HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-15-2003 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
April 15, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., Tuesday, April
15, 2003, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
Present: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard, Beard,
Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also present: Spartacus Heyward, Staff Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator;
Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Rev. Hudson.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
RECOGNITION:
A. March Employee of the Month Award
Ms. Tangela McCorkle
Mr. Mayor: We have a number of people here for item number 35, and if we
could, let’s go ahead and take that up.
The Clerk:
35. Consider the following nominations from the Richmond County Board of
Health for appointment to the Community Service Board of East Central Georgia.
(Deferred from the April 1, 2003 meeting)
a) Rev. Canon Lewis Bohler
b) Ms. Sandra Hutchinson
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor then please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, Madame Clerk, let it be known that I excuse myself
from this vote because that constitute a conflict of interest for me.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 9-0.
1
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go to the consent agenda, if we may. Thank you for your
attendance.
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 29B, items 1
through 29B.
Would you like for me to call the planning petitions, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Let’s do this. Are there any items off the regular agenda we could
add to the consent agenda? How about item 36? Could we add that to the consent
agenda?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion to add that to the consent agenda, so it
would be those items plus 36, Madame Clerk. Go ahead and read what you need to.
The Clerk: Planning petitions, if there are any objectors to any of the planning
petitions, would you please signify your objection by raising your hand once the petition
is read?
PLANNING:
1. Z-03-22 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Jackson Carswell, on behalf of
Cheryl Carswell, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing an
inert landfill per Section 26-1(o) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property known under the present numbering
system as 2244 Sibley Road and containing 2.56 acres. (Tax Map 69-2 Parcel 71)
DISTRICT 5
2. Z-03-27 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Bethel AME Church requesting a
Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church parking lot per Section
26-1 (A) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property located at 1816 and 1820 Walker Street and containing .35 acres.
(Tax Map 35-4 Parcel 22 and 23) DISTRICT 1
3. Z-03-28 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the subdivision plan must
substantially conform with the concept plan submitted with this petition; a petition
by R. A. Dunaway, on behalf of Fred Thielke, requesting a change of zoning from
Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) and Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone
R-1C (One-family Residential) for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property
located at 3022 and 3024 Skinner Mill Road and containing 2.84 acres. (Tax Map 18
Parcel 8.01) DISTRICT 7
4. Z-03-30 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Faith Outreach Christian Life
Church, Inc., on behalf of Terry Cantlow, requesting a Special Exception for the
purpose of expanding an existing church per Section 26-1 (A) of the Comprehensive
2
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property 2676 Willis
Foreman Road and containing .73 acres. (Tax Map 178 Parcel 68) DISTRICT 4
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions? Under the
alcohol petitions, under our Public Services portion of the agenda:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
7. Motion to approve a request by Young Chang for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Time Saver Grocery located at 2061
Central Ave. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
April 7, 2003)
8. Motion to approve a request by Mary Wasshausen for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Oak Hotels,
Inc. d/b/a Holiday Inn located at 1075 Stevens Creek Road. There will be a dance
hall. There will be Sunday sales. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee April 7, 2003)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted. Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to the
consent agenda?
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Are there any items you’d like to pull?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull item 1.
Mr. Mayor: Number 1 for Mr. Hankerson. All right. Any others?
Mr. Williams: I’d like to pull number 15 and number 25, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: 15 and 25.
Mr. Williams: I’m sorry, I’m sorry, 15 and 20.
Mr. Mayor: 15 and 20 for Mr. Williams. Any others? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to add the legal items from the addendum
agenda, to discuss real estate matters and consider approval of the real estate matter to the
regular agenda as a placeholder.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
3
Mr. Mayor: Wait a minute. We already have a motion to approve the consent
agenda, and now we’re trying to pull items from that. Let me finish the consent agenda
and then we’ll go to that.
Mr. Shepard: All right. Thank you. No problem.
Mr. Mayor: Hold your motion. Are there any other items to pull from the
consent agenda?
CONSENT AGENDA:
PLANNING:
1. Deleted from the consent agenda.
2. Z-03-27 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Bethel AME Church requesting a
Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church parking lot per Section
26-1 (A) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property located at 1816 and 1820 Walker Street and containing .35 acres.
(Tax Map 35-4 Parcel 22 and 23) DISTRICT 1
3. Z-03-28 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the subdivision plan must
substantially conform with the concept plan submitted with this petition; a petition
by R. A. Dunaway, on behalf of Fred Thielke, requesting a change of zoning from
Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) and Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone
R-1C (One-family Residential) for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property
located at 3022 and 3024 Skinner Mill Road and containing 2.84 acres. (Tax Map 18
Parcel 8.01) DISTRICT 7
4. Z-03-30 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Faith Outreach Christian Life
Church, Inc., on behalf of Terry Cantlow, requesting a Special Exception for the
purpose of expanding an existing church per Section 26-1 (A) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property 2676 Willis
Foreman Road and containing .73 acres. (Tax Map 178 Parcel 68) DISTRICT 4
5. FINAL PLAT - OAK HAVEN SUBDIVISION – S-648 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to Approve
a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Bartles Land Company,
requesting final plat approval for Oak Haven Subdivision. This development is
located on Old Waynesboro Road at Hephzibah McBean Road and contains 18 lots.
6. FINAL PLAT – BRECKENRIDGE SUBDIVISION, SECTION III – S –651 -
A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to Approve a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl
and Co., Inc., requesting final plat approval for Breckenridge Subdivision, Section
III. The development is located on Silverton Road, adjacent to Breckenridge
Subdivision, Section II and contains 22 lots.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
4
7. Motion to approve a request by Young Chang for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Time Saver Grocery located at 2061
Central Ave. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
April 7, 2003)
8. Motion to approve a request by Mary Wasshausen for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Oak Hotels,
Inc. d/b/a Holiday Inn located at 1075 Stevens Creek Road. There will be a dance
hall. There will be Sunday sales. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee April 7, 2003)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
9. Motion to approve disability retirement of Ms. Patricia Washington under the
1977 Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee April 7, 2003)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
10. Motion to approve the transfer of $1,800.00 from the donation account
(101039111-1228113) to the general supply account (101039110-5311110) in order to
purchase a safe capture system for Animal Control. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee April 7, 2003)
11. Motion to approve to purchase server for Novell Netware 6. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee April 7, 2003)
12. Motion to approve purchase of Intranet Web Server. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee April 7, 2003)
13. Motion to approve the replacement of the external DNS Server. (Approved
by Public Safety Committee April 7, 2003)
FINANCE:
14. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Trench Compactor for the
Utilities Department – Construction Division from Yancey Equipment Company of
Augusta, Georgia for $25,079.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-063). (Approved by
Finance Committee April 7, 2003)
15. Deleted from the consent agenda.
16. Motion to deny the request for abatement of penalty on Acct. # 1160283
(2002). (Approved by Finance Committee April 7, 2003)
17. Motion to approve purchase of tickets for the American Breast Cancer
Association’s Tribute to Mothers. (Approved by Finance Committee April 7, 2003)
18. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Stump Grinder for the Utilities
Department – Construction Division from Vemeer Southeast Sales and Service
Company of Savannah, Georgia for $23,600.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-067).
(Approved by Finance Committee April 7, 2003)
19. Motion to approve the acquisition of Two (2) Air Compressors for the
Augusta Utilities Department – Construction Division from Perimeter
Bobcat/Ingersol Rand of Atlanta, Georgia for $12,200.00 each (lowest bid offer on
Bid 03-066). (Approved by Finance Committee April 7, 2003)
20. Deleted from the consent agenda.
5
21. Motion to approve renewal of contract with CONCERN: EAP (EMPLOYEE
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM) for a two year period May 2003 to May 2005.
(Approved by Finance Committee April 7, 2003)
22. Motion to approve the request from GMAC Commercial Mortgage
regarding a waiver of penalty in the amount of $6,630.68 on Map 012-0-009-01-0 –
Courtyard by Marriott LTD at 1045 Stevens Creek Road. (Approved by Finance
Committee April 7, 2003)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
23. Motion to authorize execution of Quit-Claim Deed from Augusta, Georgia to
Department of Transportation in connection with the Bobby Jones Expressway
Extension Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 7, 2003)
24. Motion to approve Real Estate Sales Contract between HomeSite, Ltd. (a/k/a
Home Sites, Ltd.), as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property for a
purchase price of $46,000.00: 2.07 acres in fee simple plus one permanent easement
and one temporary easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April
7, 2003)
25. Motion to authorize award and execution of a contract with CSRA Testing
and Engineering to provide materials testing services for the Tobacco Road Surface
Water Treatment Plant and related appurtenances in the amount not to exceed
$275,000. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 7, 2003)
26. Motion to approve a consent order proposed by Georgia EPD in response to
sanitary sewer overflows which occurred from September 4, 2002 through
December 24, 2002. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 7, 2003)
27. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget #324-04-203824335 in the amount
of $396,000 to be funded from One Percent Sales Tax Phase IV Paving Dirt Roads
Program ($301,130) and Augusta Utilities One Percent Sales Tax Funds ($94,870)
for the Belair Hills Estates Improvement Project. Also award Consultant Services
Agreement in an amount not to exceed $360,000 to W. R. Toole Engineers, Inc.
subject to receipt of approved contract documents. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee April 7, 2003)
28. Motion to approve use of Pension Property at 5th and Reynolds Street for
use by the Public Works Department for display of equipment and school field trips
during National Public Works Week. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee April 7, 2003)
29. Motion to approve contract to Beams Pavement Maintenance in the amount
of $2,342,499.73 for the Barton Chapel Road Phase II Project (CPB # 322-04-
292822678). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 7, 2003)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
29A. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held April 1, 2003.
29B. Motion to approve the request from the Human Relations Commission
regarding a change in its ordinance, Title 1, Chapter 4, Article 9. (Approved by the
Commission April 1, 2003 – second reading)
6
36. Consider nomination of Ms. Sara Leiden for an appointment to the CSRA
Economic Opportunity Authority, Inc. for a four-year term.
Mr. Mayor: So we have a motion to approve, minus items 1, 15, and 20. All in
favor then please vote aye.
Mr. Kuhlke: Ms. Bonner, I vote no on Item 29B.
The Clerk: 29B? Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: And I also vote no, Madame Clerk.
Mr. Bridges: Me, as well, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Bridges vote No on Sunday sales portion.
Motion carries 10-0. [Item 8]
Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Bridges vote No.
Motion carries 7-0. [Item 29B]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 2-14, 16-19, 21-29A, 36]
Mr. Mayor: Now the Chair will recognize Mr. Shepard’s motion.
Mr. Shepard: I again move that we add to the legal
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
meeting a discussion of real estate matters and as a place holder, to place the real
estate matter on after legal meeting.
Mr. Mayor: And there was a second from Mr. Kuhlke on that?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to that? Any objection to placing that on the
agenda? No? So we’ll order it placed on the agenda, Madame Clerk. There is no
objection.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Bridges: Could I let the record show I voted no on Sunday sales?
Mr. Colclough: Likewise here, Ms. Bonner.
7
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: The -- we’ll go to item number 1 on the consent agenda. I’m going
to defer chairing on this item to the Mayor Pro Tem, cause I have a conflict of interest on
this item. This involves a family member, so I’m going to turn this over to Mr.
Colclough on this item.
1. Z-03-22 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Jackson Carswell, on behalf of
Cheryl Carswell, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing an
inert landfill per Section 26-1(o) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property known under the present numbering
system as 2244 Sibley Road and containing 2.56 acres. (Tax Map 69-2 Parcel 71)
DISTRICT 5
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson, you have the floor.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. I just wanted to, some information, some more
information on this, what’s going on. I’m kind of cautious about these landfills.
Mr. Patty: This is a 2.56 acre tract that’s got a car lot. It’s at the intersection of
Gordon Highway and I guess Bayvale Road. And the property fronts on Rocky Creek on
its eastern side, where it runs under Gordon Highway. And for some time, there’s been
fill operation in that area, probably pre-dates the County’s flood ordinance in 1979. In
2001, the Public Works Department approved -- well, we approve a project to fill that
property, to do some limited fill and grading on that property. The property owner was in
the midst of that, and because of some complaints from some neighbors, the License &
Inspection Department shut them down, and it was determined that the amount of fill
exceeded what they could do in that area without approval of it as an inert landfill. Now
we -- an inert landfill under our ordinance is a fill operation, over a certain amount of fill,
where there is no immediate development planned. So this is not a true landfill, but it’s
just a matter of getting this property filled and graded so they can do something with it in
the future. All inert material, concrete, dirt, that sort of thing, cured asphalt, there is a
plan approved for them to put it to a finished grade. There were some massive chunks of
concrete put in there, and that’s what stimulated the property owner to raise the objection.
I think he’s taken care of -- I don’t think he’s here today. We’ve talked to him, and I
think everything is all right. But I do not see the petitioner in attendance.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I guess to follow up on Commissioner
Hankerson, and he and I had the same observation, and I think, you know, George, just
because something is of the same zoning, it doesn’t necessarily have to be the same
action. But the last one that -- and I lost that round. You win some, you lose some. But
the one that was in the, well, it still is, in the McDuffie area, that was approved, and kind
of eased this way, greased this way in, and was kind of deemed harmless per se. And that
8
basically has been more or less a source of contention since it’s been out there. And
when we knew anything, it was rolled in and plans had been submitted to EPD and then
we were kind of stuck with it. And I just wanted to make sure -- I guess the first
question, let me ask this. If there were objectors before, have there been objectors now,
and those objections that were first voiced, and it was stopped, have they been satisfied?
Mr. Patty: This came to our -- guess it would have been our February meeting,
and I had gone by to look at it. And because of the amount of fill that was put in there,
and I questioned whether it conformed to the plan that had been approved. So we got the
County Engineer to go out. Actually did some survey work out there. Got some
elevations. And they determined that it did conform to the plan. So we know that.
That’s why we postponed it. We know now that it does conform to the plan. And it’s my
understanding that the people who were objecting have dropped that objection. They did
not show up to the Planning Commission meeting the other day and they’re not here
today. It’s my understanding that they’re okay with it.
Mr. Mays: Well, that gets me, like some other objections we’ve had. The ones
that were in that area that thought that that one wasn’t going to get off the ground, they
were not necessarily visible objectors until, quite frankly, after the meeting or two, that
that one was approved, and then we had a flood that came down from everywhere, I
think, at that time, Rev. Hankerson, your predecessor was here, but from Cherry Hill,
Breeze Hill, and everything surrounding it. And it was a problem then that that horse had
gotten out of the barn. And I’m just concerned to a point that when you say landfill, if
it’s just filling it out for development, and I think that’s, you know, that’s an honest thing
to be done, if future development is going to be in there. Is there some middle ground
that it can be done without creating the actual title of a landfill, cause once you get these
things started, once they get by state approval, then they are on the road to rolling.
There’s no turning them around when they start to get ugly. If they get ugly, they only
advance and get to a point where then the complaints start and what usually happens then,
they are abandoned and then that gets to where most of them turn into little mini-
brownfields situation to start. And this may not even be that, but I just think everything
ought to be, every T ought to be crossed, every I dotted, to a point that before you say a
landfill is going in that area, with everything else that you’ve got problems with,
bordering on Rocky Creek and through there, when Engineering Services last week spent
most of our time dealing with people in this same area that have got massive sewage
problems in there. Everything from root growth to you name it, that we are going to have
to spend millions of dollars, a stone’s throw from where you’re talking about dealing
with a landfill. And I’m just not sure whether maybe you’ve exercised enough time yet
to deal with this, because I’m always leery when there are objections and then folk vanish
and then we say well, they didn’t show up. And then sometimes they didn’t show up
cause maybe they didn’t get proper notification, they didn’t get it, and then all of a
sudden you got a room full of folk [inaudible] approved it and then we get the voice
[inaudible] well, we’ve already done it and we’ll be sued then if we reverse the decision.
So I think how you correct that is to make sure all the proper parties have been notified.
And I don’t have a dog in this hunt. I do have a problem that if we let it get out the fence
to a point that it’s not done like it should be done. It would much rather, I think, deal
9
with the two weeks or whatever you got in there, explore it, make sure you’re on sound
ground. Then if you’ve got it, then I personally have no problem with it. But I just know
what we experienced with the other one. Turned into being a problem situation to where
you will probably get no positive development around that area ever or unless somebody
sneaks through, puts something in, and then folk will come in and say well, why did you
let them put this here? And unfortunately, this type of situations, they outline definitely
all Commissioners and most department heads. And then some other generation has to
deal with it when it gets out of hand. And that’s the only reason that I’m bringing it to,
that I’m raising that point on it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson:
Yes. I’d just like to have some more time to look at this. Last
week was a very busy week because of Masters and all of that going on around and so
So I’d like tomove that we refer this to the next meeting.
forth.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Have a motion and second on the floor. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mayor, the gavel is yours.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Item number 15, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
15. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) F250 Pickup Truck for the
Augusta Utilities Department – Construction Division from Bobby Jones Ford of
Augusta, Georgia for $25,734.33 (lowest bid offer on 02-156). (Approved by Finance
Committee April 7, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In committee we, this kind of got past
me, and when I stepped out of the room for a minute, but I reminded them that this day
was coming. I need to ask a couple of questions from somebody from Utilities and get a
couple of answers. Well, I see we got two people here this afternoon so I’m sure we
won’t have any problem, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Speaker: One is from Utilities, one from Fleet Management.
10
Mr. Williams: One from Utilities, okay. Well, why do we need a F250 pickup to,
for Utilities? I guess that’s my first question. We’re talking about $25,700. Why we
need an F250 pickup, Mr. Cheeks? Maybe you can help me with that?
Mr. Cheeks: This particular vehicle is slated for use by our camera crew. We
have a existing camera truck now which is the equivalent size of an F250. It looks like a
big bread truck, really. We actually purchased another robotic camera and it’s been
utilized on a much smaller truck and actually it’s just not big enough, it’s not heavy duty
enough, to handle all the hose and all the different apparatus that need to go along with
that robotic camera unit.
Mr. Williams: And my reason for asking the question is we spend a lot, we spend
a lot of money on heavy duty equipment. You talking about Dooleys and different other
stuff we got in this government. And I see them pulling a small trailer. I see them going
back and forth all over this government. And I’m wondering why we, it’s necessary to
have such a big truck and that F250 is big. There is one that is bigger. The 350 is bigger.
This is a heavy duty, like you said, Mr. Cheeks, a heavy duty like truck. But in my travel
in the last month and a half, I observed a utility truck from your department that’s been
sitting on a piece of private property for a month and a half. And I inquired about it. I
stopped. I got the numbers. I got the license plate and everything. And this truck has
been sitting there. From what I was told, was, and it’s not a 250 either, Ron, it’s a 150
truck. But if we’ve got utilities, we got vehicles sitting around this town that’s now in
use, not even on our properties, then we talking about buying other trucks, I’m a little
concerned. And y’all know I question y’all on this cause I think we buy too many, too
much, too fast, and I think that our tax dollars ought to be going for something more than
that. I understand the enterprise system. I understand how we come up with all that. But
I can’t, couldn’t understand until Mr. Cheeks explained about the camera equipment.
When I look at an F250 pickup truck, and that’s all this says in the agenda item here, I’m
thinking about a regular pickup to run around. But I’ve got no problem. I still think we
buy more equipment than, than we really need and [inaudible]. But my question was
answered by Mr. Cheeks, Ron, so I appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Shepard: Move approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor then please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 20, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
11
20. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Mechanical Sweeper for the
Public Works Department – Maintenance Division from Tractor and Equipment
Company of Augusta, Georgia for $105,009.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-108).
(Approved by Finance Committee April 7, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, sir. Again, this is another
item that come before us. I mentioned to our Public Works Director about the sweeper.
I’ve got no problem. I think we need sweepers, but I need to know how many, Mr.
Mayor, do we have and when will they be in all of the Districts, all of the areas. Last
month I think we bought one for downtown and it was specified downtown. I’d like to
know how many we have and when will we see these sweepers all over this county? I
mean there’s a lot of areas this service is being needed. But $105,000 we buying an
additional one, are we getting rid of anything, how many do we have, those the type of
questions I need answered.
Ms. Smith: Actually the request for this one was to replace it because of the high
maintenance requirements and the down time that we had associated with this particular
piece of equipment. If I’m not mistaken, we have a total of three sweepers. Right now
we are sweeping about a third of the streets in the county, so we would probably need
somewhere in the order of three to four more in order for us to be able to sweep all of the
streets in the county that have curb and gutter on even a remotely regular basis, which
would be about another half million dollars for the sweepers we need to purchase.
Mr. Williams: But you say we are getting rid of one, we’re just adding one, Ms.
Smith?
Ms. Smith: Yes, I hear you.
Mr. Williams: So we are replacing one, is that right?
Ms. Smith: That’s what this one is for, to replace.
Mr. Williams: And we need three more, you say? And we need three more?
Ms. Smith: Correct.
Mr. Williams: How soon? We just did one, I think last month. So how much
sooner will you be coming forth with the others?
Ms. Smith: Actually we will be making a request for additional capital equipment
in the Phase V SPLOST to request some additional sweepers. But right now there aren’t
funds programmed for additional sweepers.
Mr. Williams: But money is available for this one, is that right?
12
Ms. Smith: That is correct.
Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I was also concerned about whether or not we had additional
sweepers to do the south Augusta, south Augusta areas. I’ve been getting a lot of calls
from subdivisions and so forth that need sweeping. Is it that we need more sweepers or
we need someone to operate the sweepers? Cause are sweepers operated every day and
we get three more new sweepers, will we have sweepers just sitting or will we have
sweepers operating? I mean is that the answer to it?
Ms. Smith: The sweepers start operating at 6:30. I believe it’s 6:00 o’clock a.m.
every morning. And they operate every day. I mean other than -- weather permitting. So
if we got three more sweepers and I got three more operators, we would have sweepers
operating every day.
Mr. Hankerson: Is there a schedule you have to do or is it in the plan to do any of
the subdivisions, like I’ve got a call from Jamestown. They keep calling me about that
area never been swept, they never seen a street sweeper. Are there priorities or a
schedule that this could rotate or is this repeated in the same areas?
Ms. Smith: Right now, the way that the schedule is set up, there is a set area
that’s identified for sweeping to take place, and the frequency of which those areas are
swept is such that those, that’s as much as can be covered with the existing equipment. If
we want to decrease the services that are provided in some areas in order for each area to
get a little bit, then we can certainly do that, but you would have to recognize that those
areas that are currently, where the sweepers are currently being utilized, there will be a
longer time period between when those areas get swept.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. I just [inaudible].
Ms. Smith: We’re developing a plan for the sweepers to be able to present similar
to what we are doing with the inmates. It’s not all documented yet, but we’re developing
the same kind of plan.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
13
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I was just going to follow on what Rev. Hankerson had
to say, is it may cause it at some point to stretch out the period of time that we can service
some areas, but doing that would be better than seeing some areas not serviced at all.
And I look forward to your schedule or plan when it comes forward.
Ms. Smith: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further on this item? We have a motion to approve. All in
favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Before we move into the next item, with respect to item 37, that
was a placeholder and we’re not going to need that item today, and so I would ask
unanimous consent to remove that item from the agenda.
Is there any objection?
Okay. So item 37 is off the agenda. Okay, item number 30, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
30. Z-03-29 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Donald Parrish, on behalf of Hathaway
Corporation, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General Business) to
Zone L-I (Light Industry) affecting property located at 2621 Mike Padgett Highway
and containing .91 acres. (Tax Map 111-1 Parcel 17) DISTRICT 5
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Want to give us some background on this, please?
Mr. Patty: This is going out Highway 56 south, just before you get to the railroad,
there is a street named Mavis Drive that turns right in there and it goes into a fairly large
subdivision. I think probably close to 100 lots in there. It comes out on Lumpkin Road,
a road known as Yates Drive, I believe. And at the entrance to this subdivision on the
east side, south of Mavis Drive, is a tract that’s zone B-2 and then adjacent to that is spot
zoning for heavy industry. And the B-2 tract, the gentleman has rented it for some time
and has operated a business there. He basically tows cars and they stay there for a limited
period of time and then he disposes of them. And in addition to that on this property
there’s -- I don’t want to say it’s a junk yard, but the remainder of the property -- not the
part that he controls, but the remainder of it -- there’s a bunch of junk stored. And
License & Inspection, there were complaints from the neighborhood, and License &
Inspection visited the site and determined that the B-2 zoning, it wouldn’t qualify for the
B-2 zoning, you needed light industrial zoning, and there’s a fine line between what he’s
doing and what could be done in B-2. But nevertheless, we felt that it had to be LI in
order to accommodate his use. He applied for rezoning. We had objectors. We looked
at the comprehensive plan for that area, and we, the Planning Commission, I believe
unanimously turned it down. We -- I attempted to talk to License & Inspection to -- how
can I say this? -- to think of a way that his business could come into conformity with B-2
14
section of the zoning ordinance, and it does not appear that there is any way to do that.
And they may want to speak to that. But that’s basically what happened.
Mr. Mayor: All right, is the petitioner here? Would you like to be heard? Please
come forward.
Mr. Parrish: My name is Donald Parris. I own [inaudible] Transport here in
Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: Could you speak into the microphone?
Mr. Parrish: My name is Donald Parrish. I own Ace Towing & Transport here in
Augusta. I reside at 1801 Mavis Street, on the corner of Mike Padgett Highway and
Mavis. There’s been complaints from neighbors in the neighborhood that, you know,
they don’t want a junk yard in the neighborhood. That it’s an eyesore and it’s going to
decrease the value of the property or what-have-you. Well, I’m not operating a junk
yard. I’m just operating a temporary storage area. I don’t dismantle vehicles. I don’t do
anything like that. And another thing, too, is I’m not interested in defacing or devaluing
the property. I mean I live in the neighborhood. My sister and her husband and my
parents live in the neighborhood. My residence is on the adjacent corner from the lot in
question. My residence and that lot is on each, opposite corners of that gateway into our
neighborhood. I keep it very clean. You know, I don’t keep it junky and trashy. I don’t
want a trashy neighborhood, either, you know. I keep it very clean. I just need this lot to
facilitate my business. In the towing and recovery business you have to have a place to
store a vehicle short term. Abandoned vehicles or overparked vehicles, where I may have
to go pick a vehicle up out of a parking lot blocking a handicapped space, and I have to
have a place to store that securely, because I’m responsible for that vehicle. And it’s
right across the street from my residence and where my business is located, and it gives
me a good piece of mind to know that I can keep an eye on it, that I don’t have to worry.
Because as I say, I’m responsible for these vehicles. But I keep it very clean. I do not
operate a junk yard. I have no intention to. And you know, the complaints that are being
made are baseless in my opinion because it’s not going to be a junk yard. Cars aren’t
going to be stacked one on top of another like it has been said. Also one other thing, my
neighbor across the street, which he lives right adjacent to that property, a fence separates
her property from my storage lot, and she has no opposition to it whatsoever. I have a
letter from her, you know, she does not oppose it. You know, I don’t know what more I
can do. I mean I’m willing to be in conformity of whatever they tell me I need to do in
order to keep the lot. I need the lot, if it’s at all possible, that I could continue to do
business there.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Parrish. Are there any objectors here today?
(4 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Would any of you like to be heard? Okay. If you would come to the
podium and give us your name and address for the record. I think I saw four hands go
15
up. I see a number of you would like to speak. Let’s not try to be redundant if we can, so
we don’t hear the same thing from everybody.
Ms. Walton: My name is Marie Walton. I also reside at 2410 Demetra Way.
Demetra Way turns right off of Mavis Street, when you come off of Highway 56 or Mike
Padgett Highway, whichever way you like to phrase it, you turn into Mavis. Mavis come
one block and there’s Demetra. We sit on the corner lot. We are some of the neighbors
that object to this. It’s not that Mr. Parrish is creating a junk yard, per se. We’re not
saying it’s a junk yard, where salvage cars are held. But it is [inaudible], he says a
holding yard. But when you turn into that neighborhood, the first thing you see is those
cars. They are there for everyone to see. You can also see them sometimes off of, when
you are traveling Mike Padgett Highway. So this is the neighborhood objection. We
presented a petition with, I think it was like 60-something names of neighbors that also
object to this. We also have photos to show the entrance. But we’ve been living there,
along with the Parrishes. They’ve been there a long time. We’ve been neighbors a long
time. They’ve been living there over 30 years, and we are, too. We’re still there. So
what I’m saying is when you come in that neighborhood, the first thing you’re looking at
is you see a house on one side, you see a salvage yard on the other side. That just want
you’re looking at. I’m quite sure anyone in here, in whatever neighborhood you might
live in, even if it’s private or whatever, that’s not the first thing you want to see when you
turn into your neighborhood where you live. And if you ever decide you want to sell
your property, of course it’s going to bring the value down. I’m not saying we are going
to sell. I would like to sell, actually, but I’m not saying that’s possible for us right now.
But whether that be the case or not, this is what we’re faced with.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there another speaker from the objectors?
Ms. Kneese: My name is Dahlia Kneese and I’d like to object to it because when
you -- [inaudible] Yates Drive, Augusta, Georgia. I’d like to object to it because I think
that we live in a lower class neighborhood without bringing more trash in it. And it’s
hard to keep the neighborhood clean and up without bringing a junk yard in it. And just
like she said, if you get ready to sell, you can’t sell, because we have got one house next
to us that looks like junk pile. And the more junk you get into that neighborhood, the
more it looks bad. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, ma’am. Mr. Parrish?
Mr. Parrish: Yeah, in rebuttal to that, I notice that they keep calling it a salvage
yard or a junk yard, and that is basically not what it is. That’s just plain, that’s not a
salvage yard or a junk yard. Also, the last thing, if it is approved, it is my understanding
from Code Enforcement, Mr. James Mathis told me this himself, the Code Enforcement
officer, that if it is approved, that I will have to put a screen up on the fence in earthtone
colors, brown or green, to block the view of the vehicles. So if it is approved, I will have
to conform to that and the vehicles won’t even be able to be seen.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ma’am, go ahead.
16
Ms. Parrish: Yes, sir, my name is Debra Parrish and this is my brother, Donald
Parrish. I live at 1507 Mavis Street. I live right across the street from 2410 Demetra
Way, which is the residence of the Waltons. Okay, now I’m not wanting to go back to a
long story of anything, or anything like that, but a lot of this has come about, I have
pictures myself of what the Waltons’ residence looks like. Also, well, I mean, the reason
why I say that is they went and took pictures of my brother’s property and they’re doing
illegal things, also. The only thing I’m here for is my brother keeps a very good, clean
lot. My husband, who is Michael Brantly, right here, he has helped him on many
occasions pulling steel, wire, limbs, cutting everything down. If you would happen to go
by 56 right now, you would see where there is right now on a slope there where they have
cut a lot of grass, weeds, everything back. They have not finished yet, but they are
continuing the work. My brother -- at neither time has there ever been a car stacked up
on one another. I was the one who got them complaints. I went around on a Sunday and
took three hours and went around and got a petition myself, after I heard that Mr. Patrick
Walton had done one. I got about 40 signatures. And every one but about five that I had
went to told me that they had already been approached by someone and that this was
going to be a junk yard where they had told that the cars were going to be stacked up on
top of one another. I told them no, it was not going to be that because the turnover of the
cars. My brother only has a certain amount of dates to keep a car. If this person does not
show up to get the car, then he disposes of it. These cars do not pose no harmful threats
to this neighborhood. There is no leaks. There is no fluids of any kind to harm any kind
of -- you know, nothing like that. What I’m trying to say is here -- and then, what really
made me mad was that a lot of the people told me that this individual went around and
said that it was a racial [inaudible]. I’ve never been racial. I have loved this man, Patrick
Walton, like my brother. I grew up with him.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let’s just stick to the issue of the [inaudible].
Ms. Parrish: I’m sticking to the issue. I’m just letting you know that this does
hurt me as much as it does everyone else.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I understand that, but what you’re trying to do here now has
nothing to do with --
Ms. Parrish: I’m not trying to give no guilt trip or anything. But what I am trying
to say is my brother is trying to make, is trying to make a living, and it does give him a
peace of mind to know that his lot is right across the street from him. Not only does he
have a watchful eye over it, he has us, he has my parents. I mean so if there’s ever a
time, I mean we’re all there to know if anything happens to that lot. I mean it is a very
secure lot. The Hathaways do not have no problem with the lot. I mean if they did, they
wouldn’t have even rented it to him. I mean he has done a lot of work to this. Now
therefore, the other side where it is a little junkier, my brother does rent that area, he does
not rent that property. But you know, my husband is willing to clean that area if he has
able to keep that lot. But it is not going to be a salvage area. It is only going to be a
temporary holding spot for my brother’s cars.
17
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Parrish, how long have you had this lot?
Mr. Parrish: I’ve had the lot since July 1 of last year.
Mr. Kuhlke: Since last year?
Mr. Parrish: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: And the objectors, if the property were rezoned and one of the
conditions of that rezoning was he’d have to put up a certain high-screen fence around
the lot, would you still be objecting to this?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] the pollution from the automobiles? Transmission fluid,
gasoline.
Mr. Kuhlke: So you’d be opposed to it regardless?
Mr. Speaker: That’s true.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: George, what’s the purpose in the attempt to zone to a light
industry? Is it because he has to do that to keep the existing cars on the lot?
Mr. Patty: Okay. B-2 would allow him to do automobile repair, but he’s not
doing repair of cars there. He’s storing them for short period of time. And LI would
provide for that. HI would be what he would need for a full blown junk yard, so that’s
not what’s on the table. But in order to do what he’s doing, which is to store these
vehicles there without any repair associated with it would take LI.
Mr. Bridges: What else can LI be? I mean what things can be done on LI?
Mr. Patty: It can be a paint and body shop, it can be any type of industrial
operation that doesn’t result in emissions and noise and things that require HI.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. Where is the location of this lot as you turn off of 56 onto
Mavis Drive? Where is -- is it located between houses?
Mr. Patty: It’s on the corner. It would be the southwest corner.
Mr. Bridges: Are there houses across the street from it and next to it?
18
Mr. Patty: His house.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. First of all, this piece of
property is in District 2. It’s got in the agenda item District 5, but it is another District 2
problem. We’ve got 99% of those type businesses in that area and I can understand what
the objectors are saying, but I also would like to work with the owner to try and do
something, too. It’s kind of like being stuck between a rock and a hard place. But when
you talking about bringing cars in, if cars are sitting in the weather, there’s rain, I mean
you’ve got rodents, you’ve got mosquitoes, you’ve got a lot of problems that can occur
from that type business. Even if you had a screen up, George, is there anything else, a
fence make a difference rather than a screen? Now there was some photographs passed
around. I don’t know who got an opportunity to see them, but when you look at those
photographs you will see some, some vehicles that shouldn’t have been towed there.
Some of those vehicles should have been carried on off to be crushed, because you know
they were of such on that picture that, I mean, nobody is going to claim those. And I’m
afraid if we let that happen, and I’m not against it, I’m mean I think we need to sit down
and talk some more about this to see what we can get worked out. I keep saying, in
District 2 we’ve got 99%. We really don’t have no room for no more. We really don’t.
Because if you don’t start to change and do something different, they going to continue
in. We had a problem with the neighbor down the street, the other facility that was there
had cars stacked up that spilled over into the creek and everything else. That’s not even a
block away from where you are now. I think maybe if we can sit down and talk and
maybe be able to work something else out, there’s a custody ownership, I think you said
you rent from somebody else?
Mr. Parrish: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Okay, they’ve got some stuff that is not in compliance. There
stuff is all out of whack over there. I been by several times. I got several complaints. I
got several calls on it. The stuff that you don’t have any control over, once we approve
this, George, will that give the people who sharing this property with them the ability or
the right to add to what they’ve got there as well, if it’s zoned?
Mr. Patty: No, sir. What’s on the rest of that property is definitely a zoning
violation, would be a zoning violation, even if it’s zoned LI. What’s on the rest of that
property is junk and that takes HI with a special exception, which they do not have.
Mr. Williams: And that brings this point, if we can get that other stuff cleaned up,
and I think he’s a renter. He don’t own that property and the man that own that property,
it’s all kind of signs and metal material laying all over that property. I stopped, I held
onto the fence and tried to look over there as much as possible, and it’s on the main
19
thoroughfare going through 56 there. I don’t want to vote against this, but I would like
some time to try to sit down and see can anything be worked out. I don’t know the
solution but I just thing there’s something maybe we can compromise or come up with.
But I’m going to listen to the other Commissioners. I see they got their hands up and
have some comments.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’ve worked with Commissioner
Williams to clean up this corridor for a number of years now, and monitored that area.
I’ve lived in the neighborhood, about four blocks away, for a number of years. Many of
the kids that I’ve coached in baseball lived in this neighborhood and I’ve had the
opportunity to visit it daily. And so I have a pretty good grip on what is and isn’t
working in the neighborhood. I can say that the Parrishes have the nicest homes within
the neighborhood. Neat, clean. Some of the finest residents. Mr. Parrish’s home, in fact,
has made a remarkable improvement over what it was. This lot, in fact, since he’s
acquired it, has made a remarkable improvement. I drove the street today, and within less
than half of a mile on the same side of the street there are 17 separate businesses, about
four car lots, two to three auto repair shops that look like junk yards as they exist. Within
100 yards of this property is a Pershing [inaudible] missile that someone has built and
stood up out there. This entire corridor is going to be commercial of some type of
another. It is a main thoroughfare for this city. The thing that concerns me is I think we
have some personalities involved in this more than substance of issue. We have to have a
place to park these cars when they are towed. Some of these cars could very well be the
ones that we are asking to have removed from neighborhoods like this, to where we
improve them. There are laws that govern the amount of time they have to be placed in
these lots before they can be turned over to the smasher and so forth. I certainly don’t
want to see this neighborhood deteriorate. In fact, we’ve worked very hard to see
improvements come in this area. Mr. Parrish, you had said earlier or I understood that
you were going to put the barrier cloth up or a fence of some type?
Mr. Parrish: Yes, that’s what I was told by the Code Enforcement, when they told
me that I had to apply for rezoning, that if it was approved that there would be certain
stipulations that I would have to meet in order, even if it was approved, to meet the
county Code, and one was I would have to put an earthtone screen up on the fence.
Mr. Cheek: I guess a couple of questions, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, for those that are
opposition. Are there any complaints on record from any of the opposition about the
existing laydown yard that is place with any of the City entities that govern that?
Ms. Speaker: As far as I know, it has, because he’s already been cited.
Mr. Cheek: No, ma’am, I’m talking about before this. I grew up in this area so I
know it’s been a mess for a number of years.
20
Ms. Speaker: I don’t know if you were in the area when we moved in. We move
in it in ’79. So I don’t know if you were there or not.
Mr. Cheek: I’ve lived there since ’72.
Ms. Speaker: [inaudible] were gone. Okay, one thing you mentioned, you said it
was somewhat personal. We didn’t try to turn it into anything personal. The person
that’s did turn it into something personal is the Parrish themselves. When they were
turned down, originally turned down, we were called and told we was going to be
harassed, and harassed we have been. Because of this being turned down in the
beginning when it was first brought.
Mr. Cheek: Have any of your family members done business from this property?
Ms. Speaker: No. You mean from the property, the holding yard?
Mr. Cheek: Uh-huh [yes].
Ms. Speaker: No. But I know some neighbors that have.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hold on. We’re going to get this squared away. We’re not
going to stand here and argue back and forth.
Mr. Walton: They mentioned my name. I’d like to speak.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Walton: I’m Patrick Walton. And one thing that we’ve talked about was
denied at the first meeting. Mr. Cheek here, it’s a personal issue. Him and Mr. Parrish
are good friends. Their kids, they’re friends. He’s taking it personal. And he’s going
with personal facts. And I want to tell anybody in here, I don’t like it. And that’s what
he’s done since I sat down there. We don’t need this. You see the pictures. You see the
wrecked cars. You see what’s over there. I want to pose this question to you. Would
you all want this at the entrance to your neighborhood? Everybody in here, think about
that question. This is right at the entrance. There are houses all around this particular
property, and Mr. Cheek is trying to make it something personal. I know in fact they’re
friends. I told my parents and neighbors here before we even got to this. I’ll say one
more think and then I’m going to hush. And I’ll sit down. Mr. Cheek needs to abstain
from this. If he wants to make it personal, he can make it personal downstairs. That’s all
I have to say.
Mr. Parrish: This is the kind of intimidation we’ve had to --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hold it. Hold it. We’re not going to have that. Mr.
Bridges?
21
Mr. Bridges: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hold up, Mr. Bridges. Mr. Boyles. I’m sorry.
Mr. Cheek: I’d like to complete --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just a moment. Just a moment.
Mr. Boyles:
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, since we sit here and we’ve heard both sides
and it’s getting into a he said/she said contest, and I heard Commissioner Williams say
that he’d like a little more time to look at it, and since he does represent the District, I
think he should have to time to try to get Mr. Patty’s department and Mr. Sherman’s
department and the neighbors on both side and see if they can’t work out some sort of
. I’d like to make a motion that we refer this to our
agreeable and amenable agreement
next full Commission meeting and let Mr. Williams have the opportunity to sit down
with both sides and work it out.
Mr. Bridges: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a couple of things. I need some
clarification on work this out downstairs means. That sounds like somewhat like a threat
to me.
Mr. Walton: Oh, that means, you made it personal, you indicated, you gave me a
look that could kill. I’m not going to get into that [inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I just, for the record, say I have not discussed
this issue with any Commissioner prior to this date to allow this debate, to allow you to
have opportunity to judge for yourselves. Like I said, I do not, I am not interested in
demeaning any neighborhood, but I think that just behavior speak reams about why this is
where it’s at now. I definitely think that the comments made earlier were in the form of a
threat and that does concern me and I think that this is something that if there has been
any personal matter, the recent behavior demonstrates very, very quickly where that
personal attack and nature has originated.
Ms. Speaker: And I’d also like to --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, ma’am. No, ma’am. We’ve had enough discussion.
Mr. Boyles? I mean Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. George, once again we have -- down
Highway 25, 400 feet off either side is reserved for commercial. It’s a four lane road,
too, and like Mr. Cheek says there’s commercial all up and down it. There’s a junk -- at
least two junk yards nearby. Or at least one. Is this within that 400 yard [sic] limit or
22
does it apply to this street or Highway 56, is there an entrance to this piece of property
from 56?
Mr. Patty: I’ll try to answer those in reverse order. Yes, there’s an entrance to
this property from 56. 56 is definitely a commercial corridor. And to further complicate
that, you’ve got a lot of spot industrial zoning on 56 that you don’t have on 25. And as a
matter of fact, the adjoining property to this is zoned heavy industry, so that really clouds,
you know, the application of the plan to this property. But, you know, to sort of put all
this other stuff aside, puts aside the consideration that the current use, you know, the
people involved, everything else, you look at what’s best for this property, you know,
which I think is what you’re ultimately supposed to do, it’s hard to say it should be zoned
light industry.
Mr. Bridges: If there’s heavy industry next to you, I mean it’s going to be hard
for it to be residential or anything else now.
Mr. Patty: It’s a close call is all I can tell you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. It’s time to extinguish this fire.
Call for the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question has been called. We have a motion and
second on the floor. All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Cheek: What is the motion on the floor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: To allow Mr. Williams and the neighbors and the
department heads to get together and refer this back to our next full Commission meeting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Be back in here in -- what’s the next date of the
Commission meeting? Two weeks?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Two weeks.
Mr. Parrish: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Next item, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
23
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
31. Reclassify administrative position (Deputy Chief Appraiser, SG 53) in Tax
Assessors’ Office to Property Appraiser II, SG 44; distribute salary adjustments to
key personnel; revise organizational chart to reflect classification. (No
recommendation from Administrative Services Committee April 7, 2003)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard:
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, in lieu of what we discussed in committee
meeting, and I believe that the Administrator said that we would be getting a mid-year
I’m going to move at this time that any reclassification
review of our budget, and
from any department be held after we have the mid-year review.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: I second it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Discussions? Mr.
Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I notice that we were given a lot of -- and
I’m assuming this letter was signed by all of the Board members on the Tax Assessor’s
Board.
Mr. Reece: It was signed by five of the Board members at the meeting last night,
Mr. Kuhlke, and my chairman is here today to address the issue.
Mr. Kuhlke: And if I remember correctly, this request has no budget impact for
this year at all; is that correct?
Mr. Reece: That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: And just, I did have a call from one of your board members who
wanted to let me know that he felt like the board supported this reorganization of the Tax
Assessor’s office and felt like it would bring some efficiency and a better operation. So
I’d like to make a substitute motion that we approve this request from the Tax Assessor.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. The recommendation from the
board and from the Tax Assessor I have no problem with, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, but we’ve
got other departments that’s going to be coming aboard and coming on to ask for a
24
reclassification as well. We just don’t want the Tax Assessor to be more efficient. We
want all our government to be more efficient. We got enough, I think, staggered fee
scales and people who are raised and not raised. I think that our Tax Assessor been
trying to do a great job. I got no complaints. But I still say that we need to look at
everybody when we do our mid-year budget report. It’s enough, and I asked this in
committee, we had a schedule of the people that are working or the people that’s there.
But I still don’t know who is getting what. You got lower people in lower positions
making more money than people in another position and you got people in another
position, I mean it’s really hard for me to make a decision on doing what we need to do
or restructure until I know where who’s at and how long they been there. You got
seniority comes into effect and everything else. We heard from Commissioner
Hankerson that the Tag Office people needed to be reclassification. Commissioner
Hankerson brought something to my attention out at the circus the other day. We was
discussing, we was talking about this and he said to me that we were talking about
reclassification on people but we had not did a reevaluation. How can we reclassify
people that we have not even evaluated, when we don’t know what their evaluation have
said? Good, bad, indifferent? I think we doing the right thing to wait and look at
everybody. I mean we have a limited amount of sources. We talk about how much
revenue comes in through that department, and it comes through that department because
the taxpayers of Augusta have to pay through that department. Whoever will be in that
position, the money will still come through that department. I’m in support of Mr.
Beard’s motion to wait and look at everybody at one time rather than try and do this now.
We going to create a snowball effect. That’s what we done already created, as a matter
of fact. We done done so many of these one by one, two by two, then other folks are
being left out, other folks want to know when they are going to be considered. I think it’s
very unfair of us as elected officials to do that. That’s the only comment I have, Mr.
Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I think we need to look at this again because the problem that I
have with this and I have with anybody else, any department head or persons coming
forward with reorganization and giving increases to their department, we had a disparity
with salaries last year and we did reclassification to try to eliminate those disparities and
salaries. And I think that when we allow a department to distribute salary adjustments to
key personnel as they see fit, I think it still cause us to do the same thing. So we are
going backwards instead of going forward. And I don’t intend for us to go backwards as
far as salaries are concerned. I think that we need to work progressively toward
balancing the salaries and making sure that all the employees have been treated fairly and
to not allow the department heads to distribute the salaries. I commend the Chief, Mr.
Reece, for adjusting and reorganizing his department, but the part that I object of is
distributing the salaries. It’s good for us to get that [inaudible], and I think that the board
of assessors ought to know, too, what we are trying to do as far as the budget and
balancing the budget each year. We are going to have to do that in a few months and we
are trying to, as possible, to be as cost saving as possible, to do that to be sure that we can
give some increases to some of these departments that we have not, and be able to do it
25
fairly. So I think that we should just look at this and as the motion was stated that we
need to look at all the jobs and see where we are at this time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’m very concerned about where
we are with the budget. I’m hoping that we are going to get that issue on the table
shortly. I think that the model of the reorganization of the departments is pretty much
going to have to follow what’s been done here with the board of assessors and the
appraiser redistributing money around to various positions, but there are many
departments who feel they have critical skills positions, I think we’re going to have to
entertain their requests. And looking again at the money, and coming up with a package
that deals with the critical skills positions across the board. And for that reason, I’m
going to support this motion, but I basically think that what the board of assessors has
done here is what we are going to have to do with a lot of these critical skills positions.
The most painless way here is when there is a vacancy or there is a transfer out, we look
at that hard and determine what we can do with that money for those who are performing
in the department and who are still on board, and we’re going to have to shift
responsibilities. I like what I see here, but I do think we’re going to have to deal across
the board with other entities, our departments and other elected officials. And so for that
basic budgetary reason, I’m going to support this motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Reece, let me ask you this. I know there are a number of cases
out there on appeal.
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: Could you tell me just in round figures how many dollars are we
talking about that are on appeal? And I ask this question because I happen to personally
have had one on appeal since last December and I haven’t heard a word on it, and I know
how much that bill is, but I guess the reason I’m asking is the reorganization that you are
proposing, is that going to have any positive impact on getting through some of these
appeals and getting the money from people that owe the City?
Mr. Reece: Mr. Kuhlke, to answer your question, yes, it will help you to get the
appeals worked. We’re also working on something called a 2003 tax digest. And the
digest is taking precedence at this point in time. Dollar amounts, approximately $10
million in value is still out there. There are 1,500+ appeals that have not been worked.
We worked 2,682 I believe it is. And we’ve got 1,563, I believe. 1,500+ to work. At the
present time what we are trying to do is get started on the 2003 digest. And this
reclassification is taking a management position and bringing it to an entry level worker’s
position that will come in and we can train them in a hurry to help us pick up new
building permits and it will be on an entry level basis, and we can fill that. Now I can
appreciate the Commission and about, Rev. Hankerson, about distributing the income.
26
But when I went through this, I sat down -- came with the board of assessors first of all,
to get their blessing on it. Then I sat down with HR and made sure that it passed muster
there. And then it went through the Finance Committee to make sure it made muster
there. And the bottom line is that the board of assessors is aware of what the
Commission is trying to do. I take it back to them every meeting that we go to. I tell
them what the Commission is trying to do. I tell them we’re trying to adhere to that.
Now we’ve asked to get lean and mean and try to organize and become more proficient
and efficient, and that’s what we’ve tried to do. At this point in time, if we don’t do the
reclassification, I’ve got a deputy’s position I could hire into, and I want to get a worker,
not a manager. I’ve gotten it down. I heard y’all a year ago before the budget hearings,
you was wanting to increase the number of people per manager. And that’s what we’ve
done. We’ve tried to streamline that and bring it to that effect. Rev. Williams asked
about not knowing the personnel. I would be glad to answer, can give you the names, can
tell you the one at the very top of the list who’s got 30 years of experience, the one at the
second on that list has got 20 years of experience. The third one on the list has got 28
years experience. And the fourth one on the list has about 12 to 15 years experience in
the department. And we have already done this reorganization. I admire my people.
They’re stepped up to the plate. It’s worked. The board acknowledged that last night in
our meeting about how many appeals we have worked in the past three months since we
made this reorganization and the restructuring. It’s good, and I’d like to be able to hire
another entry level appraiser so we can get started, get 2003 out on a timely basis, and
then get these appeals completed.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’ve got a question, and then possibly a
comment. Mr. Reece -- no, not to Mr. Reece on this one. Much has been made and I
think justifiably so in reference to mid-year, quarterly or in between quarterly [inaudible]
reporting, in terms of dealing with reclassification and of seeing where we were involving
money. And if we’re dealing with a, to a certain extent, a non-money issue or at least a
non-increase of money issue, and it might cause it to be looked at in a different light. At
least with this Commissioner. Let me ask this. Mr. Kolb, in reference to, to a point
before we even get into our budget hearings, in reference to an update, whether it’s on
full report status, and I know this was discussed. I’m not on the committee that this came
through the other day, but there was conversation in reference to the time limit or the type
of report that would be released. What kind of time frames are we looking at in that, and
that’s if that’s caught in this proceeding then is that something that’s going to hand us
out, say another month, another six weeks, or something going two months? Where
would that possibly put us, George, if that’s where, what prevails to do that?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, if I understand
correctly your question, Commissioner Mays, that you’re asking, we are just in the first
quarter of our fiscal year. So this month, later, your next meeting or the meeting
thereafter you’ll be getting a first quarter report. At the end of June will be your mid-year
financial midpoint, and you should be receiving financial statements for six months in
27
July at some time. And also you should, in that same time frame, possibly in June, you
should receive your audit for fiscal year 2002.
Mr. Mays: And that answers my question. I guess what I’m looking for, is
probably searching for something between the two motions that’s on the floor. I can
understand where the reorganization plan needs to go and where the board is trying to
take it. This goes back from hiring a new assessor, getting him under contract, and I
think to our advantage of having somebody that knew a lot about this system from the
very beginning, but also in terms of trying to get this situation reorganized. I guess
probably in hindsight, if Sonny had his druthers and choices, maybe he might have come
with a full reorganization plan about 30 days after he got here and said well, here it is,
and y’all either vote it up or down and let’s go with it. But that’s hindsight. And I think
there were enough things there that you already had to work on. I’m not trying to put
words in your mouth. But this is one I’m just looking at, and if there’s a critical need to
get some things in place and moving there, when we talk about the mid-year report, and
where I’m trying to strike a balance maybe is on some time in this particular one. When
we, in this situation, with the nature of what they’re doing, do we put ourselves into a
situation of somewhat crippling them by waiting on a mid-year report or in trying to
analyze what comes out of the quarterly report? Cause I think if there is a short term
situation to wait and look at [inaudible] to where we are, it’s coming off the quarterly,
that at least gives us some indicator, if that’s where we want to look, say okay, fine,
we’re not going to do anything until later or we’re going to do this with the mid-year and
I’m [inaudible] answer my question in terms of the time frame of it. But I’m just trying
to pinpoint that if we’re going to do this, if we’re going to make is absolute and we deal
with it there, then I think the chairman probably needs to maybe explain to us before we
take a vote in terms of the hard core critical issues that they would either suffer or could
live with in terms of that department either being reorganized now or not being
reorganized, and I have sympathy for them in that situation because I think there were
some things that needed to be corrected probably in that area down there from the get-go.
Maybe time, Mr. Smith, is killing us a little bit, on this one. And like I say, in hindsight
maybe the better things to have done would have been to really, if you could see all of it
ahead, could have had it reorganized very quickly. But that hasn’t taken place. But
obviously something needs to be done. It’s not very often we get requests to reorganized
that aren’t going to cost us money. And I think though what you ought to be aware of,
and I’m going to be quiet on this one, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, is that if this does take place
now and it gets reorganized today and permission is granted to do that, I think, though,
the Commission is probably going to have a dim view of coming back, if you’re looking
at something that’s not costing money now and you’re going in a position that says we
can reorganize and we can do with less and we can spread it out, I think what the fear is
that maybe coming into the next budget year there is going to be a major request to ask
for something else. And that’s not going to be probably looked upon favorably. So I just
wanted to lay that out there in terms of if it gets out the box today and you may want to
ask yourselves that question. We get in and get the reorganization done now and we’re
able to work, or we know we’re going to have to come back and have to ask the
Commission for something else in the coming budget year, do we want to run that risk of
saying we can do with less now but then come back later and say we need some more?
28
And that’s what I was really trying to get to, to a point, to get clear. And I think that may
bring the two motions together, after we heard from you all [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, thank you, sir. Mr. Kolb, when will the mid-year
review be presented?
Mr. Kolb: Probably July, the first part of August.
Mr. Hankerson: The first part of August, just say August. Okay, thank you. I
also asked in the committee meeting, Mr. Reece, for Mr. Reece to bring us a progress
report on the appeals. Mr. Kuhlke asked about the appeals and that we’ve got a lot of
concerns in the community. People are asking about where are we with the appeal
process, and I hope that that would be ready in our next committee meeting. The mid-
year report in August, that’s quite a long time. Now if -- I’d like to ask Mr. Reece this,
and if Mr. Kuhlke could take amendment to his motion, I can live with the reorganization
of the reclassifying of this position, but as I said, I think we need to put a halt to
distributing the salary adjustments to key personnel. That’s the part that I, the problem
that I have with this item.
Mr. Reece: You posing that to me as a question?
Mr. Hankerson: Right. Can you live with that? I mean I know that you want this
other appraiser, but then also you’re asking, you reduced, you eliminated a position, and
out of the elimination you’re asking to hire another appraiser. Is that correct?
Mr. Reece: No, sir, I’m not eliminating a position. I’m asking for that position to
be reclassified from a manager at grade 53 to an entry level property appraiser II at grade
44. That’s what I’m asking to be done. So from that standpoint, I wanted a worker and
not a worker, trying to adhere to what the Commission was trying to do, is to put more
people under deputies so that there would be more responsibility instead of having 5-1
ration, stuff of that nature. Now as far as, as far as the money, being able to redistribute
that to the people who have taken on the additional responsibilities, I can sit up here and
say yes, I can do that, but then I wouldn’t be being a good boss for them in trying to fight
[inaudible] --
Mr. Hankerson: Hold that right there. That’s all I want to know. Can you do
that? And we give you the position, but the redistributing the salaries of the employees,
if the maker of the substitute motion would accept that as an amendment, I will go along
with that. But that’s the part that we need to eliminate and I’m going to see to it that we
stop doing that because we had a problem. That’s why the reclassification came about
anyway, because in “the good old boy system” gave raises to who they wanted to and all
of this, and now therefore you had a secretary over here making this amount and you had
one over here making far less. We was going to eliminate that. So I think the best way to
eliminate that is to put a halt to the department heads, what you are asking to do is to do
29
those salary adjustments yourself. I think they need to come back to the Administrative
Services Committee, the Finance Committee, and then we consider any, those kind of
increases. But if you can live with that, if the maker of the substitute motion will accept
that as an amendment, I mean I could live with that. I’ll support it, rather.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: You know, let me, let me qualify this. Before I made that motion,
and I’m still going to stick with that motion and I’m going to vote for that motion that I
made, simply because I think at some point, we’re only talking about a few more months.
We’re into April now. And I think we need to have some type of organization where
we’re going to do certain things at certain times. And I can understand and I do
appreciate the job that Mr. Smith and the rest of the Commissioners and Sonny are doing
down there. I think what they are trying to do is good. But then, you know, for the last
few weeks, every time we’ve looked down we’ve had through Administrative Services
somebody coming back, asking for reclassification, or moving in some direction, and I do
understand that, the last thing I heard was that we, at the next committee meeting we
were going to have the tax assessor to come in and make his plea. I think that any person
or any department that comes through here can make the same plea that you’ve just heard
a few minutes ago. Now the point will be, and you can vote this any way you want to,
I’m just telling you how I’m going to vote, the point going to be, you know, are we going
to make these exceptions all the time or whoever makes the best presentation up here,
they get what they want? Are we going to do that? And I think that’s where we are
going to.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and Commissioners, I am Charles Smith. I am
chairman of the board of assessors. And one of the problems that we face is trying to get
the digest completed on time. We have difficult when we don’t have sufficient workers
to get the job done. We have been, for whatever reason -- I’ve been on the board, this is
concluding my fourth year, and I found when I came on that there were some delays for
whatever reason, certain things taking place that delayed getting everything done in a
timely manner. We’d like to have the digest completed in August, which is the
requirement. We’d like to have it submitted to the State, the Department of Revenue, as
is required, by that time. We’ve had to ask for delay and delay because certain things
have intervened, not permitting us to get the digest prepared on time. As you know, not
having the digest prepared on time, without having that approved, then we’re late with
everything else in the year. We have to work the appeals. The number of staff, and we
have required this on the board to say listen, those appeals have to be worked, in the same
breath we’re saying the digest must be prepared on time. We know that there’s not the
sufficient staff, not enough workers, to actually get everything done. What’s happening
now is that we’ve had to work on the appeals and we’ve gotten them down and I guess
exceptional work has been done in the last month or so to bring it down from the 4,100+
to the 1,500 where it is now. But I tell you, the longer we wait to get all of these things
done, the more difficult it is to have the digest prepared on time. I believe that it was
30
submitted this past year in October. In October. Now that really should be in earlier, and
we have said, we are requiring the staff to get it in on time. In our meeting our yesterday,
that is precisely what we were saying in the same breath of where are we with the
appeals, the same breath as we expect the digest to be prepared on time. That’s -- we
know that that’s a very difficult situation and we need more workers. That was the idea
of the reclassification here. We needed to have more people actually able to go out into
the field to do the work, not simply have more managers, but if we could have a more
efficient, streamlined operation, even though that was going to give some additional
people more responsibility, that if we could give them that responsibility they could
handle it. If they could cooperate and they are, working together we could have some
clear lines of communication, at least clearer lines of communication, we would be able
to be more efficient with fewer managers. But if you have people with more
responsibilities, as we looked at the pay scale we really thought that it made sense that
persons are compensated within the approved pay scale for the work that they were
doing. That was the idea behind it. Now we’ll have to live with whatever the
Commissioners approve. We still know that the digest will have to be out and we’ll do
the very best we can to get that done. But it’s not making it easier, to be honest with you,
to make sure that the monies are available for the Commissioners from the tax revenue if
we are continually having to fight an uphill battle to get the workers that we need to do
the job. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Smith, we certainly
appreciate your effort and all you do. And as you stand there, you are going to take some
of the credit I gave Mr. Reece away from him. Mr. Reece has been numerous of time,
reclassifying and speaking up for his people. But you mentioned that four years, I think
you mentioned, on this board and you have not got the digest done in time because
there’s a lack of people. Well, four years have passed. Now you saying hey, I mean, we
got to do it. I look for Jim cause I see the back up against the wall, but here you are now
saying we up against the wall. Well, if Mr. Reece who came and told us he made a
mistake in reclassifying and he came back and say he left somebody out, but he didn’t
come before with this proposal here now. Now, I mean, and we understand. And the
only two things [inaudible] do it, but we’ve got other departments who is very adamant,
is [inaudible] this Commission, we walk these halls, we get these telephone calls that
won’t come and stand in front of this Commission, whose got the same problem and the
same employees. So we’re not here trying to say we just don’t want to do it, but we
trying to do, we trying to get pro-active. We trying to fair with everybody. You always
going to have somebody to say you unfair. You always going to have somebody say you
didn’t count me in. But we’re trying now not to do what we been doing in this City for a
long time, and do one side, and the other side [inaudible]. So please don’t think that we
don’t want to do. We’re trying to make this thing fit this government. We need to look
at other departments who has already called, is already coming, who has got this same
identical problem that Mr. Reece have. So I mean, you know, you didn’t take a lot of
credit from him but you did take some credit from him cause I thought he was very, very
adamant about his employees and what he needed for his department. But listening to
31
[inaudible] talk, saying that this was the issue that’s very important to the City that he
didn’t address with even the reclassification, when he reclassified some other things.
Mr. Smith: Well, I’m not sure that that was what I was saying. I’m sorry it came
across that way.
Mr. Williams: Well, that’s not what you’re said. I meant facetious saying that.
I’m just saying that I heard something in your talk. I didn’t mean that you put him down
in any way. I heard something in your speech for the four years and how important this
digest is to the City, how we need to get it out, and could have got it out had we
reclassified some things that was needed much more than some other things we did. And
I don’t want to do that no more. I don’t want to reclassify a group or some people and
there are some other things that are more important or equally important and we don’t
consider them. So that’s all, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, that’s all.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’d like to amend my motion to approve the
reorganization of the Assessors Office; however, there will be no increases in salary at
this point, but that the Assessor can come back after our mid-year review and make a
request for salary adjustments in those positions that he’s requested at this point.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have an amendment to the substitute motion.
Mr. Williams: Can I get some clarification on that?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: I mean, what, are you saying we approve it now with no salary
increase, but when the board feels like or --
Mr. Kuhlke: No. I say -- Marion, what he was doing was changing some
positions to free up some money to compensate people in higher positions.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Kuhlke: And I’m saying, my amendment is that we approve the
reorganization, that we do not approve any additional salary increases on those
reclassified positions at this point, but at our review after mid-year, with the money that
he saved in reorganizing, he can come back to Administrative Services and apply for
those increases at that point and we’ll have a good feel at that point of whether we’re
tracking in the right direction. Doesn’t mean he’s going to get it. He can come back and
apply for it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
32
Mr. Shepard: Well, Bill --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] motion on the floor.
Mr. Shepard: I think we have two, don’t we?
The Clerk: Motion and substitute motion.
Mr. Shepard: Substitute motion and another motion to hold it. And the first
motion was from Mr. Beard and the second as amended is from Mr. Kuhlke. And what
I’ve been doing is trying to listen to my colleagues, as well as read those verbatim
minutes. I knew the process was needed to begin, as far as reassessment, but I couldn’t
get the Finance Committee together today at one o’clock. We canceled that meeting. So
I think that if we look back to what we were doing when we passed the budget, which
passed 9-0, was it was the, probably the Kuhlke budget which morphed into the Shepard
budget which morphed into the Beard budget, and looking back on these minutes, the gist
of them was that the body look again and Lee was making this motion, maybe in June,
and I don’t think we’re tied to that, but reassess and see how things are going. If they’re
going well, we can look at it and maybe we can do it. But to continuously spend and
spend and spend, I don’t think we can make that available. So this is why we are going
along with what Commissioner Shepard recommended in that. And then we’ve made
some adjustments in Recreation and it goes on. But I think that we have started into the
reassessment process and I think there are those that are the elected officials and
department heads who are waiting for a signal from us budgetarally about what we can
do, and I think we’re going to have first quarter data pretty soon, if I’m not -- correct,
George? And we can look at that. And I think we need, I mean I think we have a
definite need here in the assessor’s department for this kind of reorganization. I said I
like the model of it, but I also hear what all the other departments are saying. They’re
saying we need adjustments, we’ve got critical skill people, and I think the thing to do is
to bring this forward together. I mean maybe if it’s imperative, Lee, that we not hold off
as late as June, but I think we’ve got to operate on some data that we have during this
year and the only data that we’ll have is first quarter. So I’m still supporting the first
motion because I would like to see what we can do. I think the good news last year was
we came together around this budget and we haven’t spent all -- the meetings we did the
year before trying to come to an amended budget, and I would just like to see one, one
pass-through when we look at all the various critical skills that are contended. They do a
good job in the assessor’s department. I’m, like I say, I’m not displeased with anything
that Mr. Smith or Mr. Reece has said here today, but I do know that it’s got to be
something that we look at in terms of an overall budget, how we’re going, what we’re
hearing -- we’re hearing states in the hole, we’re hearing other governments are in the
hole, and I think we’ve just got to be conservative this year and be very sure that when
we start adjusting that we are able to live within out entire means. So I just, I’m not
opposing this, but I think that was the intent of this budget that we passed, and I’m going
to stay with that budget.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Mays.
33
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shepard’s motion is somewhat
like my motion, it’s not on the floor.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] motion was.
Mr. Mays: And I think it’s the one, Steve, that’s not out there. I think, let me put
that [inaudible] translation on from Sanford & Son for a minute. Chairman Smith and
Mr. Reece, I think somewhat what is being said up here in plain language, if maybe you
taking a chance today on reclassification, you might get it, but it’s a strong signal that you
may not need to come back no more. Cause it might not, it might not be anything left
around for you to come back for. So your decision might have to be made on do you
need to get this right now to do it? Now neither one of these motions takes you there.
That’s why the first question I asked and the Administrator has answered it, is that maybe
there needs to be some compromise in there, going back again to the dates of the
quarterly report versus the mid-year report. I think you do put the department in a multi-
state if we’re waiting, in this particular department, in a penalty state if you get to a point
of having them at the mid-year level. I would like to see if that could be done maybe
either in the original or the substitute. I’m not tied to either motion. But I think if the
quarterly report is an [inaudible] away, you still have got to basically hire somebody,
that’s got to be advertised, that’s got to be done. If that quarterly report is not way, way
down the road and in coming, I think that at least give us some indication. It also gives
the unwritten message to take back to the board. Do we want to go on with this right now
when there’s a message that it might not be any money to do some other things right now
when we come back a little bit later. And I can see where your reorganization is needed,
but again, that Mays-Shepard motion is not -- Steve, ours is not necessarily on the floor.
We’re a little slow today. So I’m still thinking something could be worked in there. I
think when you’ve got the mid-year, it hits them hard, I think to a point of where you’re
coming with the quarterly, if that’s close, if that could get beyond that report, do it, and
the time is up on it, and we said where that would be out around the April side. George,
what in calendar time, what are we probably looking at that we could realistically get
them on a time frame to do something with them on this quarterly report?
th
Mr. Kolb: The schedule says the 28 of April, is when this, is when the first
quarter financial statement is due. Mr. Persaud is not here at the moment.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem --
Mr. Kolb: It [inaudible] the one after that, after that meeting in April or early
May.
Mr. Mays: What I’m thinking, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if we’re looking at
something in this same calendar month to be able to deal with this report and go
with the mindset that collecting our money and getting it in is our major priority, to
do that, to put it at the top of the list and doing it. Can we work on that premise, if
that will not kill that department in terms of the reorganization of doing that, being
34
able to get that out of the way, even if the Finance Chairman has to deal with, Steve,
with another called Finance meeting, but that will get us to where in the first
meeting of May we could get something approved based on what the quarterly
report does, and then we’d be able to get that settled, and that’s not a, that’s not
light years away.
Mr. Beard: I would accept that as an amendment to the motion, Mr. Mays.
To my motion.
The Clerk: [inaudible] quarterly [inaudible] Mr. Kuhlke [inaudible], be a
conflicting motion.
Mr. Mays: Well, the only thing, I could even live with Bill’s [inaudible] the
salary and I think maybe the Board has a mindset of doing some stuff, too. The mid-year
is where I’m looking at on the time frame, that -- [inaudible] good suggestion.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call for the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question has been called. Okay, a substitute motion,
Ms. Bonner.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, the substitute motion was to approve the reorganization as
outlined by the assessor, tax assessor, but with no salary increases, and that he be allowed
to come back after the mid-year review to Administrative Services for reconsideration of
the salary requests. That was the substitute motion. And the original motion was --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can we just dispose of the substitute motion first?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, you want to go with that first? Okay.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to hear what the original now is amended.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Ms. Bonner.
The Clerk: The original motion is not to allow any reclassification until the mid-
year review. Until after the mid-year review.
Mr. Beard: I amended it [inaudible].
The Clerk: [inaudible]?
Mr. Beard: [inaudible] amendment, I accepted what Commissioner Mays to my
amendment.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let’s go to the substitute motion. Everybody clear on the
substitute motion?
35
Mr. Speaker: They may not be clear on the amendments.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let’s clear up the amendments. Let’s clear up the
amendments on the substitute motion.
The Clerk: The amendment was that there be no increases, that he be allowed to
come back after the mid-year review to Administrative Services for reconsideration of a
salary increase.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s the amendment on the substitute motion. You need
an amendment on the --
Mr. Beard: I was asking for the original motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Try the original motion. We need some clarification
on the original motion.
Mr. Mays: With the amendment.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: With the amendment.
The Clerk: Whether there be no reclassification until after the first quarter
review? [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Clear?
Mr. Mays: And that the priority status for collecting our money go to number
one, and therefore, we review him first, and that it be ready so we can take a called
committee meeting if we need to, and then it can be voted up or down the first meeting in
May. Is that clear? Well, the only thing about voting him down and hoping they’re
going to prevail is, you know, one of them might pass.
The Clerk: Which one are you talking about? You talking about the Commission
meeting, or --
Mr. Mays: Well, [inaudible], I think that the Finance Chairman is amenable
because of the seriousness of it, that if the report’s in by, say, the time, that even if he
does one on the Monday before you have the first meeting that’s in there. I mean -- I
can’t tell him when to call it.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Chairman, in response to my colleague Mr. Mays, I’d call it at
midnight, [inaudible] and get it done before the next full Commission in May, but if the
data is going to be out by April 28 --
Mr. Kolb: Put it on the May 6 agenda --
36
Mr. Shepard: Put it on the May 6 agenda. When does our, your Committee
meet?
Mr. Kolb: The Committee meeting is on the -- your next regular meeting would
be on May 6.
Mr. Shepard: Full Commission.
th
Mr. Kolb: So the Finance Committee will consider a financial report on the 28
of April, at your regular meeting.
Mr. Shepard: So you’re telling me --
Mr. Kolb: Would have a recommendation for the May 6 regular Commission
meeting.
Mr. Shepard: Isn’t that consistent with what you said?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s what Mr. Mays is saying.
Mr. Shepard: Isn’t that what Mr. Beard amended?
Mr. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: Okay. All right.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s noted. Okay. Let’s go with the substitute motion
first. All in favor of the substitute motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Boyles and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Williams abstain.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion fails 2-5-2.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Now we’ll go the original motion. The original motion
with amendments.
The Clerk: All of them.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the original motion, please signify by the
sign of voting.
Mr. Williams: Hold it, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I thought y’all was going to read the
original motion.
37
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You want to -- read the original motion, Ms. Bonner.
Mr. Williams: Y’all got me confused now. Don’t let me think I’m crazy.
The Clerk: That no reclassification be held until after the first quarter review and
that that item be considered in the first meeting of the full Commission on May 6.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting.
Mr. Williams: I’m confused, man.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Okay, next item, Ms. Bonner.
The Clerk:
32. Consider a request from Delta House, Inc. that they be granted a waiver
through March 31, 2003 regarding noncompliance issues involving their grant
contracts with the City. (No recommendation from Administrative Services
Committee April 7, 2003)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I think we’ve got some information in reference to that and I’m
going to move for approval on this.
I think Mr. Smith has checked this out and found
everything to be in order, and I move for approval.
Mr. Boyles: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Discussion? Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, I’d just like to ask Mr. Smith, I want to make sure, I think my
question in Committee was your conversation with HUD, the City is not going to be
penalized financially in any way by giving this waiver; am I correct?
Mr. Smith: Well, this is recaptured UDAG funds. Okay, recaptured UDAG
funds no longer have federal characteristics. They are now local funds. This is a UDAG
recaptured project.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
38
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, as I understand the backup, the conflict has
already been resolved; is that correct?
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
33. Select voting delegate for the Annual Georgia Municipal Convention in
Savannah Georgia in June.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I’d like to nominate Commissioner Lee Beard.
Mr. Shepard: I move the nominations be closed.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion on the floor. All in favor of the motion, please
signify by the sign of voting.
(Vote for Mr. Beard)
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk: And alternate.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We need an alternate?
The Clerk: Uh-huh [yes].
Mr. Mays: I nominate Mr. Steve Shepard. Both of [inaudible] voting.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll let you know whether I can.
(Laughter)
39
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting.
(Vote for Mr. Shepard)
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item 34.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENTS:
34. Consider one of the following nominations from the Richmond County
Medical Society for an appointment to the Richmond County Board of Health:
a) Terrence J. Cook, MD
b) Cheryl Newman, MD
c) Lynne Brannen, MD
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen? Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: I would like to nominate Mr. Cook.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Discussion? Being none,
all in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk: The next item, item 38:
OTHER BUSINESS:
38. Discuss Internal Audit’s Report regarding the operations of the Purchasing
Department. (Requested by Commissioner Beard)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard, that’s your item.
Mr. Beard: Looks like it is. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I just wanted to, I thought that
in lieu of this audit report at one of the Committee meetings on the other Monday, I
thought that it also should be discussed at the full Board because a lot of people,
Commissioners, were not present at all of the Committee meetings. And I don’t know,
but I have problems, I guess, with this simply because the kind of vicious attack that was
leveled by, at some department heads and Commissioners during the Special Grand Jury.
And to me, this was kind of a deliberate attempt to, by some members of the Grand,
Special Grand Jury, to character assassinate some members of this government. They
40
became very personal in their attack and I just don’t think we can accept this information
[inaudible] discussed and acted upon by professional audit companies, company, shows
that the grand jury was kind of biased in their attack on this, and I just think for the
record, and I don’t know how other members of the Commission feel, but I think for the
record this ought to be cleared, because clearly, the purchasing agent has been damaged
by the information that was put out during the Special Grand Jury, and I think this kind of
vindicated her from this, and I just think we should go on record in saying that we
support our department heads, if nothing else, but I’ll just defer this to other
Commissioners and see what they think about it, but those are might thoughts.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. You know, we kid a lot and that
ought to be a part of lot. Some folks don’t never laugh, but we always talk about the
Mays-Williams-Shepard law firm. The law has always, in my mind supported that you
was innocent until proven guilty. But when I look back and when I think back to all of
the stuff that happened from the law side, from the Grand Jury side, how many times
people were investigated and what was said on numerous occasion how wrong and how
deceitful and how misused the department was and directed those, those sentiments to
people and even by name. I’m really surprised, I think as Commissioners we ought to
send a letter. I think even the Grand Jury ought to be sending a letter of apology trying to
let people know, if I made a mistake, and it’s all right to make a mistake, but here we are
in the United States of America and we talk about the land and home of the free, but until
-- criminals have been treated better, I think, that we know was guilty and nothing was
said, but when we got a department who try to keep this government afloat, who have
worked very, very hard to not just for this Commission but this whole City of Augusta,
and then the number of times they had to go before these people to be questioned and to
be embarrassed and to try to make feel little, I really think we got a serious problem.
They want to talk about race, it got nothing to do with race. This is about right and
wrong. And I think we as a board ought to wrap our arms around all of those people who
do a good job in this government and let them know we support them. And all those
people who we know are not doing a good job, then we need to show them the door. But
that have not been the case and we ought to as men and women of this community, ought
to support those people who have been doing the best that they know how to do, to do
what’s right. And Mr. Beard, I think you for putting this on the agenda. I didn’t come to
say all that but I said it and I mean every word I said. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. In the first place, in regards to the
report by the internal auditor. It pointed out a lot of different issues that I think we need
to make correction in. One thing I would like to say is when we discussed this in the
Committee meetings last week, apparently some of the comments I made might have
been taken as being critical of our IT Department. I certainly didn’t intend that to be the
case. I recognize that IT can only do those things that the individual departments pursue
and want and desire to be done in regards to updating the computerized and electronic
41
system. Having said that, I’ll repeat some of the things I did mention. I notice in several
of the items, at least three of the items, it talks about some of our system being within
Purchasing being manual, it needs to be updated and recommended different checks and
balances and some software and that type of thing to bring it up to date. And I guess, you
know, when you’re a Commissioner you see a lot of different things come across your
desk, and I’ve seen a lot of things come across in regards to computerization, updating
software packages and that type of thing in regards to different departments. And I kind
of thought we were further along in Purchasing than some of the comments that the
internal auditor found. And I know about four years ago we upgraded in Purchasing,
because as we went from the old system to the new system, there was at least one
duplicated purchase order, at least that was my understanding. So I know we’ve
upgraded at some point. And if we’re looking at still things like the bid process in a
manual system and files being maintained manually and we have a recommendation to
improve that, I would hope that our Administrator and our, you know Department Head
involved there would be supportive and move that into an area where we wouldn’t have
these issues and these findings come before us. And I don’t think these findings are
anything that are earth shattering or critical or anything like that. I think it’s just a place
we need to make improvement in, and I would just encourage that to take place within
Purchasing. And I recognize, too, that Purchasing is an area where when errors show up
it may not necessarily be Purchasing. It could be the other departments that interact. I
mean this is sort of a central area, and yet the other departments that interact -- as an
example, down here in finding number 6, it speaks of the Accounting Department has to
catch, at the present the Accounting Department has to catch account code errors at the
time of payment, request a change be made by Purchasing. So you’ve got two
departments there that are working toward processes that are really happening at the
department head level. But I hope that given these items and given the computerization
process that we have been through and are going through that we’ll seriously address
these findings that we’ve got in here and move forward with that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. In the Committee, we went
through the points one by one, and I’ve got additional data because I was concerned
about the percentage of the purchase orders being 39% in the test sample. And I have a
memo from Mr. Persaud and I’ll be happy to make a part of the record, that said that the
39% as a percentage of the 2002 fiscal year budget equated to .3/10 of one percent. In
the FY 2003 it equates to .04 percent, which is the memo that I’ll just make a part. I
didn’t see that it was distributed to others but I’ll be happy to be made a part of the record
today. And additionally, the findings were largely related, as Mr. Bridges indicates, to
upgrading the systems in the Purchasing Department and it would require some IT work.
And I want to thank Mr. Beard for helping me see that I needed to be responsible in the
IT area when you appointed me chairman of the Automation Committee. And that
Committee has met and has developed an agenda and a schedule to have a report back in
the hands of that Committee and in the hands of the full Commission by the end of May.
In the motion, I mean in the minutes of the Committee, which are the action minutes, I
think, Madame Clerk --
42
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: --
they are very well done, we had asked the Administration to
have any suggestions that it may have in this area as a result of the Purchasing audit back
by July 1. So as I see this, this is unfinished business today, but there were certainly very
important recommendations that came out. Finding number two was the ISIS system was
not being fully utilized. That’s something that I asked the head of the Information
Technology Department to look into and report back to the Automation Committee
context. Finding two was that the maintenance of the vendors list should be updated
from its manual system, and again Mr. Cosnahan, according to these minutes, noted that
computerization of this would help in this situation. And he also pointed out that the bid
system, the annual bid processes are a manual system, and Mr. Cosnahan again was
recommending that this process be computerized. And finding six was that the
department heads need to monitor their purchase orders and that we should adhere --
finding seven was we adhere to the December 15 cut-off date. So I still see this as a work
in progress. I don’t think the Finance Committee went at it with any particular agenda, of
dealing with any particular personality. We responded to concerns from the Grand Jury.
I think we’ve responded to date in a very construction situation, or a very constructive
fashion, so I’m looking to have this finished in two parts, one by the end of May, which
will be the report of the Technology Committee, and then by July 1, which will be the
And so I think that we let those two processes go
report of the Administration.
forward, and then when they are completed, let’s send them to the Grand Jury. If
we can get six votes, let’s send them to the Grand Jury when it’s all complete and
say, you know, the Commission has conducted its own investigation and this is the
result.
And from what I can see at this point, it is pointing toward a complimentary
finding as to the Purchasing Department. But here again, I think we need to -- if you
we let these
want to respect the Commission’s, the Committee’s work from last week,
two processes go forward, and when they’re complete we give a full report to the
Grand Jury
and move on with our business.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, thank you. I sure want to thank
Commissioner Beard for putting this on and for Commissioner Shepard to continuously
be diligent in this matter in terms of getting clarity. And hopefully some closure to
everything that has surrounded this particular report. The allegations at times that were
very fierce that none of us used in terms of a Commission, so I don’t think it’s necessary
for us to teat each other apart in reference to discussion about it from the standpoint that I
think everybody wanted to get some element of finding out, well, the report says this and
[inaudible]. Well, I think when you, when you have a report which basically is put
together under a system that I still respect --
Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry, do we have a quorum?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a quorum.
43
Mr. Mays: -- a system that I still respect even though I still have a right in
America to disagree or to agree with certain findings. I think that anything that has gone
on there from September or October, that will be four years into an ongoing investigation,
and I temper my words very lightly because I respect that system and technically we are
still under investigation. But I’ve said from the very beginning, whether it’s departments
or whether it’s Commissioners, you know, [inaudible] evidence to bring forth findings,
and quite frankly, if there is something there then deal with it. You know, two United
States Presidents went before Congress to deal with impeachment quicker than we
finished the Grand Jury report in this City. And I think, quite frankly, it’s done a lot to
damage a lot of relationships that probably never would have been put on the line, to get
people to choose sides or put different spins on stories to a point that I think that some
legitimate closure, not only with this department, but with this whole state of affairs,
needs to be quickly done. I agree with Steve that probably dealing with a finality of
what’s done today maybe can’t be done, but I’m glad to hear from the tone, and
particularly from the Finance Chairman who has worked hard on a lot of stuff
[inaudible], that at least a finality will be brought before this Commission. I think it also
should be noted in terms of we have our up and down days but in terms of praising the
Administrator. Because when this report came back, I think it was very, very quickly that
he noticed, even before all these hearings and investigations took place, that Mr. Kolb
immediately said to the point of firing somebody or running somebody off, that that
wasn’t going to be done. I think he got his ticket downstairs right after he said that.
[inaudible] I don’t know. But to a point that he did. And I think that of saying that
immediately, that was not good enough. I think that to a point all of us on this
Commission wanted to hear this brought to some realm of closure so therefore one of the
most respected firms I think in terms of the certified public accounting business in this
city, in the South, anywhere else, was hired to look into this matter and to deal with it.
And we’ve had much discussion about that. And the more, quite frankly, and I probably
maybe said in the beginning that, Steve, maybe some things we just need to accept
[inaudible] been done. But I think that the more that is said, the cleaner and the clearer it
gets. And I just hope that when this is done, and I hope the quicker the better, that the
report will be done and the only thing I may slightly disagree on, I hope that it won’t be
six votes or five looking for a vote trying to get some closure to this matter, that it will be
unanimous in doing it. Criticism is always healthy when it’s constructive, when the
playing field is fair, when it’s level, and when there is a side there to cross examine and
to examine all material that’s brought out. [inaudible] brought and I think, quite frankly,
if you want certain questions, certain things could have been answered, if certain folk had
been asked and certain people, quite frankly, really wanted to know. But I’m actually
proud of the Commission and where this has gone and where it started out in Finance and
getting to this point of bringing us here. I just hope that not only it can bring closure to
that department but if it’s something else that’s left hanging I just pray that for the sake of
this community and for folk who want [inaudible] all the time [inaudible] be able to get
certain things behind us, we ought to be able to get along, well then this will be a great
step to a point that if there are no lurking criminals out there, to a point that if there is
criticism and some things need to be corrected, then, my God, let’s correct them, let’s do
it as a body, and let’s do it. But, you know, if it’s going to continue to a point of no
44
closure, of something just left hanging, getting into its fourth year with no sense of
direction, and I heard that, quite frankly, when the D.A. was here a few weeks ago and he
said he didn’t have any direction over it. I haven’t heard anybody step forward and say
who does have some direction over it. Something that’s that [inaudible] can bring that
many charges, that often, and those allegations that deal with the lives of people, that
could very much injure their reputation for the rest of their life should be important
enough that if you’ve got some folks in the system that are doing wrong then, hey, if they
doing wrong, if they committing criminal acts, I’ve said it from day one, bring charges,
indict them, you get indictments, you try them, and if they are found guilty, then you put
them in jail. But time has long passed going into this fourth year that has cut this
community [inaudible] deep in its heart like a dagger to a point that this Commission has
had to rebound from most of it and has had to answer every question, quite frankly, that’s
been [inaudible] what has come out of this Grand Jury. It needs to, yes [inaudible]
criticism, and I’m like anybody else. I still, as a [inaudible], I respect the system. It
needs to be there. Yes, we need to have it. But it ought to be brought to a point of where
when the show is over, close it down. And if there’s something there to deal with, then
deal with it. But it’s about four years and it’s also about high past time that it be brought
to some type of end and that this community can move about and to get along with the
business [inaudible] heal in some aspects [inaudible] first place of where we start. Deal
with it. If it’s some bad apples, throw them out. And it’s enough good people out of
200,000+ to make a great city work. And I just hope that when this report does come
through, and I’m willing [inaudible] let that process roll. But when it does I hope we
will, to a man, up here, be a man and that we will express that and that we will articulate
that and that while we will say yes, none of us are perfect, no department heads are
perfect, no people are perfect in this government, but to a point if we are going to do that,
then let’s be honest about it [inaudible] same frenzy that brought it on, and in some
aspects of this community, where some things were just said that just shouldn’t have been
said at all, that hurt all of us when those things happened, we need to put it behind us and
we need to find some time and space to move on and I think when we do that, we’ll be a
better community and we definitely will be a better Commission. And I didn’t mean to
take that much time, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, but I think this is moving us in that direction,
but I think some closure and an ending in a proper will be well suited in order to get this
behind after four years. And I start like I close, two Presidents went for impeachment,
one Democrat, one Republican, and it didn’t take four years to have to make a decision to
[inaudible] somebody.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: I pass, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I like what the Finance Chairman has said and his
recommendation and I would like to put that in the form of a motion so that we can
move on.
45
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. I’m going to say this one
thing before we close. I’ve always said our Purchasing Director -- that I always
supported her because I think she’s always done a good job, and she’s always been fair.
And I think she has been done unfairly by the Special Grand Jury, and I’m going to say
this to the Purchasing Director right now. I will support you as long as you’re here, as
long as I’m here. And thanks for a job well done. Okay, we have a motion on the floor.
Mr. Hankerson, I’m sorry. I didn’t see you.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, sir. I’ve heard all the comments made and been a
part of this whole process, and I’m happy to see that, after the investigation and after we
having an audit, that the report that our auditors gave us to know that things that we heard
was not as it seemed to be, and that our Purchasing Department was working to make
sure that Augusta Richmond County progress. There are some things that was pointed
out, that it didn’t appear there as it seemed, that it was all done, and had been done
previously, and was a way to make the system work. So I just hope that Ms. Sams could
get through this painful time. I knew it was, and always is, for anybody that, when they
try to do a great job or a good job and then they are painted as the kind of person that she
was painted as, which she is not. When I read the report personally and knowing her
from Sunday School days, it wasn’t the person I knew that was the kind of personality
that was stated in the Grand Jury. I knew that wasn’t the kind of person that I knew, but I
know that -- I appreciate any Department Head for being strong and standing up for what
is right, and to not let anybody run over them, but to speak as what is right. And it is my
prayer that we can go on, and this City will come closer together, and the Grand Jury and
all of that will be behind us on all these reports that we had, and nobody’s in jail, nobody
was locked up, and that means that it was helpful, too, in a way that we see that a lot of
things came out. So it’s a problem -- I have a problem when personalities get in some
certain things, and sometimes you read certain things, and it seems like it’s personality
rather than actually what we were called to do. So I just want the Department head to
know that it’s my prayer that she will gain strength, whether anybody apologizes or not.
A lot of things we do, nobody’s going to apologize. But we must be strong, and continue
to be a strong woman and move on. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No further discussions? All in favor of the motion, please
signify at this time by voting.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
39. LEGAL MEETING:
•
Discuss potential and pending litigation.
Mr. Shepard: I move we go into legal for purposes of litigation, real estate
and a personnel issue.
46
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: Could I have just a moment of personal privilege?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You certainly can.
Mr. Boyles: I would just like to personally thank our Attorney, Jim Wall, for the
job that was done on our ordinances that happened, and, as we saw, they held up in
federal court, and they held up in the federal Court of Appeals. And so I think someone
who works as hard as he did, even though this Commission had a lot of conversation both
ways, and I think that’s good, but when it was all said and done, what Mr. Wall did for
this community worked. And I wanted to personally thank him.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second to go into legal. Did we
get a second to go into legal?
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor, please signify by sign of voting.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commission meeting back to order. Mr. Wall?
40. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Wall: Need to entertain a motion to approve the execution of the Closed
Meeting affidavit.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Any discussion? Mr. Mays is going to
sign this affidavit. I’m going to pass it over to him.
Mr. Mays, Mr. Beard, Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 6-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other business to pass before this Commission?
47
Mr. Shepard: Under the category of real estate,
Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
I move that this Commission go on record in support of the concept of the
permanent closing of Foster Lane across the CSX yard trackage in consideration of
the negotiation of an agreement approved by Council for the railroad and the City
addressing the issues of relocated railroad right-of-ways and public safety.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Here or
not, all in favor of the motion please signify at this time.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other business to come before this Commission?
Commission adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on April 15, 2003.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
48