyers that I hire are
lawyers fresh out of law school, and I have always thought it was quite absurd to think
that a young lawyer fresh out of law school would stand up in front of a judge who has
been a lawyer and a judge probably over a period of 30 or 40 years and recommend to the
judge what would be an appropriate sentence based upon the facts that are laid out for the
judge. And I always thought that would be offensive to the court, and it certainly leads to
an inconsistency in sentencing. That happens to be your last question. I’ll come back
and use that to sum up. If you’ve got one young lawyer fresh out of law school with
absolutely no basis upon which to make a recommendation except for pulling a number
out of the air, then there is no reason whatsoever why you would engage in sentencing
bargaining, and so that we get the consistency in sentencing we simply leave it to the
court. It’s just the way it’s been done in this Circuit for a long, long time, well, at least
the time that I’ve been the District Attorney. When I was a defense lawyer, there was a
time when sentence bargaining took place in our Circuit, and as a defense lawyer I also
thought that it was inconsistent. So the answer to your question is when you say when
46
was the original felony charge of child molestation changed to a misdemeanor? Well, it’s
changed at the time that a sentencing takes place, because what happens at a sentencing is
the lawyers will appear with their clients and we always will notify victims and almost
always will have victims present, and we will outline for the court what the facts of the
case are, and then we ask, we tell the court what the original indictment in the case was.
We actually hand the indictment to the court, so he can see it, and then we outline for the
court what the negotiated plea is with regard to the charges. And then the court makes
the determination as to whether or not to accept that plea, based upon those facts and
based upon an appreciation which we deliver to him regarding the strength and
weaknesses of the case. As you can see, that creates tremendous checks and balances in
the system. It eliminates a young lawyer from making a mistake as he goes through a
case, as he learns, and it also prevents inconsistencies in pleas so that the court can
actually consider all the facts and make the determination as to whether the plea is
appropriate, based upon his experience on the bench and having seen other cases, and
then he accepts or rejects the plea. I hope that answers your first question. Moving on to
the next, who was responsible for the original felony charge of child molestation being
changed to a misdemeanor? Well, the lawyers are responsible for that, but I have
responsibility overall for the operations of this office, and I want to reiterate that based
upon the review that was given to me by the Assistant District Attorney prior to the time
that he proceeded to sentencing in this case, that this was an appropriate disposition. Out
of this case we obtained an 11-year penitentiary sentence. Quite frankly, if in fact we had
the strength of the case on the child molestation, to maintain the child molestation charge
rather than to accept the plea to sexual battery, then – and the plea was entered to the
marijuana charge as it was, you probably would have wound up with the very same
sentence, that is an 11-year sentence, subjecting the defendant to a penitentiary term of
confinement if in fact he can’t comply with the terms of the probation. I’ll go ahead and
add that the defendant’s responsibility for registering on the sexual registry is an
obligation that is imposed by the probation officer who supervises him. In most
jurisdictions in Georgia, the court does not even address the issue of registration. They
do here, and it probably is because we experienced some difficulties in the past in getting
clarity with regard to when a registration should take place and when it shouldn’t and so
just as a matter of habit at sentencing we would, we ask the court to require to
registration. But the fact the court does not require it in its order or the fact in this
particular case where the court simply took that provision out – he didn’t excuse, by the
way, the registration. He simply took that provision out. It in no way impacted this
particular case, cause this defendant is on the sexual registry. When did Sen. Don Cheeks
become involved? I don’t have the exact date. I was very fortunate that after I actually
gave an incomplete response to a reporter on Monday two weeks ago, and then saw the
product of that incomplete response, in trying to correct it, I was able to go on Thursday
to my data base of emails and I was able to find an email that I had sent out to the
thth
Assistant District Attorney on January 16, I’m sorry, January 10 I believe. If I were to
completely search my entire data base, it could be that I could find other emails. These
were sent mails. These were not telephone messages, so I delete my telephone messages.
There is no way to keep them in there. IT tells me that my computer won’t function if I
keep all of that stuff in my computer. But anyway, my recollection is that this case was
indicted and prosecuted over a span of almost two years. And if I’m not mistaken, Sen.
47
Cheeks called me early on. He could have called me before the indictment was handed
down, although I just don’t remember. It’s just as likely that he did or that he didn’t.
That addresses an issue that, that might concern all of you, and that is this – and I, quite
frankly, you all know, once in a while I’ll get a call from a Commissioner with regard to
anything that might concern them, and I listen and then I go about my duties. I do my
job. When Don Cheeks called me, I would listen to him, I was always respectful to him,
but you know, I could not allow that to interfere with the work of the Assistant District
Attorney. I don’t know whether he ever talked to the Assistant District Attorney. So to
some extent there was an [inaudible] there that I’m sure did not impact in any way the
prosecution of the case, and I know that it didn’t impact the actual disposition of the case,
because I was given the review the Assistant District Attorney prepared who resolved the
case through plea negotiations. What I, what I said moments ago, this should concern
you , and that is this, there is no law that prevents an elected official from contacting the
District Attorney. If any of you have contacted my office, there is absolutely no law to
prevent that. And as far as I know, there is no ethical prohibition from your doing that.
The question is, do we want to, as these situations evolve like this, do we want laws like
that? I mean do we want ethical issues? That’s something for your Legislators. I’ll
leave that to your discretion. You know, the question is do we address those things in
that way? I can tell you this, that like some of you have contacted me, I also have
contacted you. And I have asked you with regard to any number of things. I’ve broached
personnel issues with you, and I have talked with you regard to, as Mr. Beard mentioned
earlier, with regard to court house construction, and I’m not sure that we want to get to a
point where one public official is afraid to all another public official. I now that I’ve
contacted Sen. Cheeks on a number of occasions with regard to legislation. Just last
year, I practically lived in Atlanta for eight or nine days in order to try and shepherd the
video poker abolition through the Legislature, and he was important to that. And I saw
absolutely nothing wrong with me going through Sen. Cheeks. Sen. Walker was also a
huge help to us in that in seeing to it that those kinds of things got done. So before we
would engage that issue, we need to make sure that we understand all possible
consequences of the issue. The next question you asked was what happened to the ten
pounds of drugs involved and why was the suspect charged with a misdemeanor instead
of felony? Well, he wasn’t charged with a misdemeanor with regard to the drugs. He
was charged with the felony. And a pretty important felony to us. I’ve told you, I’ve
distinguished already possession with intent to distribute versus possession to carry.
They carry the same parameters of sentence. They’re in the same Code section. The
parameters for sentence are one to ten years in confinement. He got a maximum sentence
from a very, very, very fine judge, and I have absolutely no complaints with regard to
how that was handled. And you asked finally why is there disparity in sentencing in
child molestation cases? Disparity in sentencing is a huge issue that we’re addressing.
The Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court has a sentencing guidelines board in
place. It’s been working for about three years. Disparity in sentencing happens because
of something that I have actually addressed in conversation before. And that is, I’ve said,
you know, the real problem with our justice system is that it’s run by humans, and if you
could just get the humans out of it, then we would all be a whole lot better off. And I
don’t try to make light of this situation, but that is precisely so, and that is when we have
eight judges on the bench and we put the very same case before each of those judges, in
48
isolation, I can assure that we’re going to come up with eight different sentences. They
might not vary very much, but they’re going to vary to some extent, and sometimes they
vary an awful law. But we do what we can based upon the law that is given to us. The
Legislature helps us a little bit by giving parameters for sentencing on these various cases
so the judges at least have a starting point. But I hope that answers your questions, and if
I can answer anything else I’d be happy to.
Mr. Colclough: Let me ask you a question.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Colclough: Did this gentleman have a history of child molestation or child
battery or anything?
Mr. Craig: I do not know what his record showed. My problem, the reason that
we’re here is because I didn’t take the time with a reporter to go and gather a whole lot of
data. I answered her question in a very abbreviated way and the incompleteness of that
response has caused a lot of people a lot of concern.
Mr. Colclough: Like I said, I don’t read the newspapers and very rarely watch the
news.
Mr. Craig: Well, I read the newspaper but I don’t watch TV.
Mr. Colclough: But I have been overloaded with calls on this case. And it’s good
that [inaudible] some information. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I want to thank Mayor Pro Tem Colclough for
articulating these questions. And certainly I want to thank Mr. Craig for coming straight
to the point and coming before this committee, this Commission to respond directly to
th
those questions that were in the resolution. I note here that we are not on the 4 floor,
th
which on the 6 Street end is where the Grand Jury proceeds in secret. If you’re on the
th
other end of the 4 floor you’re in Probate Court, and most of the folks there are already
passed away for their estate administration. But we are here in a public meeting, an open
meeting, we’re making a verbatim record, we’re making a video record, and I think Mr.
Craig has spoken directly to the merits of the resolution and has [inaudible] to that extent,
so I would suggest that if there be those who want to use this record, they can take it
wherever they want, but I suggest we just receive this resolution and Mr. Craig’s
response as information and I make that in the form of a substitute motion.
Mr. Bridges: Second it.
Mr. Shepard: Substitute motion.
49
Mr. Mayor: Substitute motion, all right. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I just have a couple of things that I would probably like to clear here,
because I’m a little unclear on them. I, too, would like to thank Mr. Craig for coming
forward to us. I’m kind of surprised that he did, but he came forward and I think it says
something in itself. But I’m also reminded that this is, we have three people involved,
and this is, as the old coin said, this is one side of the story. I would like for him to clear
up a couple of things, though. He stated this person received 11 years. Is that actual time
or is that probation or what?
Mr. Craig: 11 years, and he was placed on probation by the court.
Mr. Beard: So that means he doesn’t serve any time for child molestation?
Mr. Craig: Unless he violates the term of his probation.
Mr. Beard: I just wanted to get that on, on the record.
Mr. Craig: Yes, sir.
Mr. Beard: I kept hearing this 11 y ears, and in my mind when I hear that he’s
been sentenced to 11 years I think that he’s going to put that time in jail. The other thing,
Mr. Craig, you know, and this is still on the same subject but it’s a little off the beaten
path. I guess it’s a little sidebar here. You know, Commissioners been harassed by the
Grand Jury for 3-1/2 years. When are we going to bring closure to this? I mean, you
know, I’ve been down there a number of times. And all of my colleagues up here. You
know, you’ve held that over the heads – not you, but the Grand Jury per se, I guess, but
you in charge of the Grand Jury. You know, you’ve held that club over the head of the
Commissioners and all the employees of this City for 3-1/2 years, and every time I hear
someone say this, they say, you know, this is the last presentment. And almost four years
of that. When are we going to come to some kind of closure on this?
Mr. Craig: Let me answer that and correct you. You and I have talked about this
before. And you’ve actually misspoken when you say I’m in charge of the Grand Jury.
I’m not, I’m absolutely not in charge of the Grand Jury. Not even to the point of when
they meet. When I orientate a Grand Jury, and I don’t think that orientation is such a
secret proceeding that it should remain private, and if you would like to join me I’m
rd
going to be orientating a new Grand Jury on the 3 Monday of March. And I’m not
trying to be facetious. Quite frankly, I think you and I are close enough, you know I
would not be facetious. I’d like for you to come and to hear that. Because one of the
things I say to the Grand Jury as I give them the various instructions on everything from,
you know, how a criminal case progresses through the courts to how they’re to go about
conducting their deliberations to how to vote, and the fact that they’re never, ever to vote
or to deliberate with me in the room or any one who is not a sworn Grand Juror in the
room. One of the things I always say to them when I come to that point that, you know,
I’m giving you a schedule and I’d like to meet with you every Monday, every Tuesday
50
morning at nine o’clock. I always follow up and say but let me tell you something,
you’re the Grand Jury. I am your legal advisor and nothing more than that, and if you
don’t want to meet on Tuesdays at nine o’clock, then all you have to do is tell me that
you want to meet another time. Or if you want to meet more frequently or less
frequently, then that’s okay, too. I ask you not to do it because I subpoena witnesses two
or three weeks in advance, so they’re anticipating appearing before the Grand Jury on a
certain day, but you’re the Grand Jury and I have no control over that. Let me take you
back to – and you correct me if I’m wrong. I think it the fall of 1999. It might have been
the fall of 2000. When, let me – I hate to take your time, but I really need to outline this.
I think it would be beneficial to everybody. Grand juries are, are county specific. Every
county has a Grand Jury at any moment in time, and the continuity of the Grand Jury is
very, very important. I will never allow a Grand Jury to be out of session before I’m to
swear in a new Grand Jury because I might need one on that short a notice. There are
very rare occasions, but it’s been four or five in the last ten years where I have done that.
They serve according to the terms of court for each county, and those terms of court are
established statutorily. Actually established constitutionally. And as urban areas became
more populous and the Grand Jury services were needed more frequently because the
volume of criminal case that came through, there were amendments made so that what
used to be uniformly throughout the state six month terms of the Grand Jury are now in
the metro areas, including Richmond County, two month terms of the Grand Jury.
Columbia County still has six month terms and Burke still has six month terms. But in
Richmond County they are two month terms. One of the – the Grand Jury has two main
function, that is the criminal function to address the criminal cases that come before them
throughout their term, and that’s done on a weekly basis. I indict about 28 to 30 cases on
the average in Richmond County on a weekly basis. But they also have civil duties and
responsibilities, and that is to over see – and they’re the only body under law and under
our Constitution that can do it – to oversee the operation of county government. And I
always tell them that the one standard they should apply is, when they’re performing their
civil duties, if they want to know what do we do? I say well you go and you determine
whether the taxpayers are getting a dollar’s worth of value for a dollar’s worth of taxes,
because that is the only way that we can compete. You talked about the color of green.
That’s the only way that our community can compete for new dollars with Greenville-
Spartanburg and Savannah and Macon and those other places with which we compete.
And it’s vitally important that the Grand Jury perform well that civil function, that is to
oversee government, to make sure that we are getting a dollar’s worth of value for a
dollar’s worth of taxes. Because if we’re delivering less than a dollar’s worth of value
for a dollar’s worth of taxes, compared to what Greenville-Spartanburg is giving back for
the tax dollar that there’re trying to attract, then they’re going to get the Mercedes factory
and we’re not. And they’re going to get the outlying industry and we’re not. And that’s
how we should always determine. And I heard some good, solid conversation among
you about that as Commissioners. That’s how you should measure your performances.
Are we delivering a dollar’s worth of value for a dollar’s worth of taxes? So the Grand
Jury undertakes the review of the operations of county government, and there is a list of
all of the public officials. They review the District Attorney’s office and they review the
Sheriff’s office, actually review the jail every single term. And what happened is back in
2000, I know I’ve digressed significantly, but what happened in 2000 is we had two
51
Grand Juries in tandem to come back to the court on their presentation day, and their
presentment is the only day that they can actually communication with the public.
Otherwise everything they do is a secret. And in their presentments they said, as I say,
two terms in tandem, we can’t do our job. You told us that we are to oversee the, and to
review the operations of government and we can’t do this because what happens is we get
orientated the first week, and we get cranked up with our criminal cases and we get our
feet on the ground, and then the last week we’re being asked to draft all of our
presentments, which leaves us on a two month term, it leaves us seven weeks to work,
and we can’t even begin to analyze some of the departments with only seven weeks. So
the only way that we can do our duty under our oath is if we have a longer term of
service. And after the second Grand Jury said that, then the judges under the statute,
went to the statute and they determined that by majority vote of the judges they could
actually empanel a Special Grand Jury, and they voted to do just that. And they called a
Special Grand Jury and empanelled that Grand Jury. When that Grand Jury was sworn
in, I was there, and I orientated them and I heard the judge give them their charge and the
judge said to them I want to introduce to you your District Attorney. He is your legal
advisor. He is your only legal advisor. You cannot get legal advice under this, under the
law, from anywhere else. And if you have questions that you don’t feel like are being
adequately answered by the District Attorney then you are to come to me, the judge. And
you ask those questions, but that is the only way you can address these legal issues. So
Lee, I don’t, I’m not in charge of the Grand Jury. I advise the Grand Jury. This Grand
Jury is made up of incredible people. They are very talented citizens. They are
wonderful people, and they have worked like dogs for this community for absolutely
almost no pay to try and get their work done. And they are so talented and they’re made
up of everything from accountants to engineers to housewives and everything in between.
When they need me, they call me. They have met frequently two or three days during the
week. I can’t try cases and be sitting there with the Grand Jury all day every day. When
they need me, they call me, and that’s the relationship that we have. So would I dare
violate my oath by saying to the Grand Jury I just think that y’all need to quit, I think
y’all need to stop? No, I wouldn’t do that. But having said that, I will tell you as much
as I can say on record and the Grand Jury has said it. They delivered a final presentment
back in the fall, and at the time that final presentment was made they knew then that
many thousands of documents that they had gathered themselves had been taken away
from them because, as they performed their duties, they had a reason to call the Georgia
Bureau of Investigation. Those many thousands of documents are no longer in the
possession of the Grand Jury and right now, though I don’t anticipate any more
presentments from the Grand Jury, I do know that the Grand Jury would like for the GBI
to have completed its performance, whatever they decide in this matter, before they ask
the judge to discharge them. And as hard as they work, I just don’t, I don’t think that’s
asking very much. I just don’t.
Mr. Beard: Well, then, I think we have a different perspective on all of this,
because, you know, I guess that’s where we disagree a little bit about the Grand Jury,
because you know, we talked about the [inaudible] and the respectfulness that they
exemplify, but as many times as I’ve gone down there I found that hard to believe. And I
have about three times I would like to state to you, and that is in knowing that this Grand
52
Jury has become very personal with people, they asked for things that I thought they
shouldn’t have asked for, they were discourteous to the witnesses that came down there,
and you know, I’ve always, all my life I’ve been taught to believe in our judicial system,
and I do believe in that, but when you have a Special Grand Jury whom I think had a
special agenda, then I lose that respect for the. Because of their demeanor, because of the
things that they’ve done, and the things I’ve heard, how they have really done other
people – and those, these were also employees of this government who worked hard
every day, trying to do everything that they can, and to think that we were criticized for
having a cesspool of corruption here, and after four years, you know, we haven’t seen
that cesspool of corruption. That’s number 1. And number 2 would be, you know,
Sheriff Beck just alluded to something before he left and that he said the Grand Jury
listened to a few people, and that is a correct statement, because I applaud him for saying
that, because that is my belief, also. And number 3, to my colleagues, I can’t see how we
are going to accept this as information. You know, as I said earlier, this is, you know,
one side of the story and it may have been a good story. I don’t know whether it’s true or
not. But you’ve got three other people involved and how can you accept this as
information? As serious as this was, I think we owe it to Danny, we owe it to the judge,
we owe it to the senator, to find what has happened, and we owe, most of all, we owe it to
the citizens of this community. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. To Danny, I applaud you again, as the
other Commissioner stated, that you come forth and at least speaking to us. When I
listen, when I hear about what happened in all of this, the different things, I heard some
good things and I heard some things I didn’t agree with. When you talk about the Grand
Jury, I don’t know much about it. I get all my legal opinions from Steve Shepard most of
the time. That’s not accurate but that’s where I get it from.
(Laughter)
Mr. Williams: But I –
Mr. Shepard: You just didn’t hear it right.
(Laughter)
Mr. Williams: I’ve got a few concerns. First of all, this is very serious charge
here and I think that everybody would want to bring out whatever is necessary. And in
my little dealing and my little traveling around to a lot of major cities, most cities don’t
even consider a Grand Jury unless there is a murder case or something. I mean when you
talking about Grand Jury, we talking like that’s normal, that, that, that, that’s only one
process. And if that is the only one process because we got so much, so much problems,
then anything like this that come up ought to be at least investigated and maybe come
back negative where there is nothing. But I think that we should, we should be careful
about just passing stuff by. I been down to the Grand Jury two, maybe three times, and
53
had no problem and have no problem going back. I ain’t got nothing to hide. And if you
don’t have anything to hide, you ought to be willing to sit down and talk with them. Not
only them, with anybody that want to investigate. But you said that the Grand Jury listed
people from all walks of life, and I remember a statement that they was the cream of the
crop, that these people was – quote – brain surgeon, and I’m using that, Danny, that has
not been said. But these people supposed to been the smartest of the smartest.
Mr. Craig: Well, can I use the statutory language?
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Craig: The most intelligent, experienced and upright citizens in the
community. They are hand picked. They are – you and I can be on a trial jury because,
you know, all we’ve got to do is be a registered voter. Actually now all we have to have
now is a driver’s license because we have the motor voter law and we funnel the driver’s
license people into the pool of potential jurors, and out of the 60,000 or 65,000 registered
voters we have in Richmond County, at any give time 20,000 are in the potential pool to
be chosen as trial jurors, and that’s only because we are registered voters or we’re motor
voters. And that pool of jurors is adjusted to make sure that it accurately reflects with a
zero standard deviation the demographics of the community, based upon race, gender and
age. And so we can, we can be on a trial jury, but you and I can’t be on the Grand Jury
unless the Grand Jury Commission picks us because we’re the most intelligent,
experienced and upright citizens.
Mr. Williams: I understand. I understand that. Now we can be all day here and I
been quiet, Mr. Mayor, for a long time, so – but then how do you get to be a Grand Juror,
then? Who determines whether you the cream of the crop?
Mr. Craig: I’m glad you asked. The Chief Superior Court Judge will appoint six
Grand Jury Commissioners who serve staggered terms, staggered four-year terms so that
there is continuity, and they meet frequently, actually. But every two years the Grand
Jury box is revised entirely. That is, every two years, the – we only have 2,000 people in
the Grand Jury box as opposed to 20,000 people in the traverse jury box, which I just
mentioned. So the Grand Jury Commission and they will sit down, and the standards are
statutory. They are supposed to identify the most intelligent, experienced, and upright
citizens in the community, and then they’re supposed – these people, each of them are
supposed to be known to two Grand Jury Commissioners, so that one can vouch, I
suppose, for the other’s opinion. Let me finish now, it’s real important. And then they
select 2,000 of them to serve for that two-year period of time until the box is next revised.
Once they have selected 2,000, then they take their jury information and they feed it into
a computer and the computer, they ask the computer, tell us the makeup of this entire
pool of 2,000 people with regard to demographics, because Richmond County – I know
this because we go through it in death penalty cases, about to do it next week, and we
have to address the demographics of the community. Richmond County I think is 49%
African American, 46% Caucasian and about four or five percent other. And other has
taken on some tremendous significance in the Supreme Court over the past two years.
54
And so you put the 2,000 names in and obviously you don’t just look at the first
[inaudible] to a zero deviation from the demographics established by the census data. So
what they do, then, is they start throwing people out and adding people in until it does
match up exactly with the census data.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Now I understand the computer lingo and talking about the
computer, but I still don’t understand how you come up with the cream of the crop or the
very best people because, if Commissioner Hankerson was preaching here, God has no
[inaudible] person and I would agree with him, but how can we sit here and say who is –
I mean [inaudible] machine, the machine come back with two [inaudible] whatever else
was in the machine. But that statement says something to me, and, and, and, and we need
to go on. I don’t want to put the Mayor to sleep over here. Let me go on.
Mr. Craig: Can I tell you something? Cause this is something that is powerful
and it means something. It certainly would to Pastor Hankerson. And that is those six
Grand Jury Commissioners are under an oath. They take an oath of office to do their
duty as they are charged, and so the oath means something and their selection of the most
intelligent, experienced and upright citizens of the community is done pursuant to an
oath. Now we come back to what I said earlier. Can they make a mistake? You better
believe it. I’ve had Grand Jurors who did nothing but sleep the first day throughout my
entire instructors and I’ve gone to the court immediately and said we’ve got a mistake
here, I need, I need to have a Grand Juror excused because he did absolutely nothing but
sleep all day. So the point is if you get the humans out of this, then I think we’d all be a
lot better off.
Mr. Williams: I agree with you, but how can you get the human our of the human
factor?
Mr. Craig: Absolutely not.
Mr. Williams: And, and, and, and, and –
Mr. Craig: That’s totally facetious.
Mr. Williams: There’s no way. So let me go on, Danny, with all that has been
said, all that been done with this adopting this resolution that the Mayor Pro Tem put on,
wouldn’t you agree as a man, as a elected official, as a DA, that it would be the right
thing to do, to investigate this, this thing to the fullest make sure that this, if [inaudible],
doesn’t happen again?
Mr. Craig: I think you’ve had a full disclosure here. I actually, when I got your
memo, I sent it to the Attorney General myself and asked them if they could do anything.
They said no, jurisdictionally there is no authority for them to do this.
Mr. Williams: I mean I appreciate that, but wouldn’t you want this to go
whatever office necessary to have a full investigation where we would say hey, we were
55
right, there is nothing wrong. We have been criticized in this city for every little thing.
Every little thing. Now Commissioner Beard made a good point. The Grand Jury has
said some things about some of the Commissioners on this board that wouldn’t tell me
they was cream of the crop. I [inaudible] myself a lot better [inaudible] way it was
expressed, you know, than some of those things written, but that’s just a matter of
opinion so I’m not going to even worry about that. But I just think that we cannot brush
this under the rug and say that, you know, we [inaudible] receive the information. I think
you would agree with the parties involved it ought to be an investigation to be able to
bring some things to clarity so it wouldn’t be nothing hanging over your head, what
somebody assuming, well, you know, they didn’t do anything about it, but I believe they
did whatever, whatever. We ought to be straight with it. We ought not to just, just pass it
by.
Mr. Craig: I appreciate that, Mr. Williams. Like I say, I think you’ve now kind
of ferreted out everything that you can possibly ferret out of this. There is no jurisdiction,
as I have indicated to you, with regard to anybody to investigate a judge. I can’t imagine
why you would want to investigate a judge with the disclosure, the extent of the
disclosure that you have here. I’ve now disclosed to you and I’ve turned over to the
newspaper my entire file. I think that that’s been ferreted out entirely, and you know,
what I’ve said to you is the mistake that was made here is that I did not take the time in
order to answer fully a reporter’s questions, and that resulted in an unintentional,
incomplete understanding [inaudible] to that newspaper reporter. I have and will
continue to provide any information that you want. Yes, I think disclosure is important.
I also think that we also need to make sure that when we’ve done our job that that’s
recognized as well.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve got a question, if you would. In
regards to some of the issues on the Grand Jury that’s been brought up here today, I think
you alluded to the GBI taking the records of the Fire Department. My understanding was
they were supposed to come back with some and the Grand Jury being unable to utilize
that from then on. My understanding was the GBI was to keep that for like six months,
maybe a year, and either – you know, indict somebody or say somebody’s completely
free and no wrong has been done. Can you give us an indication of why the GBI has not
made a recommendation and what the problem is? I mean if the Grand Jury can take 2-
1/2 years and come back with something, the GBI has had two years and records and
can’t bring anything back. I’m concerned about the GBI.
Mr. Craig: And I will answer your question. I have to tell you before I do it, and
I hate to preface answers, but I feel somewhat awkward defending everybody here and I
hope that, you know, cause I think the [inaudible] becomes more and more suspect when
all you’re doing is defending. But with regard to the GBI, I don’t know if y’all recall, but
we had a crematory up in north Georgia where over 200 bodies were found up there, and
it took not just all of our GBI but we had to actually use some National Guard people to
go in there and to work there. That took an awful long time. I don’t –
56
Mr. Bridges: But, Danny, that was recently. I mean they had that for a year-and-
a-half before that.
Mr. Craig: I understand that. And there have been other matters that have taken
priority. I’ll tell you, I’ve been very, very vocal, extremely vocal, and I’ve been vocal
with the Director. And each time I have got pledges from him that, you know, they
would give this matter the attention that it deserved. But I don’t run the GBI. I don’t
schedule the agents. All I can do is, is tell them this is important to our community, this
is a matter, you know, to be pursued if it’s going to be pursued, or not if it’s not.
Mr. Bridges: And just to comment, Mr. Mayor. You know, I know that the
District Attorney doesn’t have any jurisdiction over the GBI, but I mean in my mind this
Grand Jury thing is not settled until they come back and either declare the people
innocent or declare them guilty, one or the other, and I think for them to hold on to it just
holds everything in limbo, and I appreciate your candor there, Mr. D.A. But I think the
motion on the floor is appropriate, to take this as information. Basically the questions
that are involved here the District Attorney has answered. I think this resolution comes
more from our ignorance as taxpayers and Commissioners of the legal process than
anything else. I don’t have – I think we can take it as information, and I think we’ve got
to maybe one of the burrs under the saddle of how this resolution came about or maybe
even, maybe it was just piggy-back off of the resolution, given the opportunity with the
District Attorney coming down, but I think this frustration over the Grand Jury with some
of the Commissioners and maybe all of them, maybe all of the Commissioners and some
aspects of that. So – but I have a real problem with the – particularly the heading of this
resolution as it’s done. This is a Columbia County case. I can just see Richmond County
recommending various things that may happen in Columbia County and that opened the
door for them to do the same to us. And I don’t want to do that. This is their jurisdiction,
their case. Let them deal with it. If we have a resolution that could be more generally
stated that the Governor and State Attorney General get involved in the ethics of the
contact through Commissioners, State Representatives, State Senators, regarding the legal
system, I think that would be appropriate, but I’m not going to get involved in the
Columbia County affair.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a couple of things. Based on what I’ve
heard about the Grand Jury selection process, we could have Albert Einstein as a resident,
and unless he knew certain people he would not be considered one of the best and
brightest in this area, which sounds to me like an archaic and flawed system that needs to
be addressed. Also, I think there is an inconsistency here, I think, that’s very important in
that it was important that we investigate this government for perceived corruption and
problems within its operational structure. Where we have something of a similar nature,
[inaudible] perceived [inaudible] perceived problems within our judiciary, we need to
receive that as information and I find it inconsistent, just as the Grand Jury has come
back after four years and had little or no findings which vindicates many public leaders
57
and lot of our process. I think that the same thing can happen as this results, this
investigation [inaudible] chosen to occur occurs, it will either show that there are
problems or there are no problems. Right now, when we take the he said/she said/they
said that currently exists right now, many of these questions will never be addressed. I
hate to see us accept something as information. I’ve always believed that a little sunlight
is good for everything. And if there are problems, those will be shown. If there are no
problems, those vindications will take place. But to receive as information and not go
forward with this process and then having been a cheerleader for the Special Grand Jury
is inconsistent behavior. Sunlight is good for everybody, and dadgumit, if it’s good for
this Commission, it’s good for the judiciary and everybody else around here. If we need
to get our act together, we need to get it together, but so does everybody else. And the
only way to do that is after 4-1/2 years of suffering an investigation, or four years of
suffering an investigation and [inaudible] incomplete information being delivered to the
public, this Commission by and large has been vindicated of wrongdoing. That same
process would serve well for this issue. And for us to neglect that is just again
inconsistent behavior. If it’s good for one group, it’s good for every group.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Just let me clarify one thing. This resolution has nothing, had
nothing to do with the Grand Jury. This resolution was concerns of citizens and myself.
So it has nothing to do with the Grand Jury. Just wanted to clarify that for the record.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further before we move forward with the order of
the day?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: I just have a question. I thought I had heard the District Attorney
say that [inaudible] looking at the bottom of the resolution here that it be forwarded to the
Governor and the Attorney General of the State of Georgia. I thought I heard Mr. Craig
say that they have no jurisdiction?
Mr. Craig: That is correct.
Mr. Boyles: So who would do the investigation? Who would do the, if we do an
investigation, who is going to do it?
Mr. Craig: [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Bring it back to the author of the resolution.
Mr. Boyles: It looks to me like the news media did a pretty good investigation.
I’m just asking that as a serious question. Who is going to do the investigation?
58
Mr. Cheek: Would this not go over to the U.S. Justice Department if problems
are found?
Mr. Boyles: I don’t know if this is a federal type case. I mean I don’t now. I’m
not in the legal business.
Mr. Beard: I think it also goes to the Governor, too, Mr. Boyles. And I think it’s
moved forward and I think we have an Attorney, we have Commissioners, and it appears
to me that someone should be able to look into this, and I think with all these [inaudible]
people we got around here, we ought to be able to find the source that would handle this.
But it goes to the Governor and the Attorney General.
Mr. Williams: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. We have a substitute motion to
consider first, that comes from Commissioner Shepard, to receive this as information.
All in favor of that motion, please vote in the affirmative.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams, Mr. Mays and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. Hankerson abstains.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion fails 3-5-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion. The resolution from the
Mayor Pro Tem. We’ll clear the board and vote on that. All in favor of the original
motion then please vote in the affirmative.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Boyles, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Mr. Hankerson abstains.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion fails 3-5-1.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further on this matter? Okay, Madame Clerk, if we may,
our other prosecutor has been waiting very patiently this afternoon, so let’s, if we can, I
believe you’re here for item number 27, that’s the Child Enrichment issue; is that correct?
Ms. Jolly: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Madame Clerk, if you’ll read the caption and then we’ll take
that up. Item 27.
The Clerk:
59
PUBLIC SAFETY:
27. Consider a request from the Solicitor regarding the allocation of $20,000 to
help fund Child Enrichment, Inc. with funds from the 5% Crime Bill Monies.
Mr. Mayor: And Mr. Hankerson, I think you asked we hold this one, so we’ll let
the Solicitor go ahead and then hear your questions.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want some information – I know
this is the second time I’ve seen this on the agenda. The first time it was $10,000. Now
it’s – I recall I saw this as $10,000 and now it’s $20,000. Is that right?
Ms. Jolly: On the original Public Safety agenda, it only said $10,000. The
original request that I sent to Public Safety was two $10,000 requests so we just
consolidated it into one $20,000.
Mr. Hankerson: Explain Child Enrichment. Is there anything in the backup? If
there is I didn’t see it.
Ms. Jolly: No, there’s no.
Mr. Hankerson: I didn’t see it. That’s why I’m asking. Who is Child
Enrichment, Inc.? Explain that to me.
Ms. Jolly: Okay. Basically these monies are 5% monies that we obtained through
surcharges given by statutes to criminal defendants that come through the courts, through
fines that are assessed. In order to be eligible to receive 5% monies, you have to be
certified by the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council through the office of the
Governor. There are only give agencies in Augusta that are CJCC certified. One is my
Victims Witness Assistance Program through the Solicitor General’s Office, the Victims
Witness Assistance Program through the District Attorney’s office, Rape Crisis Sexual
Assault Services, Safe Homes, which is also known as the Domestic Violence
Intervention Center, and Child Enrichment. We give pass-through monies to these
agencies because they’re entitled to receive it. Child Enrichment actually – the purpose
is – deals with children who have been removed from parents’ custody, in temporary
foster custody as well as the Advocacy Center, which deals with providing advocacy for
child victims of sexual abuse. I come to the Commission once or twice a year, just
depending on when I get these requests for allocations. It is purely pass-through money.
They’re entitled to receive it. And so that’s what I’m here for. They’ve made their
request for $20,000 this year and I’m here to ask for your approval to send it to them.
Mr. Hankerson: Where are the located?
Ms. Jolly: I can’t give you the address because of confidentiality, the location of
the facility.
60
Mr. Hankerson: How do they help? I [inaudible] help someone. I mean if I
know –
Ms. Jolly: I can’t give you the name –
Mr. Hankerson: If I know someone that need help, the service that they’re
offering, how can I –
Ms. Jolly: They have children that have been removed from custody of their
parents. They provide temporary custody. So you would not want the parent from whom
the children have been removed from to know where they’re located. So I cannot give
you the exact address of the facility, other than to tell you that I can bring you a whole
presentation about what Child Enrichment does. But to say that they are CJCC certified
to receive these funds. And I’ll be happy to get you some information that would take 45
minutes to present about the agency.
Mr. Hankerson: So what you’re asking us to approve is $20,000 to a firm we
don’t even know where they are located or exists? My other question is how many of
these other – you named five, you said?
Ms. Jolly: That’s correct.
Mr. Hankerson: What about these other agencies? Have they, how many of the
others have service? Do they know that they could receive this money also?
Ms. Jolly: There are no other CJCC certified agencies in our community.
Mr. Hankerson: I must have misunderstood you. I thought you said, you named
five different agencies.
Ms. Jolly: They all receive money.
Mr. Hankerson: They receive, they can receive this money?
Ms. Jolly: That’s correct. And this Commission has voted on numerous
occasions to give them money and has in fact given Child Enrichment money. Back in
2001, there was an approval of a $5,000 allocation for this exact facility, and again in
April of 2002, there was a $30,000 allocation that was done as a result of some shifting of
money with the Foster Parents Children’s Program.
Mr. Hankerson: Those other offices, they’re not private; right? Or confidential?
The other agencies?
Ms. Jolly: Actually, actually Safe Homes has a confidential location, yes.
61
Mr. Hankerson: So why was it that you presented two $10,000 request? Why
was that?
Ms. Jolly: It was just the way the letter was phrased to me. They could have
asked for $50,000, and if they had asked for $50,000 I probably would have considered
an allocation of $50,000 to them. When they sent me the letter, they said we forgot to
ask you for any money year, so we’re going to ask you for $10,000 for last year and
$10,000 for this year. So that’s why it came as a $20,000 proposal. They could have
asked for any amount.
Mr. Hankerson: I understand what you’re saying. They could have asked. But I
mean you just have a lot of money there that they can just ask for $50,000 and they didn’t
ask for any last year and they come back and ask for some this year?
Ms. Jolly: Well, there was a change in administration there. The Executive
Director didn’t know the procedure with regard to asking. The 5% monies are actually
controlled by the District Attorney and myself, with regard to disposition of those funds.
I always consult with the District Attorney before I make a request of the Commission.
That’s always approved. Danny has never had any problems with it. He has allowed me
to be steward over the monies.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay, how much money is in this fund you’re talking about?
Ms. Jolly: Over half a million dollars.
Mr. Hankerson: Over half a million dollars in this fund? Now the reason I’m
asking and you have five different agencies that can request money, and we can’t even
fill all the requests that we get for different agencies coming to us, and it seems though to
me, then, we should be getting – if the other agencies are aware that they can get any
amount of money that they ask for, and I’m quite sure that as everybody said, we all in
need.
Ms. Jolly: I understand that, but in order to receive these monies, you have to
provide victims services and you have to be CJCC certified [inaudible] which is through
the office of the Governor, through the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. And so if
there is any agency out there that wants to go through that certification process and then
come and ask for money, they would be considered.
Mr. Hankerson: I’m just speaking of the five that you named.
Ms. Jolly: Right.
Mr. Hankerson: They are CJC; right?
Ms. Jolly: They are all CJCC certified.
62
Mr. Hankerson: So they haven’t asked for anything this year at all?
Ms. Jolly: Actually, the last checks that were cut – I’m sure they will be. The last
checks that were cut were to Rape Crisis in the amount of $25,000. That check was cut
th
September – actually the request was made September 17 and the check was cut on
th
October 18 of 2002. Also there was a check in the amount of $10,500 that was cut on
th
October 18 as well for the Domestic Violence Intervention Center. The primary
funding for those programs – fund all of the victims witness personnel through the
Solicitor General’s office. Actually that fund paid for three attorneys, two investigators,
an advocate and clerical person. So the substantial portion of that funding actually saved
the county the ability or from having to pay for prosecutors that handle these cases.
Mr. Hankerson: What else could this money be used for?
Ms. Jolly: It can only be used for agencies that are CJCC Certified. It cannot be
used for any other type of agency. And in order to become CJCC Certified, you have to
provide victims services. So it’s not just a pot out there that can be spent. It’s very
limited as to what it can be spent to. The reason that we have some money is reserve is
that we have very intentionally let that money build up in order to be able to provide
funding to these outside agencies. In many jurisdictions, no money goes to any outside
agencies outside the victims witness programs that are provided by the District Attorney
and/or the Solicitor’s office.
Mr. Hankerson: But you do have monies constantly coming in; right?
Ms. Jolly: That’s correct.
Mr. Hankerson: And you’re letting it build up? You got half a million, you said
half a million dollars. Over half a million dollars. And you give this request, this request
here is $20,000 a year.
Ms. Jolly: That’s right.
Mr. Hankerson: Then why are – it seems though that we need to take a look at
this pot of gold here.
Ms. Jolly: It’s not a pot of gold that’s able to be distributed.
Mr. Hankerson: We need to take a look at this and try to see whether we can find
some ways that we can do some things, some other agency or [inaudible].
Ms. Jolly: I understand your concern about that.
Mr. Hankerson: -- for this. You know, I mean, coming from what I’m hearing,
and I’m just getting educated on it. When I saw Child Enrichment, you know, I saw
child, I was interested. Child Enrichment. And the first thing, the red flag went up when
63
the first request was $10,000. And then now it’s $20,000. And you’re saying that you
just give – they didn’t ask for any last year so they decided to ask for some last year.
Those other agencies, I’m quite sure, are suffering, too, for some funds.
Ms. Jolly: I understand –
Mr. Hankerson: The knowledge should be that you have money available, plenty
monies, to assist them. Safe – what was that? Safe?
Ms. Jolly: Safe Homes.
Mr. Hankerson: Safe Homes? I’ve heard that name come up quite a bit.
Ms. Jolly: Right. And –
Mr. Hankerson: We need to just look at seeing could we start helping these five
agencies or get some more agencies qualified or some or maybe look at something where
they have to come from legislation or not to see how we can better utilize a half a million
dollars. You can call for the question for whatever, but I wanted to get some information
on this, and so I know when [inaudible] I know what I’m voting on. But that’s all. I’m
not trying to put you on the spot. I just want to know what it was, if you had backup in
the book I would have called somebody and got this information before I tied up the
Commissioners’ time.
Ms. Jolly: I understand. And actually, I didn’t send any of that information
because we’ve done this on a routine basis and I should have provided more information.
Child Enrichment asked me if I wanted to send a letter from them, and I actually told
them that I didn’t think it was necessary because we have done this several times
previously, and it truly is a pass-through type of situation.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I was going to make the motion. I’m ready to vote.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion then
please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
Ms. Jolly: Thank you.
64
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Sheryl. Thank you for waiting so patiently today.
We’ve got a full agenda, no doubt about that. We want to keep moving along as we can.
Madame Clerk, I think this takes us back to item number 1 now on the consent agenda.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: If you’ll read the caption.
The Clerk:
1. Z-03-10 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) streetyard
conforms to the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance with trees outside the
required fencing; 2) no access to Glass Factory Road; and 3) no variance to be
requested to the 50’ activity spacing requirement, a petition by Lou Moore, on
behalf of CMC Augusta and Jean Hornsby Williams et al., requesting a Special
Exception in a HI (Heavy Industry) Zone for the purpose of expanding an existing
salvage yard at 1752 Old Savannah Road as per Section 24-2 of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at
1752 and 1890 Old Savannah Road and 7 additional parcels that total 1.41 acres on
Glass Factory Road. (existing yard Tax Map 73-1 Parcels 93 & 94, new parcels Tax
Map 73-1 Parcels 96-100 and Tax Map 59-3 Parcels 577 & 578) (POSTPONED from
the January meeting) DISTRICT 2
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, you asked this be pulled.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I met with – give me his name, George.
Mr. Patty: His name is Mr. Moore.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Moore, right. I met with Mr. Moore and went out to the
facility out there at CMC on Savannah Road, and we looked at some issues and some
things that we wanted to address. I’ve got no problem after we did look, George, but
what I do have a problem with is that whether or not they would do what they have stated
they would do. In approving this, is there a way that we can put in a stipulation that the
tires – there’s a great number of tires on the property that they talked about disposing of.
And I guess my think is that can we put, before they do anything else, they have to
comply with moving that stuff that they mentioned already, George?
Mr. Patty: Well, the approval was with three stipulations and it did not include
the stipulation about tires, Marion, no. You weren’t at the Planning Commission meeting
and he represented that y’all had gotten together and you were satisfied and so they voted
on it as it was presented.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
65
Mr. Patty: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: I met with him, I went out, we toured the facility and looked at it.
Also we looked at the area that he wants to acquire to add to. But on that property is a
huge number of tires, and if we can add that in the stipulation, I got no problem with, you
know, helping them and supporting that, but I can’t, I can’t sit here and, and – we been
told, George, many times this is what we are going to do. But it don’t get done. So I’d
like to add that, the removal of those tires in that, with those other three stipulations. And
how would that be handled?
Mr. Patty: Well, he’s not here and I assume that you can add a stipulation to
remove all tires from the property, all abandoned tires from the property. I don’t know. I
mean is that [inaudible]?
Mr. Williams: That’s what he agreed to, but it’s not in the stipulation, so I’m
going to make a motion that we add that into the stipulations, and if he’s in agreement we
have no problem approving that, but if he is not in agreement then he needs to come back
to this body.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second.
Mr. Mayor: You’re moving to add that stipulation then?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. It’s been seconded. Further discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I can appreciate my colleague being aggressive and
we share that District of going out and of looking at that facility. [inaudible] Mr. Patty. I
think, I think adding that on, I have no problem with that. And this probably will pass,
but I have a problem with it passing for this reason. This was advertised under the
normal procedure that we normally do, George, in reference to sign posting and
expansion of what was going to deal with out there?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Let me just ask this first. And I know you keep pretty good check on
everything that expands in the way of junk and refuse. Was any, was any correspondence
there or any presence there, particularly from [inaudible]?
Mr. Patty: No, sir, we never heard anything from anybody on this.
Mr. Mays: Well, I can guarantee you if it’s talking about expansion of anything
dealing with junk, we are going to hear from him, even though it may be after the fact.
Now the problem I’ve got with it, I brought this up on the Commission floor some time
ago, when we start talking about the repaving and the work to be done from Gordon
66
Highway and Old Savannah Road down through Twiggs Street, and the amount of money
being spent in that area to repave and to redo. Now when we talked about – and this is
why I’m saying this isn’t so much in your realm, but somewhere [inaudible] somebody
that inspects, I’ve just got a problem if we’re talking about increasing anything, yet we’re
fixing to spend some money to redo that whole road. That road [inaudible] you can’t tell
whether it’s dirt or paved from time to time. The heavy amount of traffic that’s coming
through there and the amount of debris that’s left out there from entering in this facility.
Now if it’s like that now, then has any consideration been given when you increase
what’s going in, or maybe this is something that’s in closed containers of some type, but
it’s just been my experience that if you’ve got a problem to where I don’t want that part
of Savannah Road because of what, how the road disappeared with Goldberg’s over
there, where you couldn’t tell railroad track by it, you couldn’t tell whether eventually
whether it was dirt or pavement, to a point that this one becomes Goldberg’s #2, to a
point of just being dirty over there, with the entranceway going in and out. And I know
this is a little bit more involved than zoning, but Jim, I’ve brought this up eight months to
a year ago in reference to ordinance obeying and inspections of what needed to be done,
and I even said why are we going to go and spend that kind of money on Old Savannah
Road if it’s going to be tore up and if it’s going to remain dirty all the time, because of
that entranceway down there. And I just have a problem with it, no so much on the
increasing of density, but on what’s already there, and it just doesn’t seem like to me that
– it seems like to me the burden has fallen on the city to keep that area clean when it gets
filthy outside of the place in reference to dirt, mud, the big trucks that are there, and there
people, quite frankly, who still live there. And we fixing to do a road improvement that’s
through there, then that’s almost like through good money at bad money to a point that’s
there. I would first like to see how some plan is going to be done that some method of
cleaning be done in that area. I mean it’s okay to say well, maybe we going to have it. I
don’t know if it’s trucks going in or whether it’s trucks coming out. Maybe there is some
degree that something needs to be paved in that area that’s done. Maybe [inaudible]
trucks come out, maybe they need to be cleaned down. But I do know that at certain
times, it’s [inaudible] through there and that should fall under some area of this city and
under some ordinance that we got, and I see us write and change ordinances, Mr. Mayor,
from week to week around here, quickly. Now it’s supposed to be one that’s already on
the books that deals with that, but I think before we go and spend $7 million to go and
repave and redo Old Savannah Road, to have it totally muddied up out there in that area,
and for those people to continue to endure that again, year after year, then that’s a
disservice, and that may not fall in zoning. I don’t think that was on, on your wagon to
be loaded, but it’s just a concern of mine that the density I can deal with, but I want to
hear something about what’s already that they’re in violation of. If they’re not in
violation of anything, it’s just not a good stewardship that’s going through that
[inaudible]. Whether that goes to the Attorney or who. But I mean there is something
there that says you can’t just litter up everywhere. And if we going to spend a million
dollars, we are going to do that just [inaudible]. Cause that’s what it’s going to be shortly
after you redo it and pave it. And if there is something to deal with that, then I think first
I’d like to see some enforcement of what’s already on the books, give a response to how
they plan to deal with it, and then I’d be comfortable with increasing the density to
67
whatever they needed to. But then we don’t need to increase the density if they’re not
keeping clean what’s out there now.
Mr. Wall: There is an ordinance on the books insofar as muddying up roads. You
know, as far as whether or not Public Works or License & Inspection takes responsibility
for enforcing that, I frankly don’t know. But I’ll be glad to follow up with both of them.
I mean it falls within soil erosion so I would think that Public Works on the roads has
inspectors that deal with this.
Mr. Mays: I’m going to make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, that this be
referred to this appropriate department, that the Administrator and Attorney be
able to work this out, have some correspondence with the ownership there on some
plan as to how this is to be cleaned up and to whether or not this ordinance is
obeyed, and I think we should set aside the zoning change until that time.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Williams you want to speak? Mr. Cheek,
did you still want to speak?
Mr. Cheek: Superman covered what I was going to say.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Commissioner Mays. You
brought a point to mind that I’ve got several calls on just what you said with the traffic,
the cars, the trucks, the flat beds, that’s got holes in them that parts are falling in the street
and people are running over them and punching their tires and all that kind of stuff, too.
Commissioner Cheek was going to make a motion that we postpone this, but your motion
will take care of it. Now we can sit down and talk with this man. I got no problem with
increasing the, the area he wants to increase there. But there are some things that need to
be addressed. We did talk about some beautification and some things in that area when I
visited that facility. But I mean he’s not here now and I think it would be, be wise to
postpone this until our next Commission meeting and give us a chance to sit down and
talk, along with the Administrator, the Attorney, anybody else that wants to have some
input in this. But there are a couple of things we do need to address on that facility.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further?
Mr. Williams: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote yes.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Motion carries 10-0.
68
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 2.
The Clerk:
2. Z-03-13 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following condition that 7 parking spaces
in front of the building be reserved for customer parking; a petition by Ann Colley,
on behalf of Deans Bridge Road Sites, LLC, requesting a Special Exception in a B-2
(General Business) zone to operate a paint and body shop per Section 22-2 (a) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 2403 Milledgeville Road and containing 1.94 acres (Tax Map 71-
4 Parcel 20). DISTRICT 5
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked this one be pulled.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. This is a similar situation and I think the
petitioner is here, that is petitioning to try to change this. License & Inspection have been
working closely with this facility, which have already been in operation. I don’t know
whether the petitioner want to be heard on this issue or not, but until I can talk with
License & Inspection, until I can talk with those people who have been working with this,
I would like to hold this again for two weeks. I notice the petitioner is here so I don’t
mind hearing from him and his perspective on it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: You are the petitioner?
Mr. Colley: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Would you state your name for the record?
Mr. Colley: Myron Colley.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, you want to respond to the Commissioner’s concerns?
Mr. Colley: Yes, sir, I do. Mr. Williams, what I would like to respond to you in
Shawn Hargis has been back out on our property. We were given a citation. Judge – not
Judge Allen, but ever who was filling in for Judge Allen on the day we went down for the
hearing, she – Shawn Hargis recommended to the Judge that they postpone that, which
th
I’ve got to go back on the 27, until we went through all our process. Shawn Hargis did
come back out and she has taken pictures of all the area that we’ve cleaned up and
everything that we’ve done and she has recommended to the Judge once this is all done to
dismiss that citation they gave to us.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I may. I certainly appreciate that. I’ve got no
problem. I talked with Doug about this earlier, and the neighbors in that area. We’ve got
in District 2 probably all of the junk yards. I don’t want to say all, but we’ve got 80% of
them I know in District 2. And that area there, Mr. Mayor, when it was first brought to
69
my attention, had been in looked like full swing operation where it had, parts had been
take off of cars and really it was a junkyard. I got a call later saying that you want to
open a body shop. I’ve got no problem with a body shop. But District 2 has been a
dumping ground for many, many years for too long. There’s other areas in the city that
could be used to do that kind of business, but we’ve got so many in District 2 and that’s
why – I mean I’m not opposed to any business, I mean I like to help you with anything I
can – but I’d like to make a motion, a substitute motion that we postpone this as well
until I can look at it, we can get together, I can get with Shawn to see exactly what’s
being proposed there and how we plan to keep maintenance on it and what we plan to do,
if that’s not going to delay you to postpone this for two weeks, will it?
Mr. Colley: Well, it will delay me, probably create me some hardship when I got
th
to go in front of that Judge on the 27 and let him impose his sentencing on me. Now, let
me go ahead and say this, prior to the meeting that we met in front of the Planning &
Zoning Commission, one of the members of the Planning & Zoning Commission did
come out and look at our property again prior to us going to this meeting that we went to
rd
prior to this February 3 letter. On February 3 is when we went to the Planning &
Zoning meeting. So one of their members did come out to our property, and the only
thing that he recommended to the Commission is that we leave and keep open seven
parking spaces in the front of the building. I mean other than that, I mean, you know,
y’all do whatever you’ve got to, I mean, but I mean we’re not – let me just say this.
We’re not running a salvage yard in any shape, form or fashion. Back in the summer, it
may have appeared that way. I was probably spending a little bit too much time with my
family and not at work. It probably did get a little out of hand, get a little dirty. Since
that time I have been back, very, very involved in the business, staying there 5-6 days a
week, and I mean it is very clean and respectable. By all means, please come out and see
it. But we are not in any shape, form or fashion dismantling any type of automobiles. We
are completely a paint and body shop.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can, I’d like to leave that motion on the floor
that we postpone this for two weeks to give me an opportunity to go out and look at
it and to give [inaudible] and see how we can work this out.
Mr. Mayor: All right. do we have a second to that motion?
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: That motion is seconded. Further discussion? Mr. Mays, is your
hand up?
Mr. Mays: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All in favor of the motion then please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
70
Mr. Williams: Doug, I think, I think you’ve got my numbers. If you can give me
a call, we’ll go out there and look at that and try to get this as far as we can, get this
worked out.
Mr. Mayor: The next item, Madame Clerk, I believe is item number 7.
The Clerk:
7. Z-03-18 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Horace Foss requesting change of
zone from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business)
affecting property located at 2619 Milledgeville Road and containing .64 acres. (Tax
Map 71-3 Parcel 25). DISTRICT 5
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams, again you asked for this one.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I may have, I may have moved a little bit too
fast on this one. This was one at 2619 Milledgeville Road. I’ve got so much in District 2
when it comes to this kind of thing changing, that I wasn’t taking no chances. I wanted to
make sure I was on the job. Now Commissioner Hankerson may want to take over. If
not, I got no problem with it.
Mr. Mayor: Does anyone need a briefing from Mr. Patty on this?
Mr. Beard: I move for approval.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second for approval. Item number 7. Any discussion?
All in favor –
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: We haven’t voted yet, leave yet.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, he just brought it to my attention.
(Laughter)
Mr. Williams: He’s got Augusta Engine Shop there on Milledgeville Road there.
Mr. Speaker: Used to have.
Mr. Williams: Okay, used to have. That’s where I know you from. Okay.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
71
Mr. Beard: The motion is on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: You have another question, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: We have a motion to approve?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, we do. All in favor of the motion to approve, please vote yes.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Now you can leave, [inaudible].
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s see, I think this takes us now into the Finance
agenda. Is that right, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: 31, yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: 30 and 31, yes. 30 and 31. So we’ll take item number 30.
The Clerk:
30. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Mini Utility Truck for the
Public Works Department – Trees and Landscape Division from Stovall Turf and
Industrial Company of Norcross, Georgia for $16,489.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-
219).
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Williams, I think you said you want more information
on this.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Well, I see that we got other dealers in town
besides Bobby Jones Ford. That was a plus right there. But I’m wondering, you’re
talking about a mini utility truck, and Commissioner Hankerson was on earlier about
saving money. Shouldn’t we have something that we could use out of fleet? We buy top
grade equipment, we got maintenance people that keep it up for us, we pay them a large
sum of money, but then we turn around and buy a new truck. Ron, I know you just doing
your job, but is there any other way?
Mr. Crowden: I don’t see another way, sir, because of the uniqueness of the work
environment. We need the mini truck because you can’t put a pickup truck on there or
you’ll break brick or the marble slabs and that’s what we experienced in the past. They
had several years ago, the City had a working platform truck. The bed actually scissors
up and on the top level of Riverwatch [sic] you have the flags. You can’t use a bucket
truck up there, sir, you can’t use an F150 because of the way that truck breaks the marble,
72
and that’s a very expensive repair and timely repair. And then on the lower side, you have
all the landscaping requirements and the platform allows you to do the maintenance on
the pavilion, the amphitheater, both electrical and the tentage that’s used there. Right
now we don’t have any capability to do that.
Mr. Williams: So we buying one truck and we don’t have any other trucks like
that now?
Mr. Crowden: No, sir. This is a unique truck that we have no trucks like this.
Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Beard: I move for approval.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Further discussion? All in favor of the motion
then please vote yes.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: That brings us to item number 31, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
31. Discuss the establishment of a citizens committee in the formulation of
SPLOST V and Capital Improvement Program. (Deferred from January 28
Finance)
Mr. Mayor: We’ll defer to the Chairman of the Finance Committee.
Mr. Shepard
: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners. In item 16
today we approved a citizens advisory council for minority employment and small
business opportunities, utilizing the process we had used in appointing the SPLOST
forces, this advisory committee, which is two members appointed by each Commissioner
and one member appointed by the Mayor. In this item I think it’s important that we start
a discussion of SPLOST V, which is a proposal that’s generated some interested for a
longer SPLOST than five years, and I think we need to have the process begin with a
citizens committee to determine how the various elements of this community regard this
proposal. The proposal is one that’s available only to consolidated governments. As I
understand it, Mr. Wall, it utilizes existing law and it calls for possibility of using it to
achieve some of the projects that we have pending and don’t have enough funds for in the
current SPLOST. The one that comes to mind is completion of this judicial facility and
the relocation of the administration building, and another one that comes to mind is the
proposed work at the jail pod and I think the Utilities and Public Works structure. I think
we need to have dialog and discussion throughout this community to determine if we’re
73
going to proceed down this line. I think we need to determine whether we are going to
go into debt. There are pretty good arguments of going into debt, for going into debt
right now in that the historic cost of money is as low as we have seen it probably in our
lifetimes. Still, on the other side, I think that it’s a truism, and very true that you don’t
borrow yourself out of debt, so being in the debt free position that this Commission, this
government is now to the extent it is, is certainly, as I see it, a fiscally responsible thing.
But I think we need to start the discussions that, as I’ve said before, indicate whether
there is support for this at the grass roots, and if we are going to do something with our,
with our regional entities, our neighbors across the river in Aiken County and across the
county line in Columbia County, these discussions need to begin now, and I think we
should have a target date for returning their recommendations to this body by October,
. There is a lot of work that has to be done, and I
the end of October of this year
would just like to see that this citizens committee be authorized and charged and
that’s in the form of a motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Have some discussion on that? Mr.
Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Could I hear the motion again and the
points in it? I mean, Steve, on the number of years are you asking they, whether – what
are you recommending in regards to number of years?
Mr. Shepard: I’m asking, I’m asking them to come back with a recommendation.
The administration has done a great deal of work putting together a project list, and they
also had recommended from 7 to 10 years of SPLOST, a period of time which would
support both pay-as-you-go projects and would support potentially debt service on certain
projects. These alternatives need to be exposed to the citizens, Ulmer, and I think that
they should come back with a recommendation from the citizens committee as to how we
would proceed down this, down this way.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. I guess, Mr. Mayor, my concern is, what I’m hearing is
they’ve got to come back with something 7 years or greater. Are they going to come
back with a recommendation of how many years we should to this?
Mr. Shepard: Well, the point of doing this now, or the point of doing this in terms
of a long-term SPLOST is you’ve got to have some kind of length of time to support a
debt service [inaudible], and Mr. Kolb can speak to that or Mr. Persaud can come up
here, one or the other. Those are the, those are the, those are the elements of this thing,
and I think we need some way to focus the discussions on, on the elements of this plan
and what projects would be put into it so that it would garner the support of the grass
roots. If we don’t have the support of this concept, downtown, west Augusta, south
Augusta, east Augusta, we’re not going to, we’re not going to move this, this plan
forward, Mr. Bridges.
74
Mr. Bridges: Okay. Well, I’m going to substitute motion then, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Bridges: And that we move forward with the citizens committee, with each
Commissioner having two, the previous proposal on that, but that they come back with
several recommendations. The first recommendation is they come back with how many
years that SPLOST should be, whether it should be a traditional five-year or further out
than that, that they bring back, that they hold public meetings on what the projects should
be. That would be the second thing. The third thing that they bring back
recommendations of the projects to be on the SPLOST with the priority given to the old,
previous projects that we have not completed or have not been able to complete in
previous SPLOSTs. That they come back with a recommendation as to whether to
finance projects and then pay them back with a SPLOST or that we use the pay-as-we-go
method and also as was in Mr. Shepard’s motion, that that be done by October 31 with a
recommendation back to the Commission.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Bridges, I can second that motion.
Mr. Bridges: Oh, good.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll continue our discussion. Mr. Beard, then Mr. Williams, then
Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, you have kind of got me all confused here on these
different – the extent of these motions here. I kind of agreed with Steve until he start
talking about the length of time there. I don’t have a problem with citizen group coming
together with a recommendation of projects. But when we get into the other area of the
time line, that type of thing, whether we going for five years or ten years, I think we have
to make that decision up here, and I think once we’ve made that decision, we can instruct
them then to go on and, and, and do what possibly Steve had mentioned early on. I think
it’s also up to the – and I don’t have a problem with the community meeting wherein,
when you get into community meeting, Commissioner Bridges, I think that’s where the,
the representative of that District should go into those communities if he wants to have
those community meetings, and he takes [inaudible] part of that and activate that. I don’t
think we should relinquish that to these people that we are appointing to go there and
have those community meetings. So in general I’m supportive of what we’re doing, but
with all the twists that have been involved in here, in these motions, I don’t think I could
support all of that. But if we are going to do it like we did it the last SPLOST, get a
committee together, and let them work on this, and I have nothing, I have no problem
with the time line, but I think we have inserted too many little twists into this motion, the
two motions, both motions that we have here.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
75
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I kind of agree with some of what
Commissioner Beard said and I agree with Ulmer’s motion that he made, but I do have a
little problem. We talking about getting a, a, a citizens group together. We have not sit
down ourselves as Commissioners and talked about these things. Now if we going to let
them make decisions, then we going to go through what they sent or give back to us, you
know, we have [inaudible]. We ought to have an agenda ourselves and then after hearing
their agenda we ought to sit down and compromise on what we can do. But we talking
about a group, a citizens advisory group of two people per Commissioner to go out. We
have not sit down. Jim, you asked me, you say every time I go off to school I come back
with different law. Well I come back with something that ain’t law this time. At the Carl
Vinson Institute, the advanced finance training told us that no city in their right mind
would extend the SPLOST past five years. I’m not going to lock in -- this is my personal
opinion – the SPLOST for seven or ten years. I can’t support that. That just one vote.
But we have got so many other things, and Ulmer, you touched on this, on projects we
started that we have not finished. I’ve got folks in District 2 that’s still got ditches in
their front yard where there is no drainage. Water got to run from this yard to the next
yard to the next yard to finally dissipate. Then I’m going to vote and lock the money
down for ten years or seven years to do another project somewhere else? I don’t think so.
All I’m saying is that we need to sit down as Commissioners. We talking about work
sessions, we talking about having all kind of workshops and talk. We need to be talking
about this. There are proposals in the street that I get approached on all the time, and I
tell folks I’m not in favor of, that I didn’t support it, it just rumors that been put out, as to
what we has said as Commissioners, and we have not said one thing. Now I miss a lot,
but I ain’t missed no meetings. This little money they give me, I earn it. I be here every
time the doors open. So all I’m saying is if we going get – if we going to do something,
let’s talk about it among the Commissioners first so we’ll know or we’ll have some idea
about how or what we proposing, and when this citizen group come back with a list, we
can look at what we got and what they got and we take some from theirs and then we’ll
take some from ours and we’ll make a brand new list. But to give them a list to come up
with, then we kick the whole thing out, it make no sense to put them together. So we
need to talk first. We need to sit down among men and women and say hey, this is what
we like to do, this is what we looking at doing. And I’m not in favor. And I tell folks
everywhere I go, don’t even think that I’m going to vote to extend the sales tax money for
7 or greater years. I will not do that. I just don’t think that’s right. That sales tax is the
only thing keeping this city going. [inaudible] lock it in for a specific project, that’s what
it’s got to go for. And I think we be doing an injustice to the city. I have people come to
me all the time wanting to know why there is no restaurants in south Augusta. I say
simple to figure out. The reason we don’t have Applebee’s and all the other things you
want in south Augusta is cause we don’t have the infrastructure. But we going to take the
money and lock it in for 7 years to do other projects with? That dog won’t hunt. It just
won’t bring back nothing. So we need to let him go, start over again. That’s all my
comments, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek?
76
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will be as brief as possible. I think the
process is a good process. It’s served us well in the past. We do need to go ahead and
start the project list around the city, keeping in mind the items that have not been
completed that we have promised people, in addition to the list that local media continues
to promise people that we are working on. I’m going to ask this question and I’m going
to make a promise to all of you that I’m going to ask it every time this subject comes up.
I was privileged enough to meet with a member of the Columbia, South Carolina, city
council last week, and the issue came up about the new Carolina Center. I asked him
about the cost of it. The seating there is 5,000 seats more than what we’re prepared to
build, and yet it’s almost half as much as the money that has been forth or the estimate
that has been forth to this city, and I as a citizen and a Commissioner say that one is
smelling like a duck and it’s quacking like duck. Somebody is going to have to come up
with some answers before I go to the public and recommend a new civic center. They are
going to have ask why – it sounds to me like we’ve got a solid gold price on something
that’s smaller than a very nice facility just down the road. And I promise you I will bring
that question up until I get a satisfactory answer from now on into the future. As far as
other projects, we [inaudible] waiting on a report back from CVB concerning the
economic viability and impact of the three facilities mentioned, the Civic Center, the
performing arts center, and the addition to the Convention & Visitors Center. I think that
information needs to be taken into consideration, and as Commissioner Williams said, we
all need to sit down and talk about our priorities, those things that we remember that have
been promised. Maybe staff can remind us of some of those things we’ve forgotten, but
we do need to come forth with our own list that reflects the needs and interests of all the
people in the city and now allow this process to be driven by a few special interest
groups. I think if we do this and start this process now, the end result can be a product
that we can all agree upon.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, thank you so much. The last time that we put together a
citizens committee, a good group of people, worked very hard, achieved a lot of results,
and helped us tremendously. I think each that we have gone out since 1987, one, we’ve
made improvements because we’ve increased the amount of different things that have
gone into sales tax and that’s the first improvement. I think to prioritize on what we did
sales tax before [inaudible], it was a great improvement. It was a greater improvement to
deal with the committee that worked the last time. I think that the first part of both of
those motions that are on the floor, in fact, quite frankly, I think you’ve got the same two
motions that are occupying the same spot. And there may be a reason for that, but I’m
not going to get into that. But you know, I think that the committee needs to go ahead
and to be established. I think you have time to give some charge to that committee when
the Commissioners have, quite frankly, sensibly sat down and determined a so-called
wish list of things that have to go out there. That’s ultimately important, particularly if
you are going to even think about extending the time limit provision that’s there on the
SPLOST to a different time period. I think when you go out, and as Don King would
say, you know, only in America, and it’s still America, and each of us has the right to go
and we have a right to call meetings, we have a right to go out and say, quite frankly,
77
other than to holler fire in a crowded building, we can basically say what we’ve
[inaudible] to do. But I think to go out when we have not yet put together a complete
laundry list of items to bring before the general public, the special project group things
are nice. I probably travel and go to as many special events, particularly sporting events
and entertainment as any two Commissioners up here, maybe all of y’all put together.
[inaudible] Super Bowl, the World Series, the NBA playoffs, professional fights, and just
came back from All Star weekend. So I love the events. I love what they can do for the
city and having the proper facilities to do them. But I also remember prudently,
gentlemen, a bond issue that was rejected that left $140,000,000 worth of unanswered
projects on the table, with no funding source. Like an empty and abandoned house, they
didn’t start costing less. They are beginning to cost more. We have not decided where
they fit into this puzzle. We’ve not decided whether or not they will go into the laundry
list, gentlemen, that we have, that we’re going to be taking throughout the community. I
would much rather [inaudible] meet with citizens to say what are you going to do about
this, I would much rather us meet together and say let’s put all of it on this particular list
that we are going to take around the city. If there is a concern about the performing arts
center, if we are going to talk about the new arena, let’s also talk about [inaudible], let’s
talk about septic tanks, let’s talk about the people who still live in fear coming off of
[inaudible] and Raes Creek that empties over into my subdivision in my District on
Willow Creek to a point that they have been scared ever since 1987 when the first sales
tax went out. Those are the issues that we need to sit down as a Commission and talk
about, yet I keep hearing that we are moving. We got a list of stuff we’re taking
somewhere. Well, be prepared, gentlemen, if your list is already made up and that’s
where you are moving. Be prepared to meet troops from those areas that are on the road,
too. I think you’ll find that on that difficult road, you’ll find a much greater reception if
there is something there for everybody that they can intelligently discuss. But how can
you charge a committee in our right mind, with the two motions y’all got out there, to go
out, formulate extended attacks dealing with projects that we may do on special projects
when we’ve not compiled all of the needs of this county, that need to be seriously looked
at? Now we can let this thing get dictated and get run away by what’s driven and what’s
written, and because it sounds good. But believe you me, when the flooding and the
other aspects of needs take place and people from every end of this county pack these
chambers, the editorial staff will not be there to support you, and to give you a crutch to
say what are you doing about those things? And particularly when you tied up all the
money for the next seven to ten years. Now you’ve had the referendum rejected. We got
to be careful about what we place on SPLOST and how we do it. Marion mentioned
about that class. We talked about what’s reserved for consolidated governments for the
public information and maybe for yours. It’s kind of ironic that we think about 7 to 10
years because the gentleman who said it was very, very stupid was from our consolidated
government, running it in Athens Clarke, another consolidated government. There in the
classroom speaking [inaudible] counties across this state. That’s their feeling, and
official feeling about it. But that’s an opinion, and like noses and like backsides, we got
them, so that can go anywhere. But I would just urge you let’s go ahead with the
committee, but before we get to playing Santa Claus to a few folk and Scrooge to some
others, let’s determine what’s going to be loaded down on the sled. We’ve not talked
about that yet. And Marion and Andy are completely right. And I think you’d find that if
78
you would talk about that first, we were saying we were going to deal with certain work
shops. They got postponed. We got in the budget [inaudible]. Some of us came here on
certain days to get a work shop. And some things never been discussed. Some
[inaudible] products have been brought up, but all needs have not been brought up,
gentlemen. And I think y’all need to be honest about that [inaudible]. You probably
could have almost a group of happy campers if we back up a little bit and that if we
decide what we are going to put out there and if we going to give a charge to those
people. I think not only will you probably win near unanimous support of this
Commission, but I think you have a better product to sell to the general public, they have
a better understanding then of what you are going to do. But I think to take it out here,
quite frankly, as I see it, polished but yet still raggedly, then I think you are asking for
trouble and then you are going to have people that you are going to [inaudible] with, and
the worst thing that we can do – we’ve been very successful with the sales tax. It has
been the one thing that has crossed community lines, neighborhoods, pocketbook lines,
color lines, it has been something that everybody has agreed on that’s working. We do
not need to damage that delicacy by going out and saying what all we going to do, what
we going to do it with, and yet the very people who going to give away this particular
amount of delegation to another group has not yet sat down as a body and decided what
it’s going to do. I mean when I hear people ask me what’s going to be on the list for
SPLOST that’s in a community in the four Districts I’m in, to a point, yeah, some people
can carry that and carry that list. But I’d like to see one. You know, to a point is there an
established list, other that what has been touted, quite frankly, in the daily newspaper.
And those things, and I don’t have a problem with the Administrator carrying that bucket
on those special needs, but to a point there are special needs about special people, and to
each person and each community, and they may have different needs. And to each one,
those needs are very important. And in this process that we’re going, they’re not being
addressed because we’ve not addressed it. We’ve not sat down and done one thing. And
I think before we delegate a responsibility that’s, quite frankly, written in the clouds and
as foggy as it is on a British morning, before we do that and send it out, we need to have
some sense of where we go with it. Andy’s proposal, you were quite right, it was at half
the cost, and I [inaudible], Mr. Mayor, because he wanted to know if it sounded like a
duck, it was something like a duck. No, sir, Andy, it does not smell like it duck, it
probably smells more like a horse, and that’s where your cost is coming from.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I hate to follow that. But I was here in
1988, ’92 and ’96, when most of the administrative staff worked to put together the needs
of the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax. We put those together as department
heads and we put them together as administrators on the old county side, and then we
were able to go to the citizens and say this is the needs that the people who do the work in
this county would like to have presented to the people. I was not here in the year 2000
when the last issue was passed, but we did used citizens advisory committees, but they
were charged – and I see Mr. Mays shaking his head because he remembers we were
here. They were given a specific charge that we could do and what needed to be done,
and so I still lean towards doing that. I would like to see this Commission charge a
79
citizens review committee. I know we’ve got motions on the floor and we can’t do
anything about that. But my feelings are that we kind of need to see what the needs are
th
that are out there that need to be finished. I had two calls yesterday for projects in the 7
Commission District and there is no money there to do it. And I know all of you are the
same way across the county. And I’m for the new issues. I’m still a little bit concerned
and I think that the main purpose of the Special Purpose tax was to hold down property
tax. I don’t know that it was designed to build new facilities. Maybe through bond
issues it could be. Maybe through the example that the Board of Education set where you
can pass the bond issues and you can pay them off with the sales tax revenue. That’s
another horse of another color. That may be the wrong term to use, but another animal of
a different color. But that concerns me a little bit. I’d much rather see this Commission
sit down as a group in a work session and come up with the projects, and whatever they
may be, and for whatever length of time, and then take it to our citizens. Let them go,
just like we did last week, with the animal control board. I don’t know how many of you
went to your meetings with the animal control people, but that was an eye opener to go
out in the Districts last week and get citizen input on that. My feelings are, Mr. Mayor, I
think we need to have a committee of this Commission or all the members of this
Commission establish that first.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If I could – I know it’s on the body now,
but I would be happy to amend my motion such that while we’re going through the
process of the motion we establish a work session of the Commission in which
department heads bring their lists of suggested projects for the SPLOST to us and we,
from that, on our own, work up a recommendation of projects for the citizens committee
to consider. If I could have that as an amendment to the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the motion to include that? Mr.
Beard?
Mr. Beard: Just a clarification. When we say amending the motion, does that
mean that the first part of his motion is still intact?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Just adds to it.
Mr. Beard: No. I object to that. There was too much in the first part of your
motion. I’m in agreement with the, with the amendment.
Mr. Mayor: We can, we can always vote on the amendment. Mr. Shepard?
80
Mr. Shepard: I was going to, well, I mean, based on the conversation we’re
having here, I was going to offer what I thought Mr. Mays was saying as an
amendment to the main motion that I think the process should be that we have work
shops here as Commissioners and we develop a charge to the citizens committee
before we appoint the citizens committee. I think that should be the process and I
would offer that, if that’s what I heard in the comments from Mr. Mays and Mr.
Boyles, I would offer that as an amendment to the main motion if that’s acceptable
to the body.
I mean I think we – my point has been all along since we’ve had these
discussions that this has to be a, a process that’s supported at the grass roots, and if it’s
not, then, you know, we’ll continue with the current SPLOST for the next few years and
then we’ll consider it basically in 2005 when we do the SPLOST beginning in 2006
[inaudible]. So I would offer it as an amendment to the main motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to that amendment to the main motion?
Mr. Beard: What is the main motion?
Mr. Shepard: The main motion is to appoint a citizens committee but what I’m
saying now that I’d like to do is to, having heard your comments today, I’d like to
proceed by holding appropriate work shops on the SPLOST and develop a charge to the
citizens committee and then once we develop that charge then we could appoint it the
format that we’ve used in previous SPLOSTS, two representatives appointed by each
Commissioner and one by the Mayor.
Mr. Beard: I have no problem – if the main motion was to appoint a citizens
committee, I have none.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection?
Mr. Mays: I have no objection, but I’m assuming so I better ask.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, what, what does this do with the time frame of events?
Because we discussed earlier in terms of how we were talking about 7 to ten years. Am I
assuming then that this will be determined as we go through the process of looking at the
things that we are going to have to do, then we make that determination during that
period of time?
Mr. Mayor: I would believe that would be correct, Mr. Mays, cause once you
come up with your list, you’ve got to come up with a way to pay for it. And so to do
what you want to do you may have to extend it. If you don’t want to extend it, you may
have to cut down your list a little bit.
Mr. Mays: Well, I think Steve’s accomplished that, but that was my, that was my
main thing all along, because if we were determining seven years but then there is no
81
complete list. It goes to exactly what Commissioner Boyles was talking about in terms of
the fact that while there may be very good things that’s on what I would consider at this
point an abbreviated list that is being promoted as such, an abbreviated list, there still is
not a complete list. So it may be – that’s why I say you may find some happy campers in
the extended term, Mr. Mayor, because you’ve got to look at –
Mr. Mayor: You may come up with a 20-year list.
Mr. Mays: I doubt that seriously.
Mr. Mayor: But when you start adding projects, I don’t doubt that you could
come up with a list for 20 years.
Mr. Mays: But that’s my reason to a point that when the projects turn up in
reality and you put out a septic tank and sewage versus what’s to go somewhere else,
that’s where the rubber really meets the road, and I think you are going to find that out
when those citizens groups meet and represent the various communities, they will then be
able to decide what’s then on communities’ minds. They need to have the choice of
determining whether or not we spend $80 million to $60 million here, as Andy has said,
to build something that seats 2300 folk, more than the one we got not, or do we go for the
gusto and deal with something that may cost less but actually seat more people and can
deal with more events and attract more things to this city? None of those things have
been [inaudible] answered yet.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. The Chair will rule there has been
adequate debate on this. We first will take up the substitute motion from Commissioner
Bridges. Anybody need the motion reread? All in favor of the substitute motion please
vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Boyles: Does this include the amendment?
The Clerk: No.
Mr. Boyles: The amendment is on the original motion?
The Clerk: Yes.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion fails 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion as amended. Any
discussion or questions on that?
82
Mr. Williams: What’s the original motion, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: I’ll ask Mr. Shepard and the Clerk to negotiate the wording on that.
The Clerk: The Commission conduct work sessions and then appoint a citizens
committee to discuss the projects list.
Mr. Shepard: Conduct work shops and develop a charge to the citizens
committee, and then the format of the citizens committee is going to be the same as the
previous SPLOST and the same as the advisory committee that was adopted earlier today,
two from each District and one from the Mayor.
Mr. Williams: Okay. No problem. Ready to vote.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor please vote in the affirmative.
(Vote on original motion with amendment)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Does that include all the items? We’ve still got a couple on Finance,
don’t we, Madame Clerk? 36.
The Clerk: 36.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 36.
The Clerk:
36. Discuss refund to Florence M. Bentley regarding 1999, 2000 and 2001 taxes
paid in error in the amount of $596.11 on parcel #33-2-164. (Referred from
February 3Commission meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you have an opinion on this for us?
Mr. Wall: I have, and I’ve circulated it, and I think Mr. Reece and I are in
agreement that it should only encompass 2000 and 2001. The 2002 taxes were essence
corrected by the Board of Tax Assessors after the tax bill went out. That constituted the
third year. And so my recommendation is that you refund 2000 and 2001 but not 1999.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Bridges: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion?
83
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yeah, I’ve had adequate discussion on this one, too, and I guess to
lighten us up a little bit I guess that’s what they say when you send folk to school
sometime they can learn too much. But you know we got an opinion out there and the
[inaudible] got to respect the Attorney’s opinion. But I put the same case scenario before
several other different Commissioners across the state that have had the same problem
and some ruled the way we ruling and some rule another way totally. So I think, I would
feel much more comfortable, I think what would help us in this, is if there were a
standard situation of doing it. The question I’d like to ask in the court case that you made
reference to, was that a Superior Court case, was it [inaudible] an appellate Court, or did
the Georgia Supreme Court made a final decision on it, Jim?
Mr. Wall: It was a Superior Court case that was appealed to the Court of Appeals,
so the decision is a Court of Appeals decision.
Mr. Mays: So I guess they just ran out of money when they got there. Was any,
was any – those were all judicial cases as such; right?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Mays: No jury in that town heard any of these?
Mr. Wall: I don’t know that the opinion indicated, but I would doubt that it was
[inaudible]. It was [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: We ain’t going to argue about it today, Mr. Mayor. I’m just going to
vote the other way on it cause I just feel like it’s still, when a citizen has found an error
and prior to either the period of paying taxes being over with, that I think the opinion, the
three year ruling, I think he is absolutely correct. But I think when you apply the
different methods in terms of which it was found the, the, the taxpayer found it, found it
before the time that it went out, got it adjusted in that office, and [inaudible] own
admission know that we probably have several years that go back past the three years,
that if the law would allow it, to refund into those, but it doesn’t, I think, quite frankly, if
it went before a jury of some folk that feel like, particularly after we just raised taxes, that
the jury probably would decide with the complainant and the person in there about the
$200. And I think that’s probably why Ms. Bentley is not here today, to take off from
work again, to waste her time to come to what would have been the fourth meeting, to
deal with this, but it was an argument about principle. But I’m just, I’m going to shut up
on that, Mr. Mayor, and just vote no on it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
84
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Sonny, if I could ask him a question. Mr.
Mays brought up a couple of points. Did the property owner find and try to rectify this?
I mean I remember you coming –
Mr. Wall: Yes, numerous times.
Mr. Williams: Numerous times. Okay. Now the property owner came in, and
we’re not talking about a lot of money. Sonny, I remember you came in and you was
trying to change some [inaudible] and you said you made a mistake, you overlooked
somebody, you came back. You remember that?
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: And I asked you how many more, you know. Were you coming
back? So the mistake had been made in the government with the people downstairs, but
the property has tried to correct it. I think it would be unfair. I hear Jim in his ruling, but
I believe – we talking about what, $200 more? Is that right? We talking about $200
more to a taxpayer who come down and rung the bell and say it’s a fire outside,
somebody need to come out.
Mr. Wall: This case [inaudible] property is not in the county in which are levying
taxes, and he was paying taxes to a county that the property wasn’t even in. And he kept
protesting and the Court limited it to the three years. So you’re talking about being
unfair, that’s about as unfair as you can get. And I understand that, you know, that
taxpayers ought to only have to pay the taxes that they are obligated to pay, legally
obligated to pay, but there is the three year rule and it’s a harsh rule, I grant you that, but
–
Mr. Williams: And [inaudible] ruling, Jim. I can’t hear you.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: Most situations. I accept that. I’m going to make a substitute
motion then. Ain’t a motion on the floor, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: We don’t have a motion on the floor.
Mr. Williams: Okay, then, I’m going to make a motion that we pay her.
The Clerk: [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry. I stand corrected. We’ll take the substitution motion.
Mr. Williams: That’s all right. I just told Jim that there’s an exception to every
rule, so we understand that. I’m going to make a substitute motion that we pay her this
time for the three years since the taxpayer, the property owner came down and tried to
85
correct this several times and went through all she went through and paid her good, hard-
earned money, and I think it would just be right. I may not get a second on it, but that’s
my motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, well, Mr. Williams, I ask you to clarify the motion because
the contention is that if we give her two more years, we’ve paid her three years. I think
what you want to do is specify the years that are in the agenda item in your motion so
there is no question. It would be 1999, 2000 and 2001.
Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor. That’s my motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Mays: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a second. Sonny?
Mr. Reece: Just for clarification, if you going to do that, the dollar amount in
item 36 is going to have to be adjusted, if you go back to ’99.
Mr. Mayor: What will the corrected amount be, Sonny?
Mr. Reece: I’ve got it here.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
Mr. Reece: $818.80.
Mr. Mayor: $818? Did you note that correction, Lena?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any further discussion on the substitute motion? All in
favor of the substitute motion then please vote in the affirmative. Looks like we’re going
to have to raise our hands again. All in favor of the –
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Got it?
The Clerk: Let’s try it again.
Mr. Mayor: All right. There we go.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Shepard vote No.
86
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion fails 3-6-1.
Mr. Mayor: So that takes us to the original motion. All in favor of the original
motion then please vote in the affirmative.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see, did we do 37? We’ve still got to do item 37. Let’s do that
next.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Item number 37, if I’m not mistaken, Mr. Beard appointed a
subcommittee to work on this particular item, and I think Mr. Mays is Chairman of that
committee. So is there any need for us to take this particular item up on the agenda since
that subcommittee is going to be working on it and coming back with a recommendation?
If not, I would ask –
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, it is.
Mr. Kuhlke: It is?
Mr. Mays: Uh-huh [yes].
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: It’s not what you think.
Mr. Mayor: If you’ll read the caption, Madame Clerk and we’ll defer to Mr.
Mays.
The Clerk:
37. Discuss funding of EEO position. (Requested by Commissioner Mays)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, the reason why, since it’s on here and it was something
that I did not do the other day in committee, you had had some previous commitments of
being in and out of committee meeting, and Bill thought it was something a little serious
that I needed to added to this today, but that’s not my reason for pulling this off and
87
wanting to discuss it. It’s not about the substance of what we’re doing. It’s, quite frankly,
to, to end hopefully this meeting on a, on a good note today as we bring to a close. It’s
one to, I guess as the senior member of this Commission, to thank the Mayor for reviving
this thought process in his state of the city address. I’ve addressed this to him personally
and I think to each member of this Commission we have said it, but not necessarily said it
to you, that we thought that the speech that you delivered on that day was one that was
very timely, one that was not just of style, but more of substance and more of
commitment, and of things that we are trying to get done and want to really work to have
some of those ideas brought before this Commission. This is just one of many. I was
kind of hoping it would have got on early in the day, and if I had of known we’d have got
down to this low, I would have whispered, but I couldn’t tell you what it was about. But
I think to thank you on behalf of the Commission, not just for this idea to do, but I think
we express this that there are things that we want to try and do, each and every meeting.
Definitely every month. Of some of those things and ideas that you brought out that I
think are positive that we can all work together on and that we will have the time, if we
will take the interest, to meet with you sometimes, in private, and to discuss those
particular ideas and to try and move forward on them. While you may not be a part of
that particular subcommittee, as Chairman I will be seeking your input on it and your
interest I know is there. I appreciate it very much and from all of us, in terms of even
though we may have clapped politely that day in reference to the state of the city address,
I think it was one that we thought that hit a lot of points that needed to be done and that
will bring us into the process, hopefully that while we may have debate, while we may go
through that democratic process, that we can together do those things that are good for
the people of this city, and I just wanted to say that on behalf of all the Commissioners
I’ve talked to, and I think we are unanimous in that opinion.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I appreciate it, but unfortunately that’s the
briefest you’ve been today, so if you’d like to elaborate on that a little bit more, I’d be
glad –
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Mays: As you bring the other ideas forward, as you bring the other ideas
forward, I’m going to be here for you to try and push some of those through. And I
encourage other Commissioners to do so.
Mr. Mayor: I sincerely appreciate your comments, Mr. Mays. Thank you very
much. Let’s see, I’m lost in my note taking where we in Engineering Services. Madame
Clerk, you’re going to have to tell me which items we have got to deal with.
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Item 40?
88
The Clerk: [inaudible] to Committee.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, item number 50 is the only one for the body?
Mr. Cheek: Only one for the body.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, item number 50. If you’ll read the caption and is Mr. Russell
still here? Okay.
The Clerk:
50. Report from Deputy Administrator Fred Russell regarding the flood
mitigation work group.
Mr. Cheek: Can I open before Fred addresses with just a comment?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I want to take just a moment to brag on staff of the
Commission’s representative to the local emergency planning committee. Staff has – we
mandated a couple of years ago that there be four full-fledged drills held in this city to
prepare it for emergency situations. That went unheeded for many months, and LEPC’s
participation began to wane and so forth. The first quarter of this year, we will have
exceeded that four drill measure that we sent forth. We are have preparedness drills. The
LEPC is seeing membership in our local industry and businesses increase by leaps and
bounds. The last meeting, it was such that there wasn’t even enough room, seats
available for people to sit in there. Just wanted to say that Deputy Administrator Russell
and his handling of emergency management has brought up back, and [inaudible], too,
have brought us back to a point that we were at when we lost our Emergency
Management Director two people ago, and that they are doing a tremendous job in
preparing this city. In fact, I was able to report to Heidi – she called and asked if there
was anything else one night on an issue – we had a freeze drill, impromptu freeze drill
with staff one or two weeks before the actual freeze came to Augusta. So y’all are doing
a tremendous job of preparing this city and taking us forward in emergency management,
and I just want to congratulate you for those efforts.
Mr. Russell: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. For those of you [inaudible] be careful.
[inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, I appreciate those comments because there has been
some suggestion that since the last EMA Director left that we haven’t had an EMA
Director, and I’ve contended all along that the office is staffed, is has leadership, and I’m
glad to see that people are taking notice that we are moving in a positive direction and the
city is indeed protected as it should be.
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
89
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Ms. Turner: My name is Terry Turner. I’m with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission. And to describe the leadership that we have been taking and the
direction we are going, Mr. Russell asked me to update you on the status of the flood
mitigation work group. This consists of a group of individuals that were actually charged
back in October. Our first mission was to find a way to buy out four homes in the
Commonwealth subdivision. I am glad to report by hopefully the end of this week we
will have approval on that project, with the city only picking up 10% of the bill. The
State and Federal will pick up the other 85%. We don’t have anything officially yet, but
we are being told that indications are that we will have that project funded at the levels
that I have suggested earlier. We also have sent out our [inaudible] flood mitigation plan.
That will be turned in by February 22. We will meet directly after that, the selection
committee will meet. And we hope to have a recommendation to you at the March 12 –
th
y’all changed the date on me – the March 12 Engineering Services Committee meeting
as to a recommendation on who, who the selection committee feels like we should award
that contract to. As part of that effort, as soon as that contract is let, we are mandated by
the State to do a hazard mitigation plan which has to be done by October ’04, and we will
be applying for grant monies to do that. We have secured $27,000 to do the flood hazard
mitigation plan and we will seek funding to do the hazard mitigation plan due in ’04.
And last but not least, in trying to secure information for the flood hazard mitigation plan,
we have found three additional properties that desperately need to be bought out in this
community. Two are in Mr. Cheek’s District on [inaudible] Road and Rozella Road.
One is in Mr. Boyles’ District on Chelsea Drive. Two of the homes cannot be lived in.
They have not been lived in since 1990. They are in deplorable states of disrepair. The
one on Chelsea is occupied by an older couple who in 1990 received enough flood
damage that it exceeded the value of the home. With your permission, I will proceed
with a grant application on those. It would need to be turned in by the end of the month.
Again, I remind you, we are paying a dime on the dollar right now. We will not get this
opportunity again I don’t think in the foreseeable future. The money is available at the
state and federal level, and at the local level we have monies left over from the 2000
allocation for the initial 12 buyouts. Any questions?
Mr. Mayor: Would it be appropriate for a motion to authorize us to go ahead and
proceed with that grant application and accept the grant?
Mr. Colclough: So moved.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor of that motion please
vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
90
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson had to leave the room. He’s got a town meeting
tonight so that’s why he has to leave.
Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to thank Ms. Turner for all the work she’s
done since she’s taken over this project, and it’s really made a big difference, and I really
appreciate that.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Boyles: I know the citizens up in west Augusta do.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Cheek: Those in south Augusta as well.
Mr. Mayor: All right. That takes us to – let’s see, Mr. Kuhlke had to leave too,
Madame Clerk, if you’ll note that, and Mr. Kolb had to leave to be on the program at Mr.
Hankerson’s town meeting tonight. That takes us, I believe, to item number 68.
The Clerk: 63.
Mr. Mayor: 63, I’m sorry.
The Clerk: 63.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry. We’ll go back to 63.
The Clerk:
63. Discuss House Bill 92. (Deferred from the Commission February 3 meeting)
Mr. Mayor: This is the bill that has been drafted for consolidated governments to
allow the LOST, the Local Option Sales Tax, that’s the penny collected, for dollar-for-
dollar rollback of property taxes to increase for consolidated governments from 1% to 2%
by referendum of these governments. The GMA Legislative Alert last week indicated
that the bill, which is now called House Bill 287, it’s a derivative with some minor
changes in it to correct it, has passed out of the Ways & Means Committee and GMA in
its Alert says it is supporting the needs of consolidated governments and would like to
see all cities have the ability to raise additional revenues. So I brought this forward,
asking the Commission to endorse this enabling legislation. This legislation does not
raise any tax in this city unless the Commission puts it before the people to make that
decision, and there is no mandatory requirement that we ask the people to make that
decision. And so I would encourage in the spirit of cooperation, as we’ve often talked
91
about things, what can we do in consolidated governments, how can we help each other,
this is an issue that came out of Columbus where they need the revenue, they need to
raise this tax. We ought to support them in this effort, since it does not require us to do
anything, because we could be the next consolidated government asking for special
legislation that would help us and we would need to help both Athens and Columbus, so I
would ask us to offer our support of this bill.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I move for approval.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, yes?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I support what you saying. Is there any way we can get
our public information officer to cut a press release detailing the very things that you just
talked about, where there is no confusion in the media about us raising taxes locally?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, we can certainly do that. Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: In fact, there was an editorial about a week or so ago that was very
confusing. It had the taxes mixed up and I sent corrected information to the newspaper
but I haven’t seen a correction.
Mr. Cheek: I have hope, but they are sometimes very confused over there.
Mr. Mayor: People understand that by passing this bill we are not raising
anybody’s taxes. It doesn’t affect the tax rate here at all. Any further discussion? All in
favor then of the motion please vote in the affirmative. And Madame Clerk, if you
would, if you note we are talking about House Bill 287 in the motion, as opposed to
House Bill 92, which is the derivative.
The Clerk: 87?
Mr. Mayor: Right. It’s a derivative of 92.
Mr. Beard votes No.
Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Cheek: That new number is 287?
92
Mr. Mayor: Yeah, the new number is 287 [sic], House Bill 287. The next item is
item number 64.
The Clerk:
64. Discuss personnel. (Requested by Commissioner Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This personnel issue has been on here for
some time. I say some time, the last meeting. Probably going to see it again. But I need
to get some clarification on personnel and contracts. I guess my question would be to the
Attorney. Who is the overseer or the person in charge when we got people under contract
to see that their contract is being fulfilled? Is that the Attorney? Jim, whose
responsibility it that?
Mr. Wall: Well, it depends on the contract. If it’s a contract between a, someone
further down than the Administrator, the Administrator is the one who is ultimately
charged with the responsibility. I assume, because this was on the agenda last week,
you’re talking about the Administrator’s contract, and since he works directly for the
Commission, the Commission is the one that is responsible for it. And so it’s y’all’s joint
responsibility to oversee the operation of the contract.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And well, this was on last week, and I was addressing the
contract that the Administrator have, but we’ve got several other department heads and I
now that’s a different animal there. But I think the Fire Chief is under contract as well.
Mr. Wall: He has a letter of agreement. Well, he does have a contract, you’re
right, that’s right. But it would be the Administrator’s responsibility to oversee that
contract.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, I guess my question is, I mean, we’ve got up against
the wall several times with contracts for businesses and other people. We looked at the
parking lot situation we had and just other contracts. And now, when I look at the
personnel side of this, the personnel issue on contracts, I’ve got a very serious concern
about what we are doing as Commissioners as far as upholding the contract and what we
going to do about the other people that’s under contract. Jim, my last question to you is
how many other employees are under contract? I know we got the Fire Chief and the
Administrator. Is that right? That two.
Mr. Wall: How many? The only other one is the Airport Director, but the
Aviation Commission is responsible.
Mr. Williams: I’m talking about under this Commission. The Aviation –
93
Mr. Wall: Well, Sonny Reece, but he’s Director – the Board of Tax Assessors has
primary responsibility, but this Commission has to approve that contract as well.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mayor, the reason I brought it to the attention of the
Commission –
Mr. Wall: I’m sorry.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I was saying Mr. Mayor, the reason I brought it to the
attention of this Commission is that when you got employees who don’t have a contract
and have to perform and heed to the orders of the Commission and you got folks under a
contract that surely ought to be able to, that we ought to hold responsible for doing that. I
made a motion last week on the Administrator contract about the part about the physical,
that we have not had – didn’t even get a second to it, Mr. Mayor, last week, last
Commission meeting anyway. That we let him use his own physician to have a complete
physical and that would be brought back to this Commission and we will keep it in the
utmost discretion because, because of the health situation. But we have not been able to
do that. I’m going to make that in the form of a motion again, Mr. Mayor. I don’t know
if I’ll get a second on that, but if I don’t I’m going to put it back on the agenda next time.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there a second to the Commissioner’s motion? Your
motion dies again for lack of a second, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Jim, I’ve got a question. Talked about
employees, personnel, contracts. And it’s probably a good time since the Administrator
is out of the room. Are we supposed to be reviewing our Administrator for salary? Per
contract?
Mr. Wall: Well, that was done at the end of 2002 and so that –
Mr. Bridges: That was, but that was last year. We had to catch up the six –
Mr. Wall: It was, that was part of the budget when you approved the budget, was
the same percentage. It was carried over to 2003.
Mr. Bridges: [inaudible] My understanding is what we did, we increased it
enough to take – we were supposed to review him in June of last year and we didn’t
[inaudible] so we brought up for that year.
Mr. Wall: Right.
Mr. Bridges: But we did not do anything for him for – from the [inaudible].
94
Mr. Wall: You did, the same – you did a 3-1/2% increase for 2003.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. I stand corrected then. Does the Human Resources Director
agree with that? I mean you’re an attorney, too; right?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes and no. I agree that he does have the percentage in the budget,
but it would be a good time for y’all to start looking at goals and objectives for this year.
Mr. Bridges: All right.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, Brenda just basically – I think we’re psychic friends.
That’s the thing I’d like to see us do, is us sit down with George and go over his goals
and objectives for the year and our goals and objectives for the government for the year
to see if we can’t come up with some performance goals for the ’03 calendar year.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Shepard: Call for the order of the day.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Does that bring us to 68, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Oh, I’m sorry, Marion. I didn’t see your hand.
Mr. Williams: In, in, in, in that same light that Andy and Brenda spoke of, is it
not true that the Administrator was supposed to bring a list of goals and opportunities as
well? I mean I understand what Andy said but I think in that same contract if we look at
that, that it was supposed to be where he would bring goals and objectives.
Mr. Wall: Supposed to be done jointly.
Mr. Williams: Supposed to be done jointly? Okay. Well, in that same context I
think that we – it ought to be a joint effort then where we, we would not just –
Mr. Mayor: All right, item 68, Madame Clerk.
68. Consider the recommendation of the P&A Committee to co-list the
marketing of the 1949 Pension Investment riverfront property with Graybill &
Associates and Blanchard & Calhoun Real Estate Companies. (Approved by
Pension & Audit Committee February 11, 2003)
95
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, all I wanted to know is I heard in the committee that this
would be open to any other real estate agency. I think you said that. I just wanted to go
on record it that’s true.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, what we agreed to do in committee was offer a joint
listing, because we only had two firms that wanted to market the property. However, this
would not preclude any other realtor and any other firm from bringing forth a qualified
buyer to purchase the property.
Mr. Beard: I just wanted that to get on the record.
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct.
Mr. Beard: I move for approval.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor then please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Hankerson out.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: We have one addendum item, which is a GMA membership poll.
And they are asking us for our position on a couple of taxes. I know how I’d answer it,
but I brought it to the body. Maybe what we ought to do is just go down. We’ve got four
options here, and just go down each one and vote on each one of these. Does that sound
like a logical way to do it, everyone, to just vote on each one?
Mr. Bridges: Each Commissioner is not getting to vote, then it’s just doing it as a
body?
Mr. Mayor: If we could just vote as a body and we’ll just go down each one of
these, and if we’ve got a majority, then we favor. If we don’t have a majority, we don’t
favor. Does that make sense?
Mr. Cheek: Just a show of hands?
Mr. Mayor: We can push the buttons.
Mr. Cheek: Let’s go with it.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, these are new proposals for the state?
96
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. These are tobacco and alcohol taxes for the state. The
GMA is trying to develop a position that reflects the views of its membership and have
asked us to participate in a poll, that’s all. So the first item.
Addendum item 1. Discuss GMA Membership Poll regarding the adoption of a
time-limited excise tax on alcohol and tobacco products. (Requested by Mayor
Young)
1. I favor the additional time limited tax on tobacco products.
Mr. Mayor: If you favor increasing the tax on tobacco products, if you would
please vote yes. If you’re opposed, please vote no. If we have a majority voting yes,
then we’ll check that that we favor it and send that in. If you favor, please vote yes. If
you do not favor the increase in the excise tax on tobacco products, please vote no. So if
we have six yes, we favor it. If we don’t, then we do not support that position.
The Clerk: Mr. Mays, are you going to vote?
Mr. Mays: I’m not. I’m not going to vote in this poll for this reason. I’ve got
enough problems with the Legislature to a point, number one, they going to do what they
want to do anyway. And they’ve not answered – the Legislation that we’ve asked them
as a group to do, from both GMA and ACCG for decades, and I’m not really prepared
adequately to answer anything in this poll at this time on this as an official action of the
Commission, so I can’t vote on it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. We’ll so note that.
(Vote on #1)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Boyles and Mr. Williams vote Yes.
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Hankerson out.
No consensus vote
Mr. Mayor: So we have no position on that one.
The Clerk: Right.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll move on to alcohol, additional excise tax on alcohol.
2. I favor the additional time limited excise tax on alcohol products.
Mr. Mayor: If you’re in favor of the excise tax on alcohol tax being increased,
please vote yes. If you disapprove, please vote no.
97
(Vote on #2)
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Williams vote Yes.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Hankerson out.
No consensus vote
Mr. Mayor: We have no consensus on that. Okay, the next one to favor the
imposition of additional time limit excise tax on both tobacco and alcohol. It would seem
to be a repeat of the previous two, but –
3. I favor the additional time limited excise tax on both tobacco and alcohol
products.
Mr. Shepard: I vote the same way.
Mr. Mayor: Do it the same way.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Williams vote Yes.
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Shepard vote No.
Mr. Beard abstains.
Mr. Mays not voting.
No consensus vote.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. And then the final item, I am opposed to the imposition of the
excise tax on both tobacco and alcohol.
4. I am opposed to the imposition of the excise tax on both tobacco and alcohol
products.
Mr. Mayor: So if you are opposed, you would vote yes. If you are not opposed,
you would vote no. The question is written backwards. If you’re opposed you vote yes.
If you’re not opposed you vote no.
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Shepard vote Yes.
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Williams vote No.
Mr. Beard abstains.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Hankerson out.
No consensus vote.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do you have a copy of this where you could transmit
the Commission’s – the Commission does not have a consensus for or against those
issues. I think they wanted that by today. Okay. Does that conclude the regular and
addendum agendas? I think that takes us to the legal meeting.
98
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have anything for legal, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: We do.
73. LEGAL MEETING.
??
Discuss real estate matters
??
Discuss pending litigation
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to go into legal for the items stated.
All in favor please vote in the affirmative. We need six votes to do it.
Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 8-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
74. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Hankerson, Mr. Williams, Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 6-0.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on February 18, 2003.
____________________________
Clerk of Commission
99