HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-20-2003 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
May 20, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 20, 2003,
the Honorable Richard Colclough, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams
and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission
ABSENT: Hons. Bob Young, Mayor and Beard, member.
Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Nancy Morawski,
Deputy Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by Rev. Hankerson.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
The Clerk:
PROCLAMATION:
Ms. Teresa Smith, Director Public Works
1. RE: National Public Works Week May 18-24, 2003
The Clerk: I’ll read the proclamation.
In recognition of National Public Works Week, Whereas, Public Works services provided
in our community are an integral part of our citizens’ everyday lives, and
Whereas, the support of an understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the effective
operation of Public Works systems and programs, such as the management, oversight and
maintenance of appurtenances for water, sewer, streets, traffic control, solid waste collection,
city owned rights-of-way, and public buildings, as well as trees and landscape beautification
efforts, and
Whereas, to increase public awareness of services provided by the Public Works
Department allows for an increase in the public’s understanding of these services, and
Whereas, to enhance relationships between the public and the Public Works Department
provides for an opportunity to improve communications, and
Whereas, to convey information about Public Works in schools exposes and educates the
youth of our community on public works related issues, and
Whereas, to promote team building and improving moral amongst Public Works
employees serves to increase sufficiency and decrease duplicity during the performance of daily
tasks and assignments, and
1
Whereas, to demonstrate appreciation for activities performed by the employees in the
Public Works Department serves as an indicator that our employees truly are our most valuable
resources,
Now therefore I, Bob Young, Mayor of Augusta, do hereby declare the week of May 18 -
24, 2003 as National Public Works Week in Augusta, Georgia, in recognition of the contribution
which Public Works officials make every day to the safety, health, comfort, and quality of life
for all citizens in Augusta, Georgia.
(A round of applause is given.)
Ms. Smith: The American Public Works Association has proclaimed the third week in
May as being National Public Works Week. This is our third annual National Public Works
Week celebration in the city of Augusta, and this is the opportunity where we take time to
demonstrate and to give back to our employees, while letting them know, as was read in the
proclamation, that they truly are the strength of Public Works. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: These are the folks who does a good job for you. Give them
another hand.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk:
PROCLAMATIONS:
2. Presentation of the 2002 Tree City USA Flag
Ms. Smith: Tree City USA is a community improvement project sponsored by the
National Arbor Day Foundation in cooperation with the National Association of State Foresters,
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities. Each
year, the National Arbor Day Foundation presents its annual Tree City award. In order to be
declared Tree City USA, the city must qualify in several categories. Amongst these are maintain
an active tree commission, have in place and manage a tree city ordinance, review site plans for
new businesses, maintain a budget of $2 per capita for urban forestry. The city of Augusta has
been able to obtain this award through its proactive achievement of the aforementioned items, as
well as the implementation of an active maintenance program. This program is managed and
overseen by our Trees and Landscape Division for which Mr. Derrick Vanover is the Assistant
Director. In recognition for meeting the outlined criteria in 2002, the City of Augusta is
recognized as a Tree City and thus presented the Tree City USA flag award.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk:
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD:
2
Mrs. Mary Dickens, District Attorney's Office
The Clerk: Will Ms. Mary Dickens, with the District Attorney’s office, Mr. Craig, and
anyone else who would like to come forward, please join the Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] Mr. Craig, would you like to [inaudible]?
Mr. Craig: Yes. First, I would like to thank the members of the County Commission for
having such an award as this, by which we can recognize the employees who have really given
so much of themselves in order to serve the community. As we all know, government service
doesn’t necessarily provide the same competitive wages that we see in the private sector,
although we try. But to have an opportunity to recognize someone for a job well done and for
the special service that Mary has given to this community is important to all of the employees of
the County, and especially to those in the District Attorney’s Office. We want to, on behalf of
everyone who works with Mary, we want to thank her for her dedication. She has certainly
identified herself and distinguished herself in the office as someone who is dedicated to our
mission, who understands our mission, who is entirely selfless when it comes to getting the job
done, and sometimes that means working in an area that she might prefer not to work in, in order
to fill in and to catch up as things need to be done. But there are never any complaints, and she
has just been a welcome addition to our staff. Mr. Colclough asked how long she’s been there,
and she’s only been there less than four years, as a matter of fact, so it gives you an indication as
to how much, how well she has distinguished herself in her service to the people of this
community. And so, on behalf of the people in the office, and on behalf of the people in the
community, again I thank y’all, but I also thank Mary for having distinguished herself so much,
so well.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk:
RECOGNITIONS:
A. Public Demonstration Ordinance (Requested by Commissioner Boyles)
??
Attorney James B. Wall
??
Sheriff Ronnie Strength
Mr. Boyles: Thank you very much, Madame Clerk. Gentlemen, I had asked that this be
placed on our agenda. You will recall, during the early part of this year, there was much spirited
debate amongst the members of this Commission concerning some information we had
concerning the Masters golf tournament. Our Attorney, I think, in my opinion, did a yeoman job
putting together an ordinance to help work that situation to where it was to the benefit of the
citizens of Augusta. Along with that, it fell into producing that to the Sheriff of Richmond
County, and Sheriff Strength, if you would come, just come up, and to the front, so people can
see you. The Sheriff’s Department did a truly magnificent job with what we had to do with the
th
protest. I was concerned because the Masters golf tournament is in the 7 Commission District,
so I had a little more interest up there. But it benefited the entire City. But all through the
3
process of the potential protestors and what may have happened there, Sheriff Strength kept us
advised. He took the time to bring us to his office and go over information so that we would not
be left out, and I have perfectly, and I think every member of this Commission, was perfectly
satisfied with what could happen. That event could have cost the citizens many dollars, and it
could have been a disruption that could have been a black eye upon the City of Augusta. But I
think, thanks to these two officials, and I’ve got to give credit to the Members of this
Commission, and the Mayor, also, who backed it up, that this was a tremendous positive for the
City of Augusta. And I personally, from the numerous constituents of District 7, thank both of
you for your efforts.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk:
B. Ms. Lynn Bailey, Executive Director ARC Board of Elections
RE: Appointment to the National Help Americans Vote Act Standards Board
Ms. Bailey: [inaudible]
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] these folks will not be here until around 3. So we’ll go
ahead and conduct business, and then when they come in, we’ll take a break [inaudible]
PRESENTATION:
Mr. Phil Wasson, ARC 9-1-1 Director
Ms. Alexis Lester, McAlpine Drive -- Alexis is the ten-year old who called 9-1-1 when her
grandmother was having breathing problems. She demonstrated wonderful skills and
knowledge in ensuring the proper response was given for her grandmother.
The Clerk: Mr. Wasson, will you please the Mayor Pro Tem, along with Ms. Alexis
Lester and her mother, Ms. Brenda Lester, Ms. Corey Potter, the 9-1-1 communication officer
who took the calls, and Ms. Catherine White, Assistant 9-1-1 Director.
Mr. Wasson: Mayor Pro Tem, thank you very much, honorable Members of the
Commission, elected officials, department heads, and visitors, I’d like to introduce you to a very
special young lady. You may have seen her on the news. Miss Alexis Lester, standing next to
the Mayor. On April 13, 2003, at approximately 10 p.m., Communication Corey Potter
answered a 9-1-1 call, and Corey is in the black sweater right here. On the other end of the call
was 10-year-old Alexis Lester, and Alexis informed Miss Potter that she needed help because her
grandma was not talking to her, and then gave her address. Alexis was asked several key
questions, such as how old is your grandmother, does she have a history of heart problems, and is
she breathing. She, being Alexis, immediately answered these questions with the correct
information, thereby giving the responders the needed information to be ready to assist her
grandmother. What makes this so special is that 10-year-old Alexis answered questions that
4
adults often cannot. Throughout the call, Alexis remained calm, listened very carefully to
Corey’s instructions, and provided the necessary answers. Between the instructions, Miss Potter,
and the maturity shown by Miss Alexis, her grandma is doing well today, and I think we can all
see that, and we’re glad she’s here.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Wasson: It is often said, and a child shall lead them. In this case, and a child so shall
save them. Thank you, Alexis, for making the call and for a job well done, and thank you Ms.
Potter for being there to answer her call. Augusta is a better place because of both of you. A
special thanks to Ms. Brenda Lester, her mother, for bringing her daughter today, and showing
us, giving us the opportunity to show our appreciation. Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Alexis, on behalf of the Mayor and Commission and the citizens of
Augusta and the 9-1-1 Center, we would like to present you with this hero award and a t-shirt for
your braveness and your intelligence to helping your grandmother. Again, thank you very much.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk:
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
Presentation by Mr. Stanley Hawes
Re: Atlanta Gas Light Company Cleanup
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Is there any opposition to the addendum to the agenda?
Nearing none, Mr. Hawes?
Mr. Hawes: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, this great City of Augusta
Richmond County. I come to you, basically, a representation of the residents of Laney Walker,
because of a great concern that we have. It had became apparent to us as of late that there seems
to be a problem between the Gas Company and the City, that there has been anything where the
City would allow the Gas Company to come on City property. This is all information that
became apparent within the last week. And I also understand that at the end of the month, the
Gas Company going to pull out. Being a resident of the area and from information from other
residents, other residents that have received the same type information, our concerns are greatly
that, as far as being the stewards of Laney Walker, the whole Commission body, which basically
decides on this matter -- our concern is, what is the position of the City? And if the City have a
position with this, as far as the Gas Company, and being able to go on with what they’re doing,
or is there something you’re doing to protect us, or is it something that just needed to be worked
out with the Gas Company? They’re telling me, Sean Davis is telling me, that they’re going to
pull out. Because I’ve been pressing him for information, and I’ve been around for the last
week, trying to find out from the City, different people, as far as what’s going on. Because we
th
got this big old hole down here, down on 8 and Walton Way, and I understand that from the
thth
Canal, on the streets, Walton Way, 8 Street, 7 Street, all these things, it’s a strong possibility,
5
with the information that I have, other than just Mr. Davis, is that, if they stop, if they stop, and
have to pull out, there could be several years before they come back. Now who’s going to be
hurt by this? Whatever the situation is, maybe somebody can tell me something different, but
our concerns have reached to the highest level because we are the recipients of whatever
negative or positive happens down there. We really would like for the City to work in our favor,
and whatever differences that there might be, hopefully that it could be worked out, because we
are the ones who are going to have to suffer. We’ve suffered through this for a long period of
time. Finally, we felt like these things was going to be taken care of. It looked good when it
came in and started cleaning up, and all these things about promises for this and promises for
that, that we heard about. We don’t handle the day to day operations for this City, and exactly
the schematics of all those things. Basically, what we go about is what we see. And what we see
right now is this great big crater out there, with the chance of it still being there after this month.
Hopefully, the City will take charge for whatever needs to be done and take care of this situation
for us, the citizens of Richmond County.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can you address that, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: I will. Let me address it briefly, and I’ll give the Commission a further update
later on. Suffice it to say that we have been trying to meet with Atlanta Gas Light Company as a
result of meeting that was held in Atlanta, where it was agreed that the attorney for Atlanta Gas
Light Company and myself would negotiate the differences between Atlanta Gas and Augusta.
In essence, Atlanta Gas Light changed the remediation plan, unbeknownst to Augusta, between
May of 2001, when we reached an agreement on the scope of work, and December of 2002. We
have been trying to set that meeting up, and that meeting has finally been set up where I will
meet with Atlanta Gas Light attorney tomorrow. Now Williams Environmental is simply the
contractor. They are not the ones who make the decisions. And so that is the reason that we
have been insistent that we negotiate this with Atlanta Gas Light, because they have changed the
remediation. We are working for the citizens because we want to ensure that the remediation
plan that is implemented protects the residents, that there’s verification that the remediation is
effective and works, and that Augusta gets what it was originally promised as a part of the
discussions and negotiations with Atlanta Gas Light. And so that’s what we’re trying to do, and
the May date is, in my opinion, an arbitrary date that they have thrown up. There’s more time
than that. They recognize that, and we recognize that, but we are trying to reach an agreement
with them.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Let me further add to this. Your question
was, are we looking out, or you requested that we do look out for the citizens of Augusta
Richmond County. When we initially got the original remediation plan, it was basically streets
paved with gold. We were very, very pleased with the plan. We approved it. They were going
to do a number of things to enhance that area, and really help Augusta in areas that we would not
be able to afford to improve for years to come. That plan was, as the Attorney said, changed to a
technology called oxidation. It’s pumping hydrogen peroxide in there and causes a chemical
change to the coal tar and so forth. This is not new technology. This is something that was on
the shelf and available way before we got the streets of gold paving. This is one commissioner
6
that is, frankly, has witnessed several changes that, if we had been given this information from
the get-go, I would not have as hard a time swallowing additional changes and threats of pull out.
My concern is, we were promised a technology demonstration on this, with soils that had the
coal tar in it. That has yet to materialize. These guys -- to answer your question, we are looking
out for your interests, and they will do the job right. They did go to Atlanta and posed that we
had approved the change of technology when we had not. It brings to terms some of my old,
from the old terms that I remember of my youth, of calling it crawfishing, where you start
something and then back up on it and continue to back up. Their threats to pull out seem to be
no more but more of the same, and I for one want to see the area cleaned up and done right, but I
will not sit back and see this City or your neighborhood abused and used like apparently seems
to be the case with this particular project. We will see it through. They will not sell us short, and
I believe, based on the hazardous constituents and all, there are actions that can be taken to force
this cleanup. Now they’re doing it out of the goodness of their hearts at this point, or because
they saw the writing on the wall with federal legislation and soil contamination, but I for one will
be darned if I see them threaten us and half do jobs and back out and leave your neighborhood in
a mess. And we will fight it, but they will correct their problems, and they are going to deliver
on what they promised, irregardless of the financial impact of them, or whatever else. They’re
going to deliver what they said they would deliver. They’re continuing to try to crawfish on us,
and back down and back down and back down. My concern is, when are they going to tell us,
we can’t do this, or we’re going to have to do that, and y’all just better be happy with it, and
that’s kind of, in a few short words, what we’re getting now. But we’ll fight it, but it’s not this
City’s Commission that hasn’t done the job. We have been the guardians of the people’s trust
and have done a good job on that. They’re the ones that continue to change their game plan and
continue to mislead state officials and people in the community about their goals and intents.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Hawes.
Mr. Hawes: Just for the record, Commissioner Cheek, I came down and it’s based off of
a fact finding mission, not that of a, you know, as a roller coming down trying to chastise the
Commission.
Mr. Cheek: No, sir. I know.
Mr. Hawes: There’s some strong concerns, and it’s valid concerns, and would only hope
that y’all would think about us when you do make these decisions at these levels. Always keep
us in mind, and we would appreciate that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir. We always have the community at heart, Mr. Hawes.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Just to close, I hope you understand, my passion is shared by the other
commissioners. We have the passion to make sure this is done right, and quite frankly, they are
7
the ones that are waffling around on us, and we are determined to make sure that that area is
cleaned up and cleaned up properly.
Mr. Hawes: I thank you. Just had to hear it from y’all.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Before Mr. Hawes leaves, and I appreciate
you gentlemen for adding that on. I had some fellows that got a ticket going to Greenville, and I
didn’t need them to get one coming back. But I would hope that, from the communiqué that was
delivered to our neighborhood president, who stays on top of things and is doing a great job, that
with those dates, naturally people had something to be alarmed about, and I would hope that --
and I know Mr. Wall has spoken to this point, and I won’t be redundant of going over everything
that he’s done, but I would hope though that if the City’s position -- and I hope it’s still the same
in terms of protecting both public and private properties, that if we are at a difference with what
is being done, that we will not allow timelines and we will take the proper steps legally, and
obviously that cannot be discussed in the course of this meeting, but I hope that we will do due
diligence to file whatever papers we need to file, that we take whatever actions we need to take
in court, and if we are at a difference of opinion with Georgia Natural Gas or the people that are
representing them, that we will do that. We will do it ahead of time, and we will do it with the
resources that we need to do that will speak on behalf of the City. And not in terms of using
anybody else’s resources or numbers or stats or whatever they have, because obviously we have
a difference, and the only thing I said from the very beginning is that we needed to be ahead of
the curve on this situation, and it’s not just concerning that that’s in Laney Walker. It’s
anywhere where there is an environmental question. I think that the City has to have a position
of its own, and then we move from that standpoint. So obviously there are some differences, all
that we cannot deal with out here, but I hope that we will stay ahead of this, and not change this
particular item, because it’s very important that we do not get caught up in a situation where we
have a community that’s been environmentally harmed and that we end up both as the
neighborhood and as the City, being the victim in the situation and being put behind the 8-ball
because we are not out in front of it. And I hope we can discuss that in Legal even further and
whatever steps we need to do. This Commission needs to have the willpower to go ahead and do
it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Hawes. Ms. Morawski?
The Clerk: Next item -- did you want Number 45?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, let’s do the consent agenda, and then we’ll --
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of Items Number 1 through 20, and for the
benefit of any objectors regarding the items for zoning under Planning, I’ll read those, and if
there is anyone here who would object, would you please signify your objection by raising your
hand.
PLANNING PETITIONS:
8
PLANNING:
1. Z-03-31 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by George A. Dukes, on behalf of Greater Mt. Canaan
Missionary Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding
church parking per Section 26-1 (A) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta
Richmond County affecting property located at 531 and 533 First Avenue and containing
.31 acres. (Tax Map 34-1 Parcels 39 & 40) DISTRICT 1
2. Z-03-33 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Ronald B. Young, on behalf of Ross Grove Baptist
Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding an existing church
including day care services per Section 26-1 (A) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1021 Tenth Avenue and
containing 1.4 acres (Tax Map 72-2 Parcels 457, 458, 476 & 477) DISTRICT 2
3. Z-03-37 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve with the condition that there will be no outside storage or work
taking place on the property; a petition by Tina Faglier, on behalf of Tina Faglier and
Scott Rowe, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General
Business) affecting property located on a portion of 4116 Deans Bridge Road and contains
.14 acres. (Tax Map 150 Parcel 2) DISTRICT 8
4. Z-03-38 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) the manufactured homes shall be
no more than 5 years old, have a minimum of 1300 square feet, simulated wood siding a
minimum of a 3/12 roof pitch with a minimum 6 inch overhang and asphalt roof shingles,
2) the lots may contain only one single family home and may not be subdivided; a petition
by Phil Bartles, on behalf of Phil Bartles and Carlos Marban, requesting a change of
zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential)
affecting property located on the west right-of-way of Old Waynesboro Road, 544.55 feet
north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Hephzibah-McBean Road and Old
Waynesboro Road and containing approximately 10 acres. (Part of Tax Map 335 Parcel 51)
DISTRICT 8
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to these petitions?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I see none.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PLANNING:
1. Z-03-31 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by George A. Dukes, on behalf of Greater Mt. Canaan
Missionary Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding
church parking per Section 26-1 (A) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta
Richmond County affecting property located at 531 and 533 First Avenue and containing
.31 acres. (Tax Map 34-1 Parcels 39 & 40) DISTRICT 1
9
2. Z-03-33 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Ronald B. Young, on behalf of Ross Grove Baptist
Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding an existing church
including day care services per Section 26-1 (A) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1021 Tenth Avenue and
containing 1.4 acres (Tax Map 72-2 Parcels 457, 458, 476 & 477) DISTRICT 2
3. Z-03-37 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve with the condition that there will be no outside storage or work
taking place on the property; a petition by Tina Faglier, on behalf of Tina Faglier and
Scott Rowe, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General
Business) affecting property located on a portion of 4116 Deans Bridge Road and contains
.14 acres. (Tax Map 150 Parcel 2) DISTRICT 8
4. Z-03-38 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) the manufactured homes shall be
no more than 5 years old, have a minimum of 1300 square feet, simulated wood siding a
minimum of a 3/12 roof pitch with a minimum 6 inch overhang and asphalt roof shingles,
2) the lots may contain only one single family home and may not be subdivided; a petition
by Phil Bartles, on behalf of Phil Bartles and Carlos Marban, requesting a change of
zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential)
affecting property located on the west right-of-way of Old Waynesboro Road, 544.55 feet
north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Hephzibah-McBean Road and Old
Waynesboro Road and containing approximately 10 acres. (Part of Tax Map 335 Parcel 51)
DISTRICT 8
5. ZA-R-158 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition to delete the existing Section 3-12 (W) and
amend it to state “nearer than 45 feet from the right-of-way line of Barton Chapel Road
from Wrightsboro Road to Gordon Highway.”
6. ZA-R-159 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition amending Sections 2, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and adding a new Section 28-D, entitled “Conservation
Subdivisions.”
7. FINAL PLAT – CAMBRIDGE SUBDIVISION, SECTION 4 – S-650 – A petition by
Southern Partners, Inc., a behalf of Nordahl & Co. Inc., requesting final plat approval for
Cambridge, Section 4. This subdivision is located on Warwick Place, adjacent to
Cambridge and Ridge Forest Estates and containing 34 lots.
FINANCE:
8. Deleted from the consent agenda.
9. Deleted from the consent agenda.
10. Deleted from the consent agenda.
11. Motion to approve the pay off of 11 pieces of equipment for the Fire Department
currently under the GMA lease program at a cost of $794,171.17 to be executed not later
than May 30, 2003. (Approved by Finance Committee May 12, 2003)
12. Motion to approve the acquisition of vehicles listed as Enclosure One for the
divisions listed of the Augusta Utilities Department. (Approved by Finance Committee May
12, 2003)
10
13. Motion to approve abatement of 2002 taxes in the amount of $8,754.86 for Bell
Fatigue. (Approved by Finance Committee May 12, 2003)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
14. Motion to abandon alleys located on Tax Map 47-1 between Telfair St., W. Ford St.
and Walker St. and containing approximately 0.07 acres. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee May 12, 2003)
15. Motion to approve Change Order #1 to Capers and Associates for lead paint
abatement, using option three, in the amount of $15,309.00 to be funded from account 352-
04-1110. The revised contract amount will be $197,497.00. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee May 12, 2003)
16. Motion to approve the execution of a Local State Route Acceptance Resolution for a
new roadway, SR1097, along the west side of State Route 232 between Scott Nixon
Memorial Drive and I-520 in association with realigning existing Frontage Road (CR 1319)
with construction of the I-20/I-520 Interchange Project (NH-IM-520-I(15), PI210450.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 12, 2003)
17. Motion to approve proposed EPD consent order regarding the January 24, 2003
sodium hypochlorite spill at the Spirit Creek Water Pollution Control Plant. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee May 12, 2003)
18. Motion to authorize execution of a lease agreement with Georgia Power for
Emergency Generators and Switchgears for the Tobacco Rd. Surface Water Treatment
Plant and raw water pumping station in an amount estimated not to exceed $2,251,200.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 12, 2003)
19. Motion to approve award of contract to CB & I Constructors, Inc. in the amount of
$2,469,600.00 for the construction of the Brown Road Three- Million Gallon Elevated
Water Tank. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 12, 2003)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
20. Motion to approve the minutes of the Commission May 6, 2003 regular
meeting.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor for approval. Any items to be
pulled from the consent agenda? Hearing none --
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: I don’t have any that I want to pull, but I’m a little concerned -- I got a
question on 8, 9, and 10. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
11
Mr. Williams: My question is, what’s, you know, what’s our balance in that account, you
know, and where are we now. I’m not saying I’m against these items. I just like to know what
balance we have and all.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let’s just pull them and then discuss them.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I mean, I don’t -- I just need a balance. I didn’t want -
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there any other items to be pulled? Okay. Hearing none, all in
favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting. Mr. Williams, would you want the
Finance Director or the Administrator for the balance? Mr. Kolb? Items numbered 8, 9, and 10.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Commission, I have no idea. I have not looked at
this account, so if you give us a few minutes, we’ll try and research it, pull it up, and see what
the amount is.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ll come back to it.
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-7, 11-20]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead. We have some people we need to get at. 44, and then
we’ll do 45.
CITIZENS SPLOST V COMMITTEE:
44. Discuss the SPLOST V Committee’s Mission Statement request. (Requested by
Commissioner Mays)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner?
Mr. Mays: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. The reason why I asked that this be placed
on here was, quite in fact, not necessarily for a full mission statement today or any motion on it
today, but to I guess kind of give all of us a little bit of a wakeup call to a point that we’ve had a
lot of discussion about different things that may be done during the course of the next SPLOST
program, whether we are going five years, whether we’re going ten years. Items that have been
presented by the Administrator, as well as some Departments. And I think, for the most part, in
terms of talking with some of the members that are on that committee, while at the same time,
trying to stay an arm’s distance, and allowing citizens to have the freedom to have input and to
give us a sense of direction. I think that it was summed up probably quite properly at the last
citizens’ meeting, and it’s something that I think falls on us because we are ultimately
responsible for what’s done. That is, quite frankly, a sense of clearer direction in terms of what
that Committee is to do, mainly because I think there are certain things that we have not decided
on yet, and at this time. So I think when you assemble a group of better than 20 people, and you
ask them to make certain decisions, and they do not know what they are limited to. They do not
know the timeframe. They may not know totally the amount of money that you’re going to
spend because you’re, quite frankly, you’ve not nailed down and made a decision as to whether
12
or not the timeframe of it will be five years or twice as long or some other time in between. So I
think that the Commission itself, and maybe through the possibility of whether we even deal with
a special meeting at some other time, but I think there needs to be a serious consideration to
giving a better sense of direction to what is going to the citizens’ Committee, not in terms of
dictation but in terms of clarity. I think, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, they need to know what items are
there on the agenda. For instance, I asked -- just as an example situation at our last -- not our last
committee meeting, but at Engineering Services, when we were talking about the items that were
there for Public Works, and I made mention of the fact that whether we did everything that was
on Public Works or not, the needs of Public Works needed to be articulated in full. If we have --
and the reason why I’m saying that is when the bond referendum failed, we left basically almost
100 million dollars’ worth of unfunded projects that was sitting there. Some of those are
probably deteriorated worse, and then those were not the only projects we had. So when I hear
one figure coming up in the committee meeting on a presentation, and I know that, obviously, in
that one department alone, there are other needs, and even with those other needs that are there,
those have even been cut. So there’s not a sense of clarity in terms of what the City itself needs
in terms of the overall projects that are out there, that cannot be done if they are not provided the
full amount of information. We have not done that as a group. We’ve had these various
workshops, we’ve had presentations, but presentations, Gentlemen, are not decisions. They are
not decisions that we’ve voted up or down. We’ve not said, to this point, quite frankly, what we
are going to do, and I think that leaves your committee somewhat in disarray because they don’t
know whether they can come in, whether they can add other items on, whether they can bring
things in from the community, whether they can ask a particular department head whether this is
all you have to be presented. I just, quite frankly, think that you’re on a bum rush to failure if
you do not articulate this properly. I think it needs to be spelled out to them in terms of clarity of
what all those numbers are, and I think, quite frankly, they need to know a clearer set of the rules
of the game that come from this Commission. I have some that were disturbed about the fact
that the only things that were being presented to them were things that they could consider. This
Commission has never made that decision, Gentlemen, and I think until we make a decision like
that, then we cannot have a committee that’s thinking it’s acting under one set of rules when
those rules have never been established. And I think when you start talking about spending
several hundred millions of dollars, that’s very important because when you line those things out,
if you tie your setup in indebtedness for five or ten years, then you do not have another source to
go back to, and it would be very embarrassing, plus very crippling, that if you left off 60 to 70
million dollars’ worth of projects. Now I heard the statement was made that in some cases, our
infrastructure needs, that the general public had told us what they thought about that because
they turned the bond issue down. Well, a lot of that dealt with politics because, as you know, I
told y'all it was crazy in the beginning to put two taxes on the same election date at the same
time. People were going to make a choice, and that’s exactly what they did. They passed
SPLOST by exactly the same numbers almost, that they turned down the bond referendum. So
those needs that came out of the bond referendum that were never addressed, and we do not, of
yet, put a funding source on, they’re still there, and I think to ignore them in some type of, you
know, voodoo economical game, that they’re just going to disappear is not going to happen. So I
think the Committee already has asked, by its own dialogue that it’s had, give us a sense of clear
direction, and I think, Gentlemen, that falls upon this Commission and the Mayor, all 11 of us, to
at least get back together and I think, either open up the process, either allow the numbers that
are real numbers, not just numbers that some folk want to be presented. They need to be real
13
numbers that are out there so that the committee can have, quite frankly, something to screen on.
The best example I know, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and I’ll shut up, is the fact that when we put this
government together, it was never clearly articulated how much money we had, what type of
water system we had, how broke another government was. People, as I’ve always said, people
lie. Numbers don’t. You got to put forth real and clear numbers. We’re not doing that. We’re
not giving that to the Committee, at this point, to be done, and I think until we set some clear
parameters of spelling out what this City needs, then get into a point of narrowing it down so that
we can make a clear decision. Do we need to be both dealing with SPLOST and also be dealing
with bond indebtedness? Those are answers that this Commission has not given. And I think at
some point very soon, in order for the Committee, and I think we do them a disservice. They
cannot function properly. They have said that to us, and that is my reason for at least putting this
on here today, so that we can at least think about it. So that we can very soon, and I mean, very
soon, because I think you have a great group and cross-section of people who are ready to go to
work. But if they do not know that they do not have a roadmap, if there are not real numbers out
of there, and if the only thing that’s being presented to them are items that they are saying, okay,
fine. This is what’s coming forth, or if we have a department head, or if we have an
Administrator coming forth with it, in all due respect, I think all of those items that Mr. Kolb has
presented, they should be presented, but it should not be limited to what the Administrator is
presenting because that can’t be the City’s position because, quite frankly, the City has not taken
a position. And the City needs to do one. So that’s not a fault, then, of the Administrator.
That’s one that this Commission -- now we need to get together, and we need to have a clearer
set of directions that we give to the Citizens’ Committee. It’s too much money to play games of
Monopoly with. It’s real money, and when we don’t solve those problems, when we don’t lay it
out properly, then we turn around and we just repeat the same mistakes that we’ve repeated in
the past, and I just think there needs to be a clear set of directions because we’ve got Judicial
Center. We’ve got -- we got all types of things that are there. We got the arts community. We
got cultural affairs. We got people all across this town that God’s water has touched for decades
and it’s still coming. It’s coming from Old’s Creek. It’s coming from Crane and Rae’s Creek.
It’s coming from Rocky Creek, and it’s still down in Phinizy Swamp. And to say that we have to
ignore that, I think we’re being very foolish, when we know that there are millions of dollars that
we’ve still got to address. And that’s all I’m saying, is that I think the Committee cannot make
intelligent decisions, if the Commission will not give them an intelligent roadmap and will not
give them factual numbers and release to them our true set of needs, and that’s all I want to say,
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. But I think it really seriously soon needs to be addressed so that -- because
we are doing them a constant disservice until we make that decision.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well noted. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and I second everything Commissioner
Mays said, and I want be very long. But I’ve met with several people in the community, and two
appointees, and Mr. Mays is right. They are confused. They are thinking that what’s been
proposed to them is all the options. Every district have got different needs. Some greater than
others. Mr. Mays spoke about water, and where it’s coming from, but there are a lot of people
who have been suffering in this county for a long, long time, and those issues have not been
addressed. And the perception is that the Commission have decided to do what has been
presented, and I tell them that we have not made any decision, but the perception is going out as
14
if we have made a decision. Now I explained to people -- I heard the concept, and I agree with a
lot of that, but I also agree that there are issues that we need to make sure that’s going be
addressed. In the heart of this City, Olive Road -- I keep singing this same song, where there is
no infrastructure yet. I’ve got businesses that’s operating on Olive Road that’s on a septic tank,
and that’s the heart of the City. So there are a lot of different issues that need to be addressed,
and we need to get together and put a list out so they’ll know that these are things that the City,
not the Commission, but the City needs, and we’re in support of. We can’t fix all because all
have been left out for a long time. But we can start to work soon on some of this stuff that we’ve
been neglecting, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I just want to say that I appreciate Mr. Mays putting it on.
I think that we need to get responsible and start to get proactive and meet ourselves and come up
with a list. If we got to give it to the Administrator, give it to the Assistant Administrator, or the
Attorney, or whoever handles that, so they’ll know that we have an agenda, and there are things
in our community that we want to see done.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem. I noticed that, under Item 35, that Mr. Kolb has
put on here, on the agenda, to discuss the Commission Two Day Workshop. If that’s coming up
fairly soon, and I’ll let him address that because -- I won’t attempt that, but should probably be
one of the most important things that we should discuss on whenever the agenda is set for that.
And if that would kind of move us off this to that, it would give us a chance that we would be
together to talk about it. And I don’t know how we would get off of Item 44 to that, but I’ll let
somebody else do that. But that may be the time that we could talk about it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. At the end of the month, we are
scheduled to make a visit to the, one of the other two consolidated governments -- that’s in
Columbus. And I think that they have broken the ground here in terms of these SPLOST that
can only be passed by consolidated city-county government, and I think that would be an
important thing to work into this discussion because obviously they’ve been successful there, and
I think we don’t need to be inventing the wheel here. But I think the input and the insight that
those of us who are planning to attend that trip would be well used in defining the mission
statement that we have here. And it was my understanding that the members of the SPLOST
Committee would, you know, if they chose, would go over there, as well. So what I would do --
I think we do need to address this soon, and I think it should be addressed early on after we make
that trip to Columbus. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Members of the Commission, in response to
Commissioner Boyles’ inquiry regarding Number 35, I had planned to pull that particular item,
since it was directed by the Commission to refer this to the Administrative Services Committee
to plan the two-day workshop. And this is a carryover from a meeting that was not held. Now,
we have put it on the agenda because -- as a placeholder, because we had planned to meet with
the two, well, with Commissioners Beard and Kuhlke, and a third party who could potentially
15
help facilitate that workshop. That meeting did not take place, so therefore I was going to pull it.
With respect to the SPLOST Committee, they have sent a call out the entire community, and they
are going to have two public hearings, and I would invite Commissioners to submit to us, to the
Committee, to whoever, an inquiry as to what projects may or may not be on the list. But to our
knowledge, we have given them all of the City infrastructure and facility needs, as requested by
the various departments. But, again, they will be having two public hearings to consider outside
requests from other than City agencies. They are now going over various projects that have been
put on the table and put before them. I think that one of their concerns was how investigative or
how deep did the Commission want them to go into a specific area. And I can give you an
example. There is a concern about the Sheriff’s jail pods, and whether or not the Law
Enforcement Center should be relocated to another site, or consolidated at another site. And in
order for that to occur, they’re probably needs to be a study done. And the price tag on that
study has been 400 thousand dollars. So I think the Committee is wondering, do they have the
authority to authorize that kind of detailed study. They are very clear, I believe, on what your
original mission was, and that is for the Committee to look at various projects or needs in the
community, develop two proposals, one five year, one ten year, and submit those to the
Commission with their recommendation as to what that SPLOST program should be. So I
believe that they are clear on that. They would just like to know how investigative, or how
detailed, do you want them to go, in terms of looking at the various projects. My last point is, I
believe that the Commission and the Committee will have an opportunity to discuss in detail --
you’ll be together from probably 6 o’clock in the morning until 10 o’clock that night, going to
Columbus to review their SPLOST program and their SPLOST planning. And I think at that
particular time could be an ideal opportunity for the two bodies to kind of come to terms as to
what their assignment should be.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commission Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I said previously that I thought it
would be a good idea for the SPLOST V Committee to hear from the Commissioners, to see their
desires and their interest in the project, and I think -- it sounds like that’s what I’m hearing from
this Committee, that they’re not quite sure we want them to do, and what their mission is. But
once -- if they hear from us, not a trip to Columbus on the bus, but in a meeting like we’re doing
here, that we could talk about it, then they could hear the heart of each Commissioner and to
know the concerns, because after all, before it’s all said and done, it’s going to have to come
right back here with six votes. So you might as well start at the beginning and work, rather than
to put us behind. All the other departments, that’s fine for them to come forward. That’s good,
good information, but I think the Commissioners, they need to sit down, we need to sit down
with them, and each one of us give them our laundry list, and then they could make more
intelligent decisions of what really is a reality of what we can do and what we cannot do. So I
think I’d like to see that take place. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Noted, Mr. Hankerson. Any other discussion? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I’ve -- I’ve got down here is that they
were looking for a mission statement, and to me a mission statement is much like this
government came up with the first year that it consolidated, and it was basically a few sentences
16
in a paragraph. I don’t know that that would tell them much. But I think those Committee
members that we appointed -- you know, when I appointed mine, I did some discussion with
them. They wanted to know what direction they should head, and what my feelings were on it,
and I told them, so I think they’ve got a good indication of the things that I’m looking for, in
regards to the SPLOST and what should be on there and what should be a priority and what
should be secondary, that type of thing. And, you know, my thinking was that everybody else
has done that with their two appointments and that was the purpose for those appointments, so
that, through them, we would have that kind of input. And I’m sure the bus trip’s going to be
good, too, but I’m -- if we’re -- what I’m hearing now is, we’re actually getting involved in
something that we had transferred to this Committee, to come -- to research and come back with,
you know, recommendations to us. In summary, I think we’ve done discussion with them
before. I think it sounds like they’re headed in the right direction, and George, I don’t want them
spending 400 thousand dollars, you know, to do a study and bring a recommendation back. I
think what they should have to do, they should do with the tools of the staff and, you know, that
they have at hand. But to me, I think, you know, we’ve discussed those issues with each of our
appointments, and we should let to go from there.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen? Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Commissioner Bridges brought up a point, Mayor Pro Tem, and I think
each Commissioner who had appointees talked to that person or those persons, and they
explained that direction and the direction that they want them to come, or want them to look at.
But if you talk to those people now, they have heard a different side of the table, and they are
thinking that what is being proposed is what we’re saying. And I don’t know how we can clarify
this. I don’t know how we can get this clear, but Commissioner Bridges is right. He’s talked to
his appointees, he’s told them the direction that he want them to come, and when they hear the
presentation, and I heard the presentation, and it sounds good, but that’s not what my
constituents in District 2 is needing right now. I’m not saying that none of that is necessary, or
that none of that is needed, but it doesn’t touch the things that the people in District 2 is needing.
And those are the things that, you know, I agree with Commissioner Bridges again, you know,
that I shared, but when they hear another side, they think that that’s the side they got to adhere to.
And I think that’s a misconception that’s out there, and that they need to be told -- they need to
hear from us, this is what we want. This is what’s being proposed, and let’s look at both of those
now and then determine, you know, what’s going to be feasible for the money.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Go ahead, Bill.
Mr. Kuhlke:
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m sure we’re not going to solve anything here. But
it might be appropriate for the Commission to have a meeting, since the Citizens' Committee has
I’d like to make
met a couple of times, to give us an update and ask for some feedback from us.
a motion that we ask the Administrator to set up a special meeting between us and
SPLOST V Citizens Committee, perhaps prior to when they meet, to give us an update on
what they’re doing, what approach they’re taking, and let us give them some feedback at
that point.
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
17
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion and a second on the floor. Go ahead, Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Members of the Commission, the SPLOST V Committee
meets every, every Wednesday, at 3 o’clock, so if you want to pick one of those times, either this
coming -- not tomorrow, but next Wednesday or the Wednesday after your trip, or some other
Wednesday, we can ask them, and if you want to meet prior to 3 o’clock, or right at 3 o’clock,
we can put it on their agenda. That is a definite date that they meet.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The motion was, Mr. Kolb, to set up a special meeting, not for us to
ask them to meet with us. Well, if we can do that, that’s fine.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if I could clarify, I think that rather than having them
come an extra day, if the meeting could be set up prior to their normal meeting at 3 o’clock. So
whatever that appropriate time would be.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, let me -- let me just say -- I’m going to support the
motion. It’s a good one because it gets us to a step of having a meeting. And we do need to
finalize some things. Now, I’m glad that it will be prior to and separate from because they are
very diligent in what they’re doing. They’re dedicated. And I think it does take away from them
to a point if we’re going to come in and dominate their meeting. The point is, I still get back to it
-- we have to make up our minds about what we want presented, and what we want done. For
instance, another case point. We keep hearing about town about what date a referendum is going
to be held. Well, Gentlemen, let me tell you something. If it’s unclear as to what people are
going to be voting on -- if you’re thinking about doubling the time that SPLOST is going be
extended, and you still got people in a lot of areas of this community -- west, inner city, deep
south, that are asking questions, particularly about the infrastructure needs of this City and other
problems. If we have not provided that type of information, you may be in for a very rude
awakening and surprise because, number one, you’re talking about holding an election possibly
in an off-year. You’re rushing to deal with it when you do have plenty of time. You’re ignoring
the fact that you’ve got a general election next year when people turn out in record numbers, if
you’re looking for support, and particularly if you’re looking at the possibilities of having to deal
with two different funding sources of what you’ve got. So I think, until you set a menu to a point
of what you going to deal with, it is very foolhardy to run out, put dates out, then we’re rushing
this, because this is going to take place in September, this is going to take place on that day.
That is crazy. And for the main reason, the group that we put together collectively, and you say
we need to meet with those folk. My two appointees -- one served before. I put a new person on
this time, one that had the experience of serving that time, one who’ll bring in new ideas to the
table. I’m not necessarily in the mood for micromanaging that group sitting in their meetings
and telling them what to do. I think you have a group of very intelligent people who are there.
But they must be given sensible direction. They must be given first what we want to do. And I
keep emphasizing that to a point that maybe it will get through. We have not voted on one thing
to be done, and this is not a knock on the Administrator. I am pleased that George has made
presentations. Things have to be done. I think that got them off to a good start. But to say the
18
Commission has done anything and narrowed it down, and we’re talking about dates for an
election, and we don’t even know what our true needs are, and to put a dollar figure on them.
Gentlemen, that is not good business sense to do. And you may get something passed in an
election, but you going to tie the hands of the next Commission. Two of you will be leaving.
Two of us will be coming off very shortly. Four of us will be gone. But the Commission that
will come behind us and the people that would have to deal with that, they’re going to be in for a
mountain of problems if we do not set the tone properly and we do not do it in an intelligent
fashion. And that’s why I think -- Mr. Kuhlke, I appreciate that motion. It needs to be done, but
we gentlemen are going to have to make some decisions. Presentations are a lot different than
firm decisions, and I think we have to lay out issues that are out there. I think to a point that the
Commission is clear. Now I agree. That was one example Mr. Kolb used in terms of saying
that, you know, they may have been a little off-base on that. But when you talk to them across
district lines, there are more questions than just the one he raised in reference to about the
Sheriff’s Department study deal. There are people who live in these areas that have had
problems, that want to know how those numbers going to be addressed. Those are the kinds of
questions, Gentlemen, you know that they are bringing to us as Commissioners. And until we
make decisions on how we’re going to deal with that, then it’s foolhardy to then go out and say
you’re going to extend something for ten years when you don’t even really know what you’re
going to put out there to be paid for. And that’s why I think the Commission has to first make
that decision, and then we allow them to act properly. We allow them to use their expertise and
their intelligence, and we don’t have to sit there and baby-sit them. Ultimately, as Commissioner
Hankerson said, yes, it does come back to us. But I think if we’re going to sit there and we’re
going to dictate within their own confines of a meeting, that’s not the correct thing to do. But we
do need to make up our minds as grown folks what we’re going to do and what we’re going to
present. And right now, we’ve not done that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We had a motion on the floor and a second, Gentlemen. All in
favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’re going to take a small break. We got a golf team out -- we
delayed to do a presentation. We’d like to just go ahead and get that out of the way so we can go
ahead and take care of business.
C. Academy of Richmond County (Musketeers)
RE: Class AAA State Golf Champions
Mr. John Hart, Sports Director, WJBF Channel 6
Team Roll Call
Mr. Hart: Thank you everybody. Even better. There we go. Well, we’re here to honor
these State Champions in Triple A, the Richmond Academy Golf Team of 2003. I’ll read the
names off, one by one, including the coach, and we have a certificate for each one of you to
congratulate you. We’ll begin with the players. First off Mike Green. Congratulations, Mike.
(A round of applause is given.)
19
Mr. Hart: Next is Wallace Palmer.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Hart: Then Will Parham.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Hart: R. B. McHutchin.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Hart: Charlie Wall.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Hart: Chris Stallman.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Hart: And Coach Gene Crislip.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Hart: The Musketeers, by the way, won their region tournament by 41 strokes and
when in the state tournament, they ended one of the longest running dynasties ever in Georgia
state golf. Now they are the State Champions, so give them one more round of applause.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Hart: Congratulations, guys. Now back to your regularly scheduled program.
(A round of applause is given.)
OTHER BUSINESS:
45. Discuss Special Grand Jury Expenses. (Requested by Commissioner
Hankerson)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I just have some concerns. A lot of
questions have been asked since the report came out about the Special Grand Jury. The cost that
was involved in 2000 up until the current time, and also some issues about the different salaries
for the grand jurors, ranging from 50 dollars to, I think, around 16,250 dollars for one particular
grand juror. These questions are -- that’s why we wanted Mr. Craig, our most honorable D.A., if
20
you would come and explain this to us. I got a lot of calls from constituents and other
individuals who are asking about the cost of it. It’s fluctuating -- the whole total cost from
anywhere from 19,000 to 123,000, and then when the list, we saw the list of the jurors, how they
were compensated. We want some explanation on the amounts of why one individual received
16,000 and one received 50, one received 3000 for that period of time, and I think in all toll, for
just for the jurors, around 88,000 dollars that we paid for the jurors, and that amount that was
paid, and we still -- what I’m hearing is we still at the same place. We don’t know, nothing came
out of it, as far as any wrongdoing or whatever. We haven’t heard that yet, and whether or not,
to where we still be waiting for another year or two or a decision is being made because a
decision wasn’t made on the local level. So would you just explain that to us?
Mr. Craig: Yes, Commissioner Hankerson, thank you. Let me -- I’ll try not to be long-
winded, but I think I need to explain to you the role of the grand jury as it relates to our
government and so that you can better understand that. A grand jury is a constitutional body,
just like a judge holds a constitutional office, a sheriff holds a constitutional office, the District
Attorney holds a constitutional office. Well, the special grand jury has its own provision and its
own constitutional office that it holds. The grand jury comes into being, ordinarily, with what
we call the terms of court. In Richmond County, we have six terms of court per year, and
yesterday, we actually swore in a new grand jury for a regular term of court. That is not how
your special grand jury came into being. I don’t know if you remember, but your special grand
jury came into being because the Mayor actually wrote a letter to our Chief Superior Court judge
and asked that a special grand jury be impaneled back in 1999. And a couple of the grand juries
before that had indicated that just serving nine weeks, that is, the two-month term, was an
insufficient amount of time for them to properly review the operations of government that they
were being called upon to review as part of their instructions from the court. And so, having
heard that from two regular term grand juries and receiving the request from the Mayor, the
Chief Superior Court Judge went to all of the judges, as he’s required to do under the Code of
Georgia, and had them to vote on whether or not to impanel a special grand jury. And so they
voted, and a special grand jury was impaneled. Once it’s impaneled, then the way it comes into
being, and the way it begins to work is the court brings them together -- by the way, they didn’t
run for that office. They are your constituents, and they didn’t ask for that office. They were
drafted into service. They were compelled to serve. They received summonses, and they had to
come into the court and answer to that summons, and the response that they were given when
they appeared in court was, you shall serve as a grand juror, and they did serve. And they were
given special instructions by the court. they were given the ordinary charge, what duties and
responsibilities of the special grand jury are, and what those of a regular grand jury are, and then
they were given special instructions as was voted on by the court, that is, by the judges, insofar
as how to respond to the request from the regular term grand juries and the mayor that a special
grand jury be impaneled. Along with instructing them about all of their duties and
responsibilities, the court also instructed them that if you need legal advice beyond the
instructions that are being given to you at this time, then you are to ask the District Attorney for
legal advice. The District Attorney is the only legal advisor to a grand jury. He also instructs
them that if you need legal advice or are not satisfied with the legal advice of the District
Attorney, then you can come back to the court. But you cannot obtain legal advice elsewhere.
Then the grand jury is instructed to go and to begin their work. And the special grand jury did
go and began their work. They were actually instructed and impaneled in late 1999, but they did
21
not begin their work until just after the first of the year, in the year 2000. They worked without
any interference or any sort of intervention on the part of anybody, including the District
Attorney. The special grand jury, as I told you, is a constitutional body. They are not -- there’s
no one to run the grand jury except for the law that the judge gives to them at the time that they
are instructed and impaneled. That’s what runs the grand jury. It is a constitutional body that
runs itself. And it worked for three years. When they subpoena people to come in to work with
them, then anyone who responds to a subpoena to come in and to appear before the grand jury is
entitled to be paid. We have provisions under the law about how we compensate people who are
called into court and who are called in before a grand jury. And they are paid at the rate of 25
dollars per day. The grand jury can subpoena anyone to come in and appear before them, as
often as they wish. I know that some or all of you actually appeared before the grand jury. I was
there infrequently because their -- apparently their need for legal advice was not frequent, and to
show you how infrequent it was, I don’t remember ever being over there on a day when any of
you were there, but I know that some of you were actually called back a number of times in order
to testify before the grand jury. When a person appears before the grand jury or when the grand
jury itself asks for compensation for the number of days that they have worked, then that request
for compensation is tendered to the Superior Court judges, who preside over them. That request
is approved or disapproved by the judges, and it is forwarded then to the Finance Department for
the County with instructions to either pay or not to pay that request for reimbursement and
compensation. Beyond that, I don’t have knowledge about the expenses of the grand jury
because those expenses do not pass through the District Attorney’s Office. They’re not
submitted to me for approval. They’re not presented to me for advice. They’re presented to the
court for approval, and they’re submitted to the Finance Department for payment.
Mr. Hankerson: Did you say the persons appearing before the grand jury are paid?
Mr. Craig: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: All of them?
Mr. Craig: Yes, sir. Anyone who is --
Mr. Wall: They’re entitled to be paid. They’re not necessarily paid.
Mr. Craig: Anyone who is subpoenaed to appear before any court in our country, not just
in our state, but anywhere in our country, is entitled to be paid.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. I was just fixing to say, I hadn’t received my check. I’m not
asking for it, but I was just wondering. Okay.
Mr. Craig: There are also some provisions with regard to the rights of certain employers
in that regard. That is, if an employer is paying you your daily wage, notwithstanding the fact
that you are absent to respond to a subpoena, then the employer actually can reduce that from
your daily wage. [inaudible]
22
Mr. Hankerson: The reason I asked that particular question was because in the list I have
received, I only have payments that were made to I assume these are jurors, not people that came
--
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Hankerson: That’s why I was asking that question then. If it was, then it would be
even more than what we have here. I appreciate you giving me -- giving clarity on that. But you
raised a couple of questions, and you can be brief on with it. I was just concerned because you
said that who directed this grand jury to come into place. But my big question is, what was --
you said they began that work. What was their assignment?
Mr. Craig: Their assignment was to perform the civil duties and responsibilities of the
grand jury. I have a grand jury handbook that actually is authored by the Prosecuting Attorneys
Council of Georgia, and that we provide to every grand juror at the beginning of the term, and it
could be very helpful to you, and I’ll have one delivered back over to you, and I’ll direct your
attention now to pages 28 and 40 of that handbook which is --
Mr. Hankerson: Excuse me. I’m not speaking of the duties of a grand juror, because I
think you gave me that handbook once. We were in a meeting out in the community. But I was
speaking of this particular assignment as far as to the government and the reports that came back,
and their findings and so forth. Was their assignments, was particularly to target just a particular
area, particular department, or I heard corruptions a lot of time, corruptions in the government as
a whole. I mean, we’re not saying the government as a whole, I mean, everything -- or they were
just particular assignments were at the time -- it was a need to look at a particular department or
particular area.
Mr. Craig: Their duties and responsibilities were only as restricted by law, first. But the
court did instruct them. I was down there that morning in probably November of 1999, when the
court gave them their instructions, and there were special additional instructions that were given
to this grand jury. As I recall, those additional instructions arose from what the grand juries that
preceded them had indicated were specific needs, and also arose, perhaps, from the request that
was made by the Mayor, with regard to impaneling the special grand jury. It would be wrong for
me to try and quote that. It’s been, you know, three and a half years ago, and I don’t think that
would be fair to anyone for me to guess specifically what the court’s instructions to the grand
jury were. However, the minutes of the court may assist you, and you might be able to see what
additional instructions were given. But again, those instructions were not to limit the authority
of the grand jury, as provided by law, and which I’ve said, allows them to conduct the overview
of the operations of local government.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. But -- you know, I understand that it’s been three years, you
don’t want to go into that. But I’m just, you know, 123,000 dollars spent -- I think that the
citizens of this City would really need to know exactly what was the task that we paid 123,000
dollars for. If specific instructions were given, by whom and, you know, with the results coming
out, because my question was, you know, since I’ve been on Commission, there are a lot of other
things that I came on Commission and called attention to that I think that, you know, even the
23
grand jury will do, looking at the entire City, how it’s operated and so forth, that those things
would have been easily picked up, too, by a grand jury. You know, for instance, we had people
there that were signing checks that are no longer here anymore, and those sort of things. I was
just thinking all of that should have been brought into the picture of that, but I appreciate you --
as far as I’m concerned, I’m finished with questions because you answered about the finance,
what I was really concerned about.
Mr. Craig: You’re so welcome.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Danny, while you’re here -- I appreciate
your coming, as well. But for a long time, this has been back and forth with the community, and
[inaudible]. As far as the pay is concerned, I’ve got three days coming. I might call you up
about them three days I went down there. Hankerson’s not requesting his, but -- I’m a little
disturbed, I guess, is not to hear any direction, even though the Mayor, you said, was the person
who kind of got this together, so to speak, I guess. What’s the word? Implemented?
Mr. Craig: All I’m saying to you is the Mayor wrote a letter.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Craig: I don’t know on whose behalf he wrote the letter. I would assume he wrote it
as Mayor. And he asked the Chief Superior Court Judge to consider impaneling a special grand
jury.
Mr. Williams: But in that letter should have been some definite directions as to what was
the problem, or what areas to at least start in. I had not heard that yet. I mean, the money we
spent, the time that people have spent. Commissioner Hankerson brought up a good point about
the checks, but there are several things in this government that we know that everybody knows
there always could be problems. There’s always a chance. Anything that can go wrong will go
wrong. We’ve got departments in this government that have no check and balance, meaning that
there’s monies coming in to this department in different areas, where we only take the word of
the employees. But none of that was checked. It seems as if we spend monies, and we said we
was going -- the perception was that we was going to look at corruption within the entire
government, finding those things and bringing those things to the light that we could change, and
we could fix, and if there was some criminal things done, you know, we were going to address
those things. But I had not heard any of that yet. I mean, I don’t know where we’re supposed to
be starting at. I do know where the focus was. I do know who visit the grand jury more so than
others. I do know how negatively the report came back, as if it was so bad and so wrong. Then
we find out later that that was untrue. I do know that people who have been trying to work and
keep this government afloat was criticized by the grand jury more so than people who are not
doing what they’re supposed to do. It’s one-sided, Danny. I mean, that’s the only way to put it.
I heard you say that you was giving the legal opinions, if they needed any legal --
24
Mr. Craig: The District Attorney is the sole legal advisor to a grand jury, should they be
in need of legal advice.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And your legal opinion -- Steve is here, I got my attorney with me.
If -- when you gave that legal opinion, not what it was, but can you tell us what it was directed
in, I mean --
Mr. Craig: No, I can’t do that, and the reason is because a grand jury is sworn to secrecy.
And the grand jury is under an oath to maintain that secrecy unless called upon to give evidence
thereof in some court of law. That is their specific oath that they take. It would not do very
good for the grand jury to be under an oath of secrecy and then for the District Attorney to come
back and to share with you those things that they are bound to secrecy about. So --
Mr. Williams: But that’s when they in session. That’s when it is effect.
Mr. Craig: No. It’s for their life.
Mr. Williams: It’s for their life? Okay. Well, I don’t know nothing about grand juries. I
just went down there to talk to them. I mean, I never --
Mr. Craig: I think I can also shed some light on what may be a misconception to, on your
part, because you’ve indicated that -- I don’t know what the source of your thoughts are that
there was to be an investigation of corruption. The fact is that one of the additional instructions
that are given to a grand jury is that they shall not conduct any criminal investigations at all.
And if a grand jury, during the course of their work, comes across something that they perceive
to possibly be a violation of law, that’s one of the things that would trigger their calling the
District Attorney and asking the District Attorney to appear before them, so that they could ask --
we have found this, this, and this. Are we authorized to continue working on this? And the
District Attorney at that time might advise them, yes, you can continue because it’s not criminal
in nature, and it’s not a criminal investigation. Or, no, you may not continue doing that, and
anything that you have in regard to that should be turned over to a police agency to conduct
criminal investigations, because grand juries do not conduct criminal investigations.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Excuse me, Danny. But, in hearing what you said, if that was the
case, three and a half years this ongoing investigation was taking place, there had to be
something to allow you to direct them to continue for three and a half years. There had to be
something.
Mr. Craig: No. That’s entirely wrong.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well --
Mr. Craig: Because I did not direct the grand jury to continue their work or to
discontinue their work. The grand jury periodically would make reports to their presiding judge
with regard to the work that they were doing, and just to keep the judge apprised of where they
are in their work, but for you to think that the District Attorney is the one who directs the work,
25
assigns the work, gives them a schedule within which to work, or gives them any idea about the
length of their term would be an entire misconception on your part.
Mr. Williams: Okay. You also said that they was at liberty, that they had no one to call
them off, I guess is a good word. Maybe I’m using the wrong term here, but to disband them. If
they don’t have any direction and they’re like an elected official indefinitely, they’ve got no one
to say, that’s enough. They got no one to say, you know, you haven’t found anything. Why is
there not still a grand jury now? I mean, the special grand jury now. I don’t want to get mixed
up --
Mr. Craig: All right. There is a grand jury now. Therefore, if you have questions, and
you feel like there are things that the grand jury, after having giving this community three and a
half years of their lives, that they were unable to reach -- that does not mean that it can’t be
addressed. Because we have a regular term grand jury, and if you have things of concern to you,
you can always submit them to a regular term grand jury and have them to look at that. You’re
not without, without help. But there was a point in time where the court simply had to call a stop
to a special grand jury. I don’t know if you know this, but Representative Henry Howard has
actually introduced legislation where, in fact, there is a one-year limitation placed on a special
grand jury. It hasn’t gotten to the floor of the House for a vote, but there would be a one-year
limitation placed on the grand jury unless the grand jury comes before the court and tells the
court specifically what it is that they think would require them to serve for longer than one year.
Mr. Williams: Well, I salute Representative Howard for introducing the bill. I think
that’s good.
Mr. Craig: I think it is, too.
Mr. Williams: We’ve been dealing with this for some three and a half years. And I don’t
want to confuse a grand jury with a special grand jury. We’re talking about the cost that they
cost the taxpayers. We got people in this government that needs equipment and other stuff.
We’ve spent money for three and a half years. We took people off their jobs, and we
supplemented your pay, and, you know, you alluded to that earlier, when they could have been
on their jobs. And we have not come yet to say what was the problem. What was the main
issue? What -- why was it there? What have you found? If you look long enough on anybody, I
mean, you can find something. I mean, you can agree with that, right?
Mr. Craig: I’m not --
Mr. Williams: I mean, human nature says that we’re all going to do something sometime.
I mean, Danny --
Mr. Craig: I’m not so sure I agree. We are all human.
Mr. Williams: That’s right. And human nature says --
Mr. Craig: From time to time, God prunes us.
26
Mr. Williams: That’s right. That’s exactly right. And we’ll stop preaching that because
Reverend Hankerson give me an amen, and I’ll get to going, but I just -- I just wanted to know, I
mean, from all the stuff that we heard, from the stuff that’s affected this City, from people from
here to everywhere, there are a lot of cities that have stated to me -- and I say cities, I mean
representatives and council from other cities -- saying that they never heard of a grand jury
unless there was a murder case or something. And I said, well, it’s a continuing thing in
Augusta. But those the kind of things that we need to get past and here beyond. I’m just hoping
that whatever’s been done is finished and over and done with. We done spent money. We done
spent time. People done have to take time out of their busy schedules to go downtown or
downstairs and talk to these people and try to share with them, you know, what they know. So --
Mr. Craig: If you reduce it to dollars and cents, I can tell you -- this is something I do
recall, and that is, in the first month, maybe the first six weeks that the grand jury served in the
year 2000, and in reviewing a presentation that had been made to the County Commission, with
regard to indigent care payments for indigent medical care in this community, they found that
there had actually been an accounting error, which had caused the Commission not to take into
account 4.9 million dollars that was being received from sources outside the community into our
hospitals for the provision of indigent care. And they brought that immediately -- that was their
first of nine presentments. They brought that to you attention. And you immediately acted upon
that and reduced the amount of money that you had appropriated for indigent care by one million
dollars, and then, to my knowledge, over the last two years, you have not increased those
appropriations. That is, that has resulted in a savings of about three million dollars. I would like
to be able to invest about 116,000 dollars somewhere, with a three million dollar return in three
years. But again, I don’t think we should reduce the grand jury to whether or not we’ve gotten a
return on money. It costs money to run your court systems. If we were to try to find out where
we got a monetary return on our investment on prosecuting murder cases downstairs, then I
would assure you that we would wind up in a loss situation on every one. But I can also tell you
of the literally hundreds [inaudible] that we remove from the community. We actually get a
benefit --
Mr. Williams: Danny, let me interrupt you a minute. I appreciate your comment on that,
but Commissioner Hankerson brought up a point about 50 dollars being paid and 16,000, I
believe, paid to another. How do we justify that? I mean, your saying somebody can serve and
say I don’t want no pay, and so they serve, and somebody say I do want pay, and they get paid?
Mr. Craig: I’d have to speculate. I cannot tell you that because I am not in charge of
paying the grand jury, nor do I take attendance of the grand jury, nor do I know --
Mr. Williams: But wouldn’t you think that raises a question, though, with the taxpayers
of Augusta know that one person got 16,000 and the other person didn’t get but 50, or the other
person just signed off on that 50 or whatever they did? But wouldn’t you think that raises
concern?
Mr. Craig: I would think that the cost of running our court system might be of concern to
you, any of the citizens of the community, but with regard to any particular item of compensation
27
provided to a witness in the case, or from any given case, is just impossible for me to speculate
as to what the explanation might be.
Mr. Williams: Okay. My last thing, Mayor Pro Tem, and then I’m through, and Danny,
you can answer this or not. But do you know if any of the grand jurors was related to
departments, and I say departments, through their families, working in some of the government?
Mr. Craig: No, I’m sorry. No, actually, I’m proud to be able to say to you that I don’t do
background checks on jurors. I don’t know who they are related to, what positions they hold in
the community. I know generally --
Mr. Williams: A special grand juror is my question, now. You don’t know any --
Mr. Craig: I don’t do background checks.
Mr. Williams: You don’t do background check. But would it be fair then -- and I said
one more question, Richard -- but would it be fair then to let somebody do that, and being related
to and not know that they was, you know -- you know, if I’m related to someone in here, and I’m
a special grand juror, if I like that person, I dislike that person, if I had some insight from that
person as to what was going on because I’m related to them, and they been in the government, I
mean, is that a way --
Mr. Craig: Well, there’s a law that specifically applies to what I think you’re getting at,
and this is instructed to every grand jury. And that is, you are disqualified as a grand juror to
preside in any matter, any criminal matter presented to you, if you are related by blood or
marriage to the third degree [inaudible] the third degree to either the prosecutor in the case -- a
prosecutor is not a lawyer -- the prosecutor isn’t your DA, the prosecutor is a witness who
testifies before the grand jury -- or to a victim in the case. That’s the say this Grand Jury
[inaudible]. So there was [inaudible] .
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you. Just a couple of quick questions. I looked at the $16,000 figure
and at $25 per day, that’s 640 days that someone charged the city. We have about 251 days less
vacation of normal working days during the year. Is it possible that this person was a fulltime
employee for almost the entire session of the session of the Special Grand Jury?
Mr. Craig: It is impossible to speculate about that. I have no idea. I don’t receive or
approve those bills to pay them, so it would just be wrong for me to stand here and speculate. I
think it would be wrong to that individual to suggest that.
Mr. Cheek: I mean just the numbers, you know, unless there’s something different in
compensation for loss of income or something. 640 days in less than 42 months. Less than 251
days a year. That’s a fulltime employee. And I know that I would expect it for a Special Grand
Jury to meet unless they are chartered as an individual to go off on their own and do special
things apart from a regular body. But that would kind of raise a red flag and I would hope
28
somebody would look at that. I just wanted to ask that question. That just seems like an awful
large charge, given the fact that the other charges are just smaller in nature, for one individual to
make, if they were acting independent of the body, which I don’t know if that’s legitimate or not.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Craig?
Mr. Craig: I think I need to this, that when a Grand Jury performs the civil duties and
responsibilities, in order for them to begin to perform any civil duties and responsibilities, it
takes a total of eight Grand Jurors to decide to do that, while sitting in a quorum. And what they
have [inaudible] eight of them vote to pursue any particular civil duty or responsibility, and the
Grand Jury has the authority to actually perform those duties and responsibilities by [inaudible]
and there is nothing to prevent a Grand Juror from working with one committee or several
committees.
Mr. Cheek: It just seems for that, again, for one individual to have such a difference in
the amount they are paid versus the others, either they spent a lot of time by themselves or they
were, you know, an oversight person, or they were chartered to go do something independent. I
don’t know. You may not have that information. Certainly that seems to be -- again, the Grand
Jury had a member who was acting as a full-time employee, and I now that we don’t meet every
day and we can conduct a lot of business. I know the Special Grand Jury didn’t formally gather
every day. So that’s an issue for concern, and I guess one of the things I wanted to ask you, too,
is the selection process, from what I understand about the selection process for Special Grand
Juries or Grand Juries, is different than the selection process for standard juries.
Mr. Craig: It is.
Mr. Cheek: Can you kind of touch the high points on that?
Mr. Craig: Yes, I can. [inaudible] regular trial jury. [inaudible] trial jury is a petit jury
or a traverse jury or trial jury. It’s all the same. That group of people are assembled, out of
which you select 12 for actual trial of the case. And those are selected from the registered voters
list. Now because of our motor-voter law, they’re actually selected from a combination of
registered voters and from those with driver’s licenses. Richmond County -- this may be
somewhat off -- I think we have about 60,000 or 70,000 registered voters in Richmond County.
There is a computer program that every two years [inaudible] and what it will do is it will select
20,000 people out of the number of registered voters that we have in order to serve for the next
two years as potential jurors to be selected in order to come in and serve. Once those 20,000
names are chosen randomly from the list of registered voters, then that list of 20,000 is run
through another program with regard to demographics of those individuals who have been
selected [inaudible], and it’s required by law that there be not more than five percent margin of
error insofar as the representation of the demographics of the community in that jury box. In
Richmond County, because our formula is so exact, we actually carry a zero percent margin of
error from year-to-year with regard to reflection of demographics of our community in that jury
box. Last year, for example, we have [inaudible] in Richmond County. For each week of Court,
another computer program is used in order to basically reach in, if you will, to this pool of
20,000 jurors and to pull between 70 and 90 jurors to serve at any given week of court. For
29
death penalty cases, we actually pull 150 jurors [inaudible] qualification process required for
death penalty cases. So to be on a trial jury, all you have to do is basically be a registered voter
or have a driver’s license during any given two year period of time. That’s not how we select
Grand Jurors. Grand Jurors are selected by a Grand Jury Committee, which is appointed. It’s a
six person committee serving staggered terms so that there is continuity in their representation
and their work. They are actually appointed by the Chief Superior Court Judge. They represent
every race and color and age group within our community. And their charge is to sit down and
to assemble a Grand Jury pool, if you will. We use to have all these names on cards in boxes, so
if I ever use the term box, you’ll know it’s because of the old fashioned way that Grand Jurors’
names and traverse jurors’ name were maintained. They’re required to assemble a pool of 2,000
persons to serve on Grand Juries for the next intervening two years. Ensuing two years. And
what they will do is they will take that 2,000 names and they’ll run them through a computer
program just like I told you about the 20,000, to make sure that those 2,000 names represent the
demographics of the community. And the demographics are determined, of course, by the last
decennial census. And so we are now working from the 2000 census to make sure that our
demographics are representative. I’ve just finished a hearing downstairs last week, if you want
to know what those demographics are. I’ll be happy to share those with you. But anyway, once
that adjustment is made and we have assembled our pool of 2,000 Grand Jurors, then for any
term of court we will actually reach in and pull about 30 names. And the reason is because it
takes 30 names to have 23 Grand Jurors to appear on any given week of court. The names that
are assembled in that list of 2,000 Grand Jurors according to, again, the law -- it’s not left up to
the whimsy, if you will, of the Grand Juror Commissioners, it’s the law that they sit down
together and they are to assemble a list of 2,000 name of the most intelligent, experienced, and
upright citizens of the community. And that is the criteria that’s applied there. It’s not a random
selection process or random [inaudible]. It’s supposed to be a list of the most intelligent,
experienced and upright citizens of the community. And it’s also a rule that there are supposed -
- any one person selected for Grand Jury service is supposed to be known to two of the Grand
Jury Commissioners, so when they sit down and work through all of the names, and it could be
acquaintances, it could co-workers, it could be people they know by reputation in the community
or otherwise, that’s how they assemble the list of Grand Jurors. When we start any given term of
court, whether that’s the Special Grand Jury that we work with or whether that’s a regular term
Grand Jury, we work with not more than 23 Grand Jurors and not fewer than 16 Grand Jurors. It
takes 16 Grand Jurors in order to have a quorum.
Mr. Cheek: Just to follow up, then. Just by normal extension, I guess, if Albert Einstein
lived in Augusta and he wasn’t known by some of the six on the panel, then he may not be
considered the best and brightest.
Mr. Craig: That is correct.
Mr. Cheek: Sounds like that system needs to be altered to broaden the space a little bit. I
have problems when six people select from people they know and those being only considered
the best and brightest in Augusta. I think that’s a problem and demonstrates some antiquity in
the system. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges?
30
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Craig, of course the Judge has ended the
Special Grand Jury, but in my mind and in a lot of others’ minds, this thing is not going to be
over until the GBI comes back with their report on the information that they’re holding on the
Fire Department. And they’ve held that for at least two years, maybe it’s longer than that. I
know you don’t have any control over it and I know they can’t tell you anything, but is there any
indication of when they’ll make their final report on that?
Mr. Craig: The Georgia Bureau of Investigation has completed its work, and that report
came through my office, and as soon as it reached to my office, it was forwarded to the Attorney
General of Georgia. And the Attorney General of Georgia now has the findings of the Georgia
Bureau of Investigation. My office has been recused in regard to that because, pretty much for
some of the discussion we’ve had. I felt like it would be fairer to the people of this community
to have a decision made by the Attorney General who has absolutely no ties to the community in
making a determination with regard to that report.
Mr. Bridges: Do you know when he’ll make a decision and we’ll have an ending to this?
Mr. Craig: No, there’s no way for me to tell you that. It would not be right for me to put
a deadline on the Attorney General of Georgia to do his work, and it would also not be fair for
me to guess. And it would be strictly a guess as to when that might be done.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays, go ahead.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, first of all let me thank Mr. Craig and any other persons
that may be here from his staff. I realize he’s got some very serious prosecuting to be done. And
we appreciate your time and your presence for being here.
Mr. Craig: Thank you.
Mr. Mays: I’m not going to be redundant in terms of things that I have said in reference
to bringing closure to this issue. It’s already on record and it’s the same statement that I made
when it started, same statement I made just a few weeks ago. So that’s there. And I don’t think
that we can bring into question [inaudible] for legislation that may or may not be in place.
Things that may not be under the guidelines of the District Attorney’s office, per se, because
there are obviously more people involved in this than the D.A. But I do have questions, and just
a few of them, and a couple of comments. One, when we started off and you deal with the term
“a Special Grand Jury” and I’ve always said I respected the system. Didn’t have to agree with
the system. I was glad to hear you say on a personal note, in terms of memory, that you were
glad you didn’t have to remember some things for two or three years, you know. I’m, I think all
of us that have to be brought before any body, you know, given the chance to refer to minutes
and particularly, I guess, as old timers, been around as long as I have, and ask certain questions
under oath that, you know, memory ought to be respected. So I’m glad we do agree on that.
Now what I, what I need an answer to, and it’s general, it’s not necessarily coming under your
office per se and that’s why I want to make this clear, it’s not you but in terms of knowing the
legal system. Now if the Grand Jury, Special as it is, the best and brightest, the cream of the
31
crop, the select ones who were selected, constitutional duty, charged to do certain things. I guess
in plain James Brown Boulevard language, do they just have the right to up and jump and ask to
be disbanded? To a point that if this was so serious now for 3-1/2 years that all of a sudden the
brakes got put on and, you know, it’s not like in the playoff, you win or go home. But you know,
if you got a charge to do, I would think something ought to be handled in that charge if this is as
serious as what you describe as a Special Grand Jury. Do they just, just leave per se? Because
all of this has been done, and [inaudible], and I stand to be corrected, did they not ask to be
dismissed?
Mr. Craig: The Grand Jury returned a final presentment, Mr. Mays, in October of
November of last year and indicated in their final presentment that that was to be their final
presentment. They, themselves, were quite interested in awaiting the return of an investigative
report from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. They said to the Judge at that time they wanted
to wait until that was done in order to be discharged. So the answer to your question is that the
Grand Jury is given a very specific charge at the beginning of their term, and it’s with that charge
that they somewhat determine what their duties and responsibilities are, that is what they’re
being charged to do, and when they have completed that, it is up to the Grand Jury to determine
for themselves that they have sufficiently completed it to ask the Court to discharge them. Now
the Court can refuse to discharge them. The Court could actually say to them no, keep on going.
But when they report back to the Court after, after three years of work, that, you know, we have
now completed nine separate reviews of the operations of our local government and we have
returned comprehensive findings with regard to each of those reviews, and we would like for
someone else to work after this, then I think it’s only fair for the Court to accept that request that
they be discharged.
Mr. Mays: Well, I mean, I may be mistaken, but I thought when they issued the final one
that came out in public in writing that they said another report would be forthcoming and that
that would be the final conclusion of what they would be doing, hopefully by the end of last year.
Now I can be corrected on that. But I thought that when the report came out in public that that
was what the last session of the Special Grand Jury said at that time. And basically, the general
public and everybody has been concerned, has been waiting on that. I keep hearing the special
charge to them. A Special Grand Jury. But if they are there to, to, to dissect a government, per
se, and to find out what may be are its wrong or right doings, things that need to be criticized,
then in the process of doing that, how then, I’m hearing on one hand they’re simply charged with
something, but then again I’m hearing to a point they call upon legal advice if they need it, well,
then, you know, who says to a point, you know, what do you go and look for? And my case
point is that if there is an item that’s in Jim Wall’s office and you are sent to ask what’s in Jim
Wall’s office, and I know you can’t rewrite the law. That’s unfair to say that’s on Danny Craig.
But if there’s an item in Jim Wall’s office, you know, I don’t think you necessarily have to call
everybody in this room to say have you seen something behind the door in Jim Wall’s office?
You call Jim Wall and ask him what’s in his office. I think that what has happened, the common
sense tone of this whole thing, which is why I said at some point this city needed an element of
closure, because regardless of what may have been designed for it to do, this situation took on a
totally different tone and life of its own, and depending upon who you ask. And I think that’s
quite unfortunate and even though I praise the system, while I’ve been privately critical of some
things that were said. For instance, I would not and would never ask what was discussed in a
32
Grand Jury, wouldn’t ask you that in private, wouldn’t ask you that in public. But the point that I
think that the Grand Jury [inaudible] should be concerned about is [inaudible] certain elements of
the press, is if certain elected officials or certain leadership of this community can make
comments about what’s going to be asked in the Grand Jury, who is going to be next called to the
Grand Jury, it gives an appearance as though you’ve got leaks like Swiss cheese. Now it puts
other folk on the defensive because they can’t come out and ask. There is no cross examination
process. It is all the one sided situation of what people go and report and they are asked. Yet,
when those type of things happen, I did not hear any gag orders from anybody, be it D.A. or a
Judge to say, you know, if you’re [inaudible] or if you’re speculating and have cameras running
daily to all of a sudden somebody is going to be indicted tomorrow, that’s rumor. Nobody can
quell and deal with the fictitiousness or rumor. But in common sense terms and in dedication for
this city, I think it’s unfortunate and unfair to a point that when things like that [inaudible] to that
tone. My last comment is to a point and I think you made a point about it and I think some
things that came out of the Grand Jury are good. I think it could have even been more productive
if the sincerity had been there to ask certain questions of everything that may need to be asked
about this government. You mentioned about the $4 million that was in there. There were those
of us, Mr. D.A., that was squawking about what we thought about [inaudible] and those numbers
long before that went down to the Grand Jury. And the real credit of our -- I friendly disagree
with you to a point that it was not dealt with in terms of what happened in the Grand Jury of how
we save money. Steve Shepard and the former Commissioner from District 7 who headed up the
subcommittee to investigate indigent care and put together the program and went to Asheville,
North Carolina, were the people who put together the numbers to help to reduce indigent care
while we were trying to fund it. Yet on the same tone, if we going, and I’m just saying that
because you brought it up to say what a great savings it was. When we were on firing a
comptroller and doing the things that we dealt with there, at that same point, we were being
criticized harshly and even called in to a point that certain accusations of reverse discrimination
were being said in reference to us doing the job in the same department that you praise the Grand
Jury for bringing up about $4 million. So I do have a few friendly exceptions to a point that I
think if we are going to talk about what they did, also talk about what was also done by this
Commission in order to do it. But I would just, I would just hope, and I think after 3-1/2 years, if
they set this in the lap of the Attorney General, I would hope that there would be, since the
Grand Jury was Special, since it was given a special charge, that it just seems to me to a point
now to hand this to Thurbert Baker. And I know we came here to talk about a Special, but it’s
drifted over to this now, Mr. Mayor Pro Tam, and I didn’t take it there. I think to hand this to
Thurbert Baker after 3-1/2 years [inaudible], that with the cream of the crop that we’ve had down
there, all the investigating that’s been done, the GBI being on top of it, you being on top of it,
FBI because [inaudible] right to call them in and the Judges do, too, I think at this point that to
put that over in there further carries this community over to a point of now a questionable zone to
a point, and I’m going to tell you this, exactly how I feel personally, cause I have nothing to run
from and have said that from the beginning and I’ve always said if you had somebody, indict
them. If something is going on wrong, chastise them to do it. We got a department employee
right now that we are still going through our auditing process and everything else right now
because the Grand Jury called for that person to be terminated. They asked for the voting
patterns of this city to be changed, which is totally out of the realms of the charge which the
Grand Jury should be. They have no bounds in terms of the reference of how districts are made
up and what they should do and [inaudible] you should elect to public office. That is not their
33
duty under any circumstances. So I think when you’ve had all of that to go down and [inaudible]
okay, let the District Attorney decide it, I think that the best and the brightest, including you,
including the judges, somebody ought to be able to say a report is in, and if it’s been done, it’s
passed through your office, to a point that I think somebody ought to be able to call the shots. I
think you can make the fair decision. Because I’ve said all along, if they had something, deal
with it. And I’m a [inaudible] whatever way you go. But I think now to lay it on the lap with
158 other counties is unfair to this community and I think the people that are elected in this
community, D.A., judges, anybody else, should make a firm decision at this point that either
you’ve got something or go home. Let this community breathe, let us go back to dealing with
each other in an element of fairness where this is not constantly on the table. I think those of us
who have been investigated for 3-1/2 years, if we got to go through every city in this state and
take the finger-pointing that a few of the Commissioners that the Special Grand Jury
investigates, you are the crooks that are down in Augusta, well, dog-gone it, if you have got it,
then put it up. But don’t now take it after 3-1/2 years to a point that some of us will be out of
office and you leave it hanging in the balance and then could possibly say I did all I could but the
Attorney General of this state [inaudible] otherwise. I think you all investigated, I think you all
spent the money, you all have taken the time, you all ought to render the decision. And still
friends.
Mr. Craig: Thank you, Willie. The recusal, by the way, was done pursuant to again, to
law, it’s not something -- the law I wrote. It’s something that is done in an effort to make sure
that the due process is afforded to everyone. Let me clarify something in case you don’t know
this. I think you do. I have never been told that anyone on this Commission was the target of a
criminal investigation, and to the extent that you might be suggesting that that is so. To my
knowledge you’re not. And I think maybe that will allay some of your concerns.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’ve got some questions concerning the Grand Jury, the Special
Grand Jury. When the Special Grand Jury put out one report and in terms of our Purchasing
Department how bad it was, and how negligent it was, and then a report comes out, just negating
that report, how did they handle that?
Mr. Craig: Another report came out negating the report of the Grand Jury?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: They said that they found nothing wrong in the Purchasing
Department.
Mr. Craig: Did the Grand Jury contradict itself?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m asking.
Mr. Craig: To my knowledge, there was one presentment with regard to the Purchasing
Department.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: But then there was another report that came out that said there was
nothing wrong in the Purchasing Department. Don’t know whether the Grand Jury wrote it or
who wrote it. Our internal auditors wrote this one.
34
Mr. Craig: An auditing report?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes.
Mr. Craig: Well, an auditing, an auditing firm is not called upon to perform the functions
the Grand Jury performs.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I understand that, but I’m just wondering why the Grand Jury
would say how bad it was, just that the internal auditors say --
Mr. Craig: Well, those are entirely different, if I could help you along that line. I’ve had
a little bit of auditing training at Augusta College, where I majored in accounting. An auditor --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It was just a question. You don’t have to go through it.
Mr. Craig: Is it a question you’d like an answer to?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just hypothetical.
Mr. Williams: No, no, I need an answer, Mr. Colclough, come I’m thoroughly lost now.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Cause I think a report came, if I -- a report came --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me ask it, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I just want clarification. May be the same question, but a report
came, Danny, from the Grand Jury that the Purchasing Department was in disarray, how things
were run wrong, this person need to be -- I don’t want to use any wrong term, but it was just, it
was a bad situation. So we called for an auditing. Commissioner Shepard again, I believe, and
who else, Steve, called for an audit of that department. And it came back, you know, as normal,
with no more normal [inaudible] other department would have, nothing disarrayed, and I don’t
think anybody, and the Purchasing Department not speaking, but I don’t think anybody been
down as many times as that department been down.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Wait. Let him go ahead and answer the question. Go ahead,
Danny.
Mr. Craig: When an accountant performs an audit, then a report, the financial reports,
which are generated by an accountant are to express an opinion whether or not the books and
records and financial documents of that, the subject of the audit have been maintained according
to generally accepted accounting principles. And actually the opinion which an auditor renders
is actually prescribed. It is one of three basic opinions. Either that the books, records and
accounts are, do reflect the financial status of a department according to generally acceptable
35
accounting principles, or that they do not, or that because of the condition of the records or
otherwise no opinion can be given. So that would be the extent of what an auditor would be
called upon to do in any situation.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Now wouldn’t an auditor, a financial auditor, you said you had
financial auditing training at Augusta College. Wouldn’t an auditor be more qualified to say
how a financial department is run rather than our brightest citizens who don’t deal in finances
every day?
Mr. Craig: Well, an accountant should be much more qualified to examine the financial
records of any business or any government in order to form one of those opinions that I just
mentioned to you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Right.
Mr. Craig: But with regard to reviewing a department in its totality, with regard to any
other issues, you didn’t hire an accountant. You don’t hire an accountant do to that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, you’re hiring them to look at the books, see what the
financial status was. And if the books is correct [inaudible], if it’s a Purchasing Department
where you’re dealing with contracts and money, etc.?
Mr. Craig: Maybe I’m missing your question.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: This might clear a little bit up, what Richard was saying. This is not anything
in your office to do, but what we hoped to do was after we had examined and the report that
came out specifically on this department, what the firm had been asked to do, and one of the
[inaudible] as I’ve said, one of the most prestigious firms in the South, of doing the work, what
they were asked to do was not -- they already done general things. They were asked to examine
the specific findings of the Grand Jury’s report item by item as they related to that department
and the charges and the accusations that were made. They did not around [inaudible] to do the
whole deal again. They [inaudible] items that were in there specifically [inaudible]. Every item
that basically said from the Grand Jury’s report that the person ought to be -- almost short of
tarred and feathered, of being the worst person in the world -- 98% of it, because no department
is going to be perfect, but 98% of it basically either didn’t relate to that department or it was
unfounded. And what we had said we needed to do was once the reports were in were vote to
send a copy of that report to the Special Grand Jury as a part of information. Now what I think
maybe needs to be done, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if the Grand Jury has been disbanded, if they got
out before that got to them, then do we need to through our Attorney submit that to you or to the
Judge to a point on that particular matter so that it can go in as a rebuttal or to an answer to
what’s going to the Attorney General’s office? Because we sat down, because we were so
concerned about how long the department had been [inaudible] accusations, the criticism in some
36
parts of the media, and we now basically have a report where one is one side, one is on the other
side, of which a reputable firm has no reason to lie and wouldn’t put its reputation out on the line
to do that, you know. Do we just pay for that and eat it and say, well, maybe they didn’t have all
their facts in order? Or could that also be a part of the finding in the rebuttal that we deal with on
our end? Cause we don’t have a Grand Jury now to send it to. We had planned to do that, and I
guess I need to know now [inaudible] do we send it or do we have to take [inaudible]?
Mr. Craig: I’m not your attorney, so --
Mr. Mays: Well, I’m going to be asking because the Grand Jury has now been
disbanded, and that’s why I asked does it need to come to you, does it need to come to Judge
Fleming, Judge Pickett, or do we need to take a different course of action, do we do an item-by-
item reply to the charges that are in there and then forward ours to Thurbert Baker? On that
issue I know Jim would have to answer but on this one specifically, we were going to send that
report to the Grand Jury. If there is no Grand Jury, where do we send it?
Mr. Craig: Well, there is always a Grand Jury. So don’t be concerned with the fact that
there is nowhere to send it, because that’s why -- the Grand Jury concept is a continuum. That’s
why we swear in a new Grand Jury every term and there is always a Grand Jury. We can’t ask
people to their lifetimes on Grand Jury, and we shouldn’t for that matter. But if you want to send
something to the Grand Jury, then you can either send it directly to the Grand Jury itself. Mr.
Wall knows exactly how that gets done and when the Grand Jury meets and he can deliver it for
you. Or you could, if you’d like, send it to me in a sealed container and I’ll be happy to take any
communications that you would like to have delivered to the Grand Jury.
Mr. Mays: Well, obviously, it’s 11 of us and you may get 11 different opinions, but
personally speaking I think something needs to stay within the parameters of the Special Grand
Jury. They were the ones who made the charge, they were the ones who made the report. I’m
not interested necessarily in forming a reply to what the Grand Jury stated in a special session,
but to go over and start another lifetime of another animal that gets paid for 3-1/2 years, then
starts with another [inaudible], then goes back into the hands of the Attorney General. I want
this one to somewhere saddle up the same pony that’s been riding around for the last 3-1/2 years.
That’s the only thing I want to do, and if that needs to come to you in a sealed can, then, you
know, fine. I may have to do it in a cremation urn, [inaudible] sealed can, but I can get it to you
sealed up and you can get it there.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I want to thank District Attorney Danny
Craig for coming forward today on our request. And I guess one thing about being in the old
city, since I wasn’t in the old county, Mr. Mays, I was only with you in the old city, is that when
we merged the old city with the old county, we took into an arena which had a new form of
oversight, which basically is the Grand Jury and throughout the constitution of Georgia is the
oversight organization for a county. And so when we became a county, we got that, too, whether
we liked it or not. And I think that the Grand Jury is constitutionally organized under the state
constitution of Georgia, the highest law we have in this state without going to the federal system.
37
And in that organization or in that constitution is how it’s organized, its powers and duties. To
talk to my fellow law firm members on this side of the bench, most people never see it, but
perhaps if Mr. Wall could furnish us that, and I think that the record will show that on the issues
that we faced when we got policy recommendations from the Grand Jury, our first response, and
I don’t have the photographic memory that a lot of you up here do, was to send Randy Oliver
with a boatload of disclosure downstairs. And then we also conducted serious hearings, policy
hearings in the area of Purchasing. Which I think Mr. Mays is correct, it’s still working its way
through the system. The Finance Committee and the Pension Committee sat in joint session for
many months. We just concluded our work on the financial consultant that advises the city’s
pensioners in its multi-million dollars of pension funds. So you know, we did that. And thank
you, Mr. Mays, for recognizing the fact that Jerry Brigham and I and you, too, because you were
at the same conference, and we decided that we would explore this idea of Project Access. Well,
Project Access is a part of this community today as a result of that. And this was a pro-active
response to the issue of indigent care because the budget problems were going up every year
with that former system, and we changed the system. And I think for the better. And so what, I
guess, Jim, I’d like to see, if we have not supplemented, and make sure our Clerk, who is out of
town today on a Clerk’s training course, and of course we have Ms. Morawski here, but just to
make sure that the transmittals that we suggested go to the Grand Jury, let’s make sure that they
are there for the benefit of anyone who would use them. The Attorney General or whatever.
This Commission has not turned a deaf ear to their requests and have spent many hours in this
room examining the polices that were called in question and there have been some changes, and
you know, quite frankly, some have not changed. For example, we examined the financial
consultant and we voted to retain the same consultant. So I think we satisfied our obligations as
policy makers by going through that exercise. And it took time, but we did it. And you know, if
we’re not complete in some of our work, I’d just appreciate our lawyer and our Administrator
checking some of that and maybe reporting back to us as individuals or whatever. But I think we
have been responsive to that end.
Mr. Craig: I would have to agree with you. I think that this whole process, as you
indicate, has been painful. And it could be that words chosen by other people might have been
chosen differently than they were chosen. There has been some discomfort. There has probably
been some pain. But it appears to me that what has gone on here is that the Grand Jury has gone
about their work in good faith, that you have gone about your work in good faith, and you have
worked through this process and the winners in all of this happen to be the people of this
community. So to the extent that you need for me to second your motion, I certainly do.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. Craig. Do we have a motion?
The Clerk: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Andy?
Mr. Cheek: The only thing, I’m going to have to take exception, the citizens aren’t the
winners and the government aren’t the winners in this case, because while I agree with much of
what the Special Grand Jury had to say, findings like Commissioners directing the work
activities of employees when that employee was a direct report to the Commission, the Special
38
Grand Jury was in error. Findings with the Purchasing Department, when not compared to some
national standard for purchasing departments, which there are plenty of societies and agencies
that govern that thing, shows that they were working more from opinion rather than good basic
business practices, the best practices within that industry. This Commission has been addressing
many of the issues before they came out in the Special Grand Jury, but they were taken with a
negative light, as if we hadn’t been doing our jobs, as with the indigent care costs and many of
the other things, and again it painted a negative picture of this Commission, when this
Commission has been working very hard to address a lot of the issues before it became an issue
in the Special Grand Jury. The selection process, again I will say this, is a case of not what you
know but who you know. That needs to be reviewed and it’s going to take a lot of legislative
folks, a much higher level than this Commission to address that, but that is a flaw when you have
people addressing matters of a technical nature that are not technically-oriented and have that
expertise. I don’t remember one comment about our former Finance Director when the audit
came back after we terminated him that showed that our Finance Department was literally
running out of boxes, that the checkbooks hadn’t been balance properly, the funds were in
appropriate accounts, but they never said anything about that. But they came back about
Purchasing who by a professional audit was found to be pretty clean, and that is all negative.
That shows me that again it’s the selection process, somehow, collected a group of folks that had
the tendency to have an agenda negative to this government more so than finding professional
findings based on factual information and the best practices within the industry. This
government has done a good job. This Special Grand Jury, while they have done a good job in
some areas, has done a very good job of tainting the image of this government when it did not
deserve it. And that I have an issue with because while I don’t mind taking a beating for things
I’m doing wrong, when we ask an employee to do something that works for us, we have that
right. When they say that it’s wrong to do that and they haven’t done their homework,
somebody on that Special Grand Jury somehow should come back and apologize for the
inaccuracies that have blown up in headlines everywhere that make us guilty by association,
whether we are or not. That is where we all lost. You, me, all the citizens of this city, because
Augusta is a great city, and this Commission is doing a good job. We’re not perfect, but
according to what you see from the presentments of the Special Grand Jury, I don’t remember
anything say that we were doing a good job. Not one of their findings.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I say to Mr. Craig we appreciate your time coming down and sharing
with us today the financial report. I’d like to put it in the form of a motion that we receive the
information, the finance information that we received from Mr. Craig as information.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Got a motion and second on the floor. Any further discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
39
Mr. Williams: I was wondering, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, [inaudible] conversation, but this
is very important. I think this community needs to know, I think we need to talk about it and not
keep bringing Danny back and forth. I’m sure you’re tired of standing, Danny, cause I’m tired of
sitting. But I heard something a little while ago you said and I just be clarified for myself.
Commissioner Mays mentioned about the Special Grand Jury made presentation about this
Commission, how it need to be changed and what need to be done. I need to know from you
who directed them or who didn’t direct them in that regard. Now there was a report that came
out that we need to change, about the Mayor with a vote and how this government need to be
changed. That was clearly under their direction. So who did or who did not advise them in that
respect?
Mr. Craig: The Grand Jury worked as an autonomous body. And so the findings of that
Grand Jury and the recommendations of that Grand Jury were entirely that, that is the findings
and recommendations of everyone who worked on that Grand Jury. Let me help you even
further, if you have any further concerns along that line. No one is allowed to work in the Grand
Jury room unless they have either been subpoenaed to work as the Grand Jury or as the legal
advisor to the Grand Jury. And the only legal advisor is the District Attorney. So I have
absolutely no basis for believing that the Grand Jury in any way violated its oath. None. No
basis whatsoever for that. And so you can safely conclude that that Grand Jury’s findings were
its findings as determined by it working as a body of the whole.
Mr. Williams: Okay, but then even as a body of the whole, I just need some clarification.
You’ve got me close, but are you saying the city, who debated for almost two years and the
people who voted on the referendum to decide what type of government we would have, was
voted by the people, are you saying that the Grand Jury had the right to convene and to make an
assumption or make an analysis that this government need to be changed and you as a legal
advisor advised them that that was okay put in writing and to put out to the city of Augusta?
Mr. Craig: No, not at all. You asked several questions. First of all, it’s not for the
District Attorney to criticize or the endorse the findings of a Grand Jury.
Mr. Williams: But as legal advisor. As a legal advisor, not as -- just as legal advisor?
Are you saying as legal advisor, that was okay?
Mr. Craig: Mr. Williams, I don’t approve the Grand Jury’s presentments. I don’t, I don’t
read them, I don’t proof read them, I don’t even read them for grammar and for punctuation.
The Grand Jury’s presentments are the Grand Jury’s presentments. In fact, we have a policy in
our office that where a regular term Grand Jury, every nine weeks, will send their presentments
over to our office in anticipation of a Judge receiving them, we, even if the grammar and
punctuation is bad, we don’t touch it because we feel like the Grand Jury’s presentments should
be the voice of the Grand Jury and not us.
Mr. Williams: Okay, the punctuation and the grammar, I don’t care. That’s no where on
the radar. I’m speaking of the city of Augusta consolidating, the city and the county, the
taxpayers, the voters of Richmond County voted on what type of government that we would
have. I wasn’t even here then. In fact, I fought consolidation. But it happened anyway. My
40
point is that once that was established by the taxpayers, by the voters of Richmond County, that
was law; is that right?
Mr. Craig: Certainly it is.
Mr. Williams: Well, the report came back and several reports from the Special Grand
Jury, how this government was in disarray, how the Mayor needed a vote, how this Commission,
how this government should be run, how we need to change the government. I’m asking you as
for your legal opinion was they in order or not?
Mr. Craig: The Special, whatever the Special Grand Jury returns as a presentment, and
which is received by the Court, is in order.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Craig: Now I’m not endorsing what they found or criticizing them. I’m just saying
that the law prohibits the District Attorney from interfering with their work, as it prohibits the
Court from interfering with their work. The Court has to receive the presentments of the Grand
Jury unless those presentments violate the law in some way.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question is called. We have a motion and a second on the
floor. Thank you, Danny.
Mr. Craig: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Morawski, we return to the regular agenda, please.
The Clerk: That would be item 21.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 21.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
21. Z-03-32 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to deny a petition by Jennifer Richards requesting a Special Exception for the
purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for
41
Augusta Richmond County affecting property located at 2214 Buckingham Drive and
containing .23 acres (Tax Map 121-3 Parcel 154) DISTRICT 6
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: We had, among our agenda items, we had three similar requests for family
day care homes, which again are homes which keep up to six children in that are unrelated.
Basically baby sitting services. All of them very similar. All of them at staff level, we had
objectors calling us. All of them in subdivisions. The Commission decision was to deny all
three of them. The first case was on Buckingham Drive, which was an 1100 square foot house.
We did not have objectors at the meeting on this one. There was no petition. I think the
Commission felt that the home was too small, and due to the circumstances it was denied.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a substitute motion. I’d like to
make a substitute motion that we approve this one and I’d like to discuss the other two. George,
you might be able to help me out. I think --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let’s do number 21 first.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I just don’t want you to get ahead of me, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Item 21 is a little different situation and I think the petitioner had to get a contractor to come out,
George, and specify whether they had 1300 square foot. I think it was something wrong with the
footage; is that right?
Mr. Patty: Well, the State does review these and they had some folks from the State that,
you know, I believe that they testified that it met the State criteria, which is the minimum
criteria. And that doesn’t preclude you from making the decision that an 1100 square foot house
is too small to keep six kids in, but it does meet the State’s specification.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’ve got somebody here that would like to address
this issue and maybe the other two. Can she come to the mike?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: For item 21, yes.
Ms. Speaker: My name is Julie [inaudible] and I’m with the [inaudible] agency. And
Ms. Richards has documentation that her home is actually 1300 square feet versus 1100. The
State of Georgia requires 35 square feet per child and she does meet those requirements by the
State. And she has documentation of square footage of her house.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’d like to know if there are any objectors here, too.
42
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If there are any objectors to this item, indicate by a show of hands.
George, you said you did have objectors at the Planning Commission?
Mr. Patty: No, sir, we had calls in objection prior to the meeting. There was nobody at
the meeting objecting to it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, you had a substitute motion, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I’m making a substitute motion that we approve this, this item 21
on our agenda, and my reason for that, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, this is a family day care center, a
day care that a person provide in their home. I know there’s two more that’s coming behind it,
but let me tell you why --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’re on number one.
Mr. Williams: I’m on number one. Let me, let me try to work this so I can get you to
understand it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right.
Mr. Williams: Item 21 is, was denied because of the footage. We have just heard that
the State law has regulation and they do meet the guidelines for that. It’s a family who is trying
to have a business. I know what the neighborhoods have been saying about these different
businesses in this area. I met with these people and I talked with them about no signs and
anything that would give the impression of a business there. But if you put these people out of
business, if they’re not allowed to keep family day cares, relative children, up to six children,
then where are they going to go? Now some people have the monies to pay professional people
to do this. But if this person can occupy and endure these six children, I think we need to be
understanding to look at that and to afford them the opportunity. Now I don’t believe in putting
up signs saying family day care. I don’t believe in putting the facilities outside, the swings and
stuff that’s making the neighborhood look bad. But I think the rights of a homeowner is to have
an in-home business if it’s so possible. Now I don’t want to deface the neighborhood. I’ve got
probably the biggest problem on this panel when it comes to that. I don’t have many signs, but I
got a neighborhood that’s being defaced. I really understand the sincerity of the people who’s
objecting. But at the same time, I think that we need to be mindful of those who can afford to go
out other places and do it, and we got a family situation and we need to try to assist those
families any way we can, with stipulation, Mr. Patty, that they would not have a sign, they would
not be faced with playground equipment to appear as if it’s a business.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Just a quick question for Mr. Patty.
George, can you have six or less without having this special exception and still conform?
43
Mr. Patty: You can have any number of related children at this time, but you can only
have two unrelated children.
Mr. Cheek: Two unrelated? And then --
Mr. Patty: More than two, you have to have this special exception [inaudible]. And
under six.
Mr. Cheek: Under six? Again, I’ll go back to something I’ve said before. I understand
why people want to do this. They want to stay home with their kids and keep a couple more.
This is one of the most grossly under-regulated industries in the state. I have a problem with
locating a for-profit business in a residential neighborhood. I’ve had these in my old
neighborhood. I’ve seen them in other neighborhoods. Some of them are neutral as far as
impact on neighborhoods, the majority of which, though, increase traffic over what would
normally be there. And there are aesthetical changes that occur to a home when you have a
higher density of children in there, versus normal family activities. When a house goes from
being a home to a for-profit business location, it changes. And I just hope that we will concur
with this. Again, when we start a trend of allowing for-profit businesses to intrude in residential
neighborhoods, that has in case after case demeaned the surrounding property values and has
great impact, long-term impact on those communities. It ceases to be a residential neighborhood
and starts down the path of becoming cheap places for businesses to locate. And I hope that the
Commission will concur with these findings.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. George, what other, are there other
exceptions to the neighborhood regulations? I mean are there other businesses in the
neighborhood that have been approved by this Commission?
Mr. Patty: I hope I can answer that question by telling you that our zoning ordinance
does provide spacing requirements for these --
Mr. Bridges: Provides what?
Mr. Patty: Spacing requirements among these type businesses. Any of these uses
allowed by special exception, if they’re granted, they have a 1200 foot spacing requirement to
keep the neighborhood from becoming saturated with these type uses. Day cares, personal care
homes, various type uses to be approved by special exception, they have to be spaced.
Mr. Bridges: So what you’re saying, there’s no businesses at least 1200 from this one?
Mr. Patty: I’m not saying that, cause a lot of these businesses get established illegally or
some of them may even predate the zoning ordinance, which I doubt frankly. But in this
particular neighborhood, I didn’t notice any. But in these other neighborhoods that are going to
come up next, I think it’s a safe assumption that there are other businesses, whether they’re legal
or illegal. But in this particular area, I did not notice any.
44
Mr. Bridges: So this could be an exception for the general area? I’m looking at the map
that you provide for us.
Mr. Patty: It wouldn’t be on the agenda if we had knowledge of any within 1200 feet.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: George, while you’re standing, how many, how many people, you say a
family related can have up to what?
Mr. Patty: There’s no limit to how many blood relatives can live in a house.
Mr. Williams: So whether this is passed or not, a person can have no limit as long as
they’re family related? Is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Patty: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: And they could have that plus two whether it’s theirs or not?
Mr. Patty: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Okay. That’s all I’ve got.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do we have a second to --
The Clerk: No.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So the substitute motion fails for lack of a second. All in favor of
the motion --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Could I just have from Ms. Morawski, since we’ve been discussing it, the
reason for the denial on the original motion, the official reason on it? Cause my reason for
asking that is I heard the differences of the square footage allowed and was there something else
under [inaudible] in there on the --
Mr. Patty: [inaudible] there’s no objective criteria, how many square feet per child. The
tax records indicate this house has 1100 square feet. Less than 1100 square feet. Our feeling,
the Planning Commission’s feeling was that it was too small given the fact that there were
objectors. The State’s regulations apparently, which this lady spoke to, indicate that 1300 square
45
feet, which they indicate they have, in fact would be adequate. But ours is strictly subjective.
And I think frankly the Planning Commission’s review of these is based to some extent on the
policy this group has set in the past in being pretty critical in approving these uses. We certainly,
at the staff level, when people come into our office, tell them that the burden is going to be on
them to prove that this should happen in a neighborhood. So that’s the nature of the review.
Mr. Mays: And my reason for asking that, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, is the fact that the
Planning Director is correct in that there are not specific guidelines to a point -- we have
respected the rights of neighborhood associations, we have respected the rights of covenants,
even though I know sometimes we have been advised we are not in the covenant business
[inaudible], Jim. My reason for asking for an official reason for denial was that if it’s based on
square footage, and there’s a dispute about square footage, then the question I guess I would ask
is did you all consider, for instance, the reasons that Mr. Cheek made on the basis of
neighborhood integrity or did you base it on the square footage denial? Cause I think if so,
you’ve got two different situations. I guess my question would be if it’s based on square
footage, then would the [inaudible] because the square footage did not meet what -- even though
it may be subjective -- if the square footage was not what it should have been, then if the square
footage say for instance had been say 1800 square footage, would they have taken a different
opinion in terms of doing it without the other reasons that Mr. Cheek brought in? Cause I think
before we make this motion, and I think Jim knows where I’m coming from, if it’s based on an
argument about square footage then I think you need to have the reasons that the Commissioner
has stated in referent to denial as opposed to square footage recommendation. Because if you’ve
got a dispute on that and you’ve made a subjective reasoning and there’s a dispute about that,
then that could be very argumentative if that’s your reason for denial.
Mr. Patty: Well, I think the Commission tried to balance it, we tried to balance all the
interests here. The neighborhood, plus the fact that it is a relatively small house was one of the
things they considered. But it certainly wasn’t the basis for the denial. What Mr. Cheek talked
about is absolutely true. A lot of these things get out of hand. A lot of them, you know, as Mr.
Williams stated, they can have a mixture of related and unrelated children and I think License &
Inspection very often goes in these homes and they’ve got a houseful of kids and they’re all
related and they’re all shaking their heads, you know, they’re cousins and it’s hard to regulate.
So these things can easily get out of hand. And that’s the reason that I think you need to be
careful with them. And I think that’s what this Commission has done in the past and been very
careful when allowing these uses to become established. On the other hand, you know, in most
cases where these things follow the law, they’re basically baby sitting services. And you can
make a good case that you’d allow [inaudible] those are the considerations that you have.
Balance the interests and make a decision.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and the reason that I think we’ve consistently
maintained the [inaudible] of respecting [inaudible] where you’ve had objectors, where you’ve
had all these other things [inaudible] happen and I can agree with the Commissioner from
District 6 on what he has said in reference to that. But what is being into oral, that’s what I
wanted to make sure that there is not a difference in the reading and the writing of the motion,
because I personally have an uncomfortable feeling if it’s based, and I heard the reason for denial
was based on square footage, and if a petitioner has evidence that they’ve paid to have certain
46
things done, whether it be by survey or by examination and square footage shows a certain
position is in there then that’s an uncomfortable position I think that we all should take note of. I
don’t even know whether or not you may want to vote on it for that particular reason. I ain’t the
Attorney but to a point that if you’ve got all these other reasons that you normally deal with and
today that’s not one of them, then I just think y’all need to think about that because you know,
over here I’m hearing 1100 and you’re saying 1100 is subjective and I’m hearing people over
here say [inaudible] they tell me it’s 1300 and above. Then if you made a decision on it being
too small and if it’s not too small, then I think you need to have some reasons other than the fact
of it being too small into the record. I just couldn’t vote for it based on that where you’ve got an
argumentative position, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We do have a motion and second on the floor. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, there are some documents being passed
down that does provide that the homeowner has 1350, I believe it is, over 1300 square feet. But
wouldn’t you want to know how many of these out there? Wouldn’t you want to regulate so you
can watch them? George has stated that they can have two unrelated and unnumber of related
anyway. But I mean if you’ve got them under your watch and you know what’s there, you can
almost control and see what’s going on. But if you don’t know where they are, if you don’t
know who is doing it, she can have a hundred. And if you train them all to say yeah, nod your
head, we’re all related, then they can legally have a playground. They can really do anything but
put up a sign. So would you not want to know how many there are? Wouldn’t you want to have
those, that income coming in through a license and through a fee rather than to not have them at
all? I’m not speaking of a sign. I’m not speaking of playground equipment. I’m talking about
doing some, some guidelines and having it so that they won’t be able to do those things, to keep
the neighborhood looking like a neighborhood. But if I was in her position, their position for
that matter, and I could have two unrelated and as many as I wanted related, I would tell y’all
just [inaudible] anyway. But they are coming now and trying to be productive citizens, be
taxpayers, put it on the tax books, and help this county. And we going fight it? Don’t make
good sense to me.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We do have a motion and second on the floor.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Chairman, is the motion to deny?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The motion is to deny. All in favor of the motion, please signify by
the sign of voting.
Mr. Mays: Are any of those add-ons in the motion, Ms. Morawski?
Mr. Wall: No.
The Clerk: It’s to deny.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Deny.
47
Mr. Wall: But the motion is simply to deny. Right.
The Clerk: That’s what the record --
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] which includes [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] not based on square footage.
Mr. Wall: No.
Mr. Williams: Wait, now. Look at what did George state? George, come back up here
and state.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You can’t do that. The vote is over. The vote is over.
Mr. Williams: The vote is over but what was the reasoning?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The motion was to deny.
Mr. Wall: To deny.
Mr. Williams: Because of?
Mr. Wall: No
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No because of. The motion is to deny.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 7-1-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Ms. Morawski.
The Clerk:
22. Z-03-34 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to deny a petition by Keysha & Reginald Ewing
requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home
per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond
County affecting property located at 2540 Lincolnton Parkway and containing .36 acres
(Tax Map 153 Parcel 239) DISTRICT 4
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Patty?
48
Mr. Patty: Same type request. This home is 1320 square feet according to the tax
records. We did have objectors on this. They cited the covenants, the desire not to have
businesses in the neighborhood, and the usual stuff.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Have any objectors?
(1 objector noted)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Could the petitioner come to the mike, please?
Ms. Speaker: She actually, like us, was not aware of how long the meetings last, but she
had to go run pick up her daughter. I do have her information here.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Want to present?
Ms. Speaker: There again, Ms. Ewing is trying to establish a family day care home to
keep six children. And she has pictures of her home that shows there’s no signs out front, there’s
no identifying marks to show there would be a business run out of this home. When she
purchased the home, she was not aware of the covenant requirements and did not become aware
of them until she came to the Commission meeting and met someone from her association.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Before you go any further, give the Clerk your name and address
for the record.
Ms. Phillips: My name is Joy Phillips. And my work address or home address?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Home address.
Ms. Phillips: My home address is 1852 Derby Drive, and that’s Augusta, 30904.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And what relation are you to the petitioner?
Ms. Philips: I am the program manager of the Child Care Resource Referral Agency.
We serve 14 counties, including Richmond County, where we provide training and technical
assistance to child care providers and help parents find appropriate, affordable child care.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Thank you. And would you give the Clerk your name and
address for the Commission, please?
Mr. Dicks: Raymond Dicks, president of Fairington Town & Country Association. And
I live on Fairington Drive, 3918 Fairington Drive.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And you’re an objector?
Mr. Dicks: Yes, I am. Our covenants so state that there should be only residential
property there and for residential purposes. No businesses. During our neighborhood
49
association meeting, the -- Ms. Ewing came there and we discussed it with ten of us there. I have
a signed petition with seven names on it who were against it. Ms. Ewing’s exact words were she
understands our petition as a neighborhood association and she was not given a covenant when
she bought her home. She has it now and says that she does understand that is does say she
doesn’t have a business there. Now the position of the neighborhood association, we do not want
any intrusion of it into a residential area, with any businesses at all. This will open up the doors
that we don’t want to get into that sort of thing. So residential area, it’s been a residential area,
it’s been -- since the association has been formed a few years back, it’s our position to object to
all. If this is allowed to happen, then it will open the door for other things.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Mr. Patty, again, I need you to reinstate what you said that two
unrelated and how many related.
Mr. Patty: Have as many related individuals as you want. And --
Mr. Williams: Two unrelated.
Mr. Patty: In addition to the related ones.
Mr. Williams: I respect the neighborhood association. Mr. Dicks, know that I think we
need a lot more neighborhoods that do what they do, but at the same time I understand the
position of these people who was already in existence and the neighborhoods didn’t even know
it. But they came forth on their own, not through our Planning or not through our Code
Enforcement, of their own good faith to try to do what is right. They do not want to put up a
sign. They do not want to put playground equipment in. They want to be limited to six. But
from what Mr. Patty just stated, they can have two unrelated and hundreds of related, if you so
choose so. I just want to make that clear that I’m not against the neighborhood. I think it’s a
great neighborhood there. I think that we need to be mindful of the people who are in those
neighborhoods, if they want to keep that neighborhood appearance with no signs, no playground
equipment, nothing to give the appearance of a business, I think we will be a lot better to know
where they are than not know how many and what’s there. That’s all I got to say, Mr. Mayor Pro
Tem.
Ms. Phillips: I’d like --
Mr. Kuhlke: I move that we uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We 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.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Mr. Cheek out.
50
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk. Next item, please.
The Clerk:
23. Z-03-35 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to deny a petition by Tonya Lee requesting a Special Exception for the
purpose of establishing Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County affecting property located at 4605
Dunson Drive and containing .34 acres. (Tax Map 140 Parcel 805) DISTRICT 4
Mr. Patty: Same situation. This house is 2,075 square foot. Had a petition signed by 25
objectors. We had folks appear before us in objection. They cited the covenants of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move, Mr. Chairman, that we uphold the decision of Planning.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Bridges: What was the motion, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Uphold. There’s a motion on the floor and a second. Mr.
Williams?
Mr. Williams: The petition is here, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. At least we need to hear from
her, even though --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Would you give the Clerk your name and address for the records,
please, ma’am?
Ms. Lee: My name is Tonya Lee. I live at 4605 Dunson Drive, Augusta, Georgia. When
I joined the association, when I came here, I found out I was going to get some funding from the
State, and I went out, I went out and told the association up front and straight out and they said
they were glad I came out and let them know. I didn’t hide anything. And when I went to the
meeting, I thought everything was okay. Come to find out, it was not. I was looking for
someone probably to tell me they weren’t going to let me do it or not, in my home, with a
business license, cause I thought I was doing something straight up and letting them know. And
I joined [inaudible] cause I’m there. I see a lot of things that’s going on. And I didn’t
[inaudible] someone should have came and told me because [inaudible] coming to you straight
up like a woman, like a man, straight up say hey, this is what’s going to happen. If they could
have did that I would have been respectful of them. And then I had a petition passed on my
street this week. I’m new in the neighborhood. This what they give people for greeting in the
neighborhood? I don’t think that’s fair to me. Me and my husband pay our taxes. We pay our
taxes and we pay our mortgage. And I have a picture also, if you just look at my home
[inaudible]. I have pictures of my home. It does not look like a center. I been doing it for 13
51
years, but like I say, I’m new in that area. I did get a covenant, and my covenant does not state,
and plus I looked in my deed, it does not state. I don’t have my deed with me but I do have my
covenant that they gave me [inaudible]. And it stated that, you know, it’s telling me about the
resident area but it doesn’t tell me about a business. And you guys can look at the covenant if
you want, for the record. [inaudible] just trying to get along with everybody to do what I got to
do. Like I say, I don’t mind [inaudible] drugs going on [inaudible]. We have a lot of business
going on that area. And you know, I’m just here trying to do the right thing and see what you
guys decide on today.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Yes, sir?
Mr. Speaker: I have a letter --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Would you give the Clerk your name and address for the record?
Mr. Spellman: James H. Spellman, 4507 Ridge Run Drive, Hephzibah, Georgia. I have
a letter to the Commissioner and the Mayor from Pinnacle Properties, Inc., 2064 Tobacco Road,
Hephzibah, Georgia. Dear Mr. Commissioners and Mayor: The development of Pinnacle Place
began August, 1984. It now is the home of 350 families. By agreement between each of the
neighbors, covenants were created to protect each property from events which may affect each of
them. The protective covenants have been agreed to by each owner and act as a cornerstone to
expectations of every family or person who acquired property in this subdivision. The
[inaudible] of these covenants point out to the public that they have been designed for every and
each subsequent owner and bind all persons claiming under and through Pinnacle Properties, Inc.
Each section of Pinnacle Place is governed by covenants which define matters which [inaudible]
to be included to give direction to the [inaudible] of all parties living in the subdivision. The
covenants show that the homes and/or lots will be used for residential purposes [inaudible]
purposes, the common [inaudible] between ordinary, reasonable, prudent men that to take it
[inaudible] provide [inaudible] financial reward would be a violation of the tenants of the
covenants. The property owners association of Pinnacle Place subdivision and the officers and
employees of Pinnacle Place, Inc., the developing entity, ask that the Commission deny any
request to cause any home place within the subdivision to be used for a home day care. Tracy S.
Teasley, Vice President.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Patty, would you state again how many unrelated and how many
related?
Mr. Patty: Unlimited related and two unrelated.
Mr. Williams: I need to ask -- can you step here a minute, please. There are hundreds of
businesses like this one all over the city of Augusta. Give us your name again.
Ms. Phillips: Julie Phillips.
52
Mr. Williams: Julie, will you tell us how many businesses like this that have not come
forth? My point is that businesses that’s doing this and these ladies came forth to try to be legit,
to let --
Ms. Phillips: There’s approximately 200 registered family child care providers in
Richmond County, and even speaking with Mr. Patty’s office we were told that they get the list
from DHR, they know that there’s that many, they’re just not able to go after all of them because
of the manpower. So these are providers who want -- we inform them of the rules, they said we
need to go and do that, so there [inaudible] several hundred that are not.
Mr. Williams: Okay, and that’s my point is that I would rather know where they are and
be able to regulate them with only six, than the law says you can have two unrelated and
countless related. So I, I, I, I advised you earlier, I say again to the neighborhood association, I
respect them, I think they do a great job. I wouldn’t want anybody putting up a sign saying this
business and that business. But I still think that this is a very much needed service for families
and family members. We need to be mindful of that [inaudible] who can’t go and pay
professional or first rate monies. Now if they wanted to put up a sign, if they had playground
equipment, there is stipulations we could have put in this package so that if they did anything,
their license would be revoked and then we’d know where they was if they was doing something.
Now we have no way of controlling or knowing where they are. Thank you, Julie, that’s all I
needed.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, we have a motion on the floor?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, we do.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Read the motion.
The Clerk: To deny. The motion is to concur with the Planning Commission to deny the
petition.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor of the
motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The next item is 22? 23? Next item, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
24. Z-03-36 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to deny a petition by Ben Cadle requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1
(One-family Residential) to Zone RMH (Manufactured Home Residential) affecting
property located at 1301-A Brown Road and containing approximately 3.6 acres.
DISTRICT 8
53
Mr. Patty: This gentleman bought a fairly large tract in this area. This is within the area
that in 1998 we rezoned. I think it was 15,000 acres from Agricultural to R-1 in that area, so
there would be one part of south Richmond County that wasn’t saturated with manufactured
homes. And I think that the results of that are fairly astounding. If you ride in that area today,
you can see definite results of what we did. And we’ve been pretty reluctant to go back on that
and rezone the area within that area for manufactured homes. We did one that I can think of that
was going to actually result in a reduction in the number of manufactured homes, but that’s the
only one to my knowledge that we’ve done. And this request is to allow the property owner to
locate a manufactured home on the property for an unspecified period of time until he can afford
to build a house on the land. We had objectors and we had calls and we recommend you do not.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can we hear from the petitioner? Give the Clerk your name and
address of the record, please, sir.
Mr. Cadle: Benjamin Cadle, 1301-A Brown Road. Correct me if I’m wrong, but just
today y’all approved a manufactured home in District 8, number four, which is on ten acres at
the corner of Hephzibah/McBean and Old Waynesboro Road, which could, I imagine, been seen,
and I have 83 acres that sits -- I have 60’ wide easement, 300 feet back, and then it goes -- I’ve
got the plat here -- 1200 feet across behind eight houses. Every one of those eight houses wants
me to move back there. Because people come back on their land and hunt illegally. The come
back there, they’ve had people break into their houses. They would like me to move back in
there. No one would see my mobile home unless they were trespassing on my property. There’s
trees all the way around it. It’s almost a mile around this thing. I’ve got 2,000’ on Spirit Creek.
You know, I don’t see, you know, what the big deal is. Cause if I understand correctly from Mr.
Austin, you can only put one dwelling per lot, even though I have 83 acres. And I only want one
section approved for my home. That’s my case. I have the plat if you’d like to look at it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Patty? You said there were objectors at the Planning
Commission?
Mr. Patty: We had at least one. I can’t remember how many, to be honest with you. But
we had did have objectors, we’ve had calls on it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And he has 83 acres? And none of the objectors are here? Mr.
Bridges?
Mr. Bridges:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That’s my District. As George has got in the
backup, back in ’99 or 2000 there was a large move to -- there’s big concern about mobile homes
and modular homes being developed in that area. We did go through a long process. We held a
meeting at Goshen with about 350 people, maybe 400 people there. I remember that one well.
As a result, the Commission did designate a particular area of District 8 for residential, move out
from Agricultural to Residential area, Residential zoning area. There was some provision left for
those who had mobile homes there. You could keep it, and I think you’ve even got a year,
maybe two, George, I’m not sure, but if you pull your mobile home out of that area, you can also
put one back in. And that seemed to satisfy, pretty much satisfy everybody in that area. I think
54
to reverse that decision would be to set a precedent that we’d be right back in the place we were
before with an increase in the mobile homes and modular homes. I think our staff has done a
good job in investigating this, in making this recommendation. I would like to point out that the
one that we did pass is outside of the area that was established from Agricultural to Residential.
It’s outside that boundary. And we recognized that at the time. There was a move to increase
the residential area that far out, but there was just simply legally we didn’t feel like we could
uphold that designation that far out, and there were already mobile and modular homes in the
I make the motion that we adhere to the
area. So that area was left for agricultural purposes.
recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission and deny.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second on the floor. Any further discussion? Mr.
Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, let me ask, did I hear that this is going to be a
temporary thing, that you’re putting it there until you build a house?
Mr. Cadle: I plan to build a house. I’d like to keep it for ten years. At this time, I’ve
spent so much money on the land I can’t afford to build a house. And a mobile home would be
the quickest way to move onto the property [inaudible] and you know, within ten years, have a
ten year limit, you know, at that time build my house and then move it out. But if you did five
years or something there wouldn’t be no sense in doing it cause at that time I’d still owe so much
money on the [inaudible] and I hate to have that land sitting there and not do anything with it. I
bought it with the intent of moving out there. I didn’t have any idea I’d have this problem. With
that much land, you know, if I had half an acre sitting on Brown Road I could see.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Let me just ask the gentleman. You mentioned about some other homes there
in front of where you propose to put this one. Are any of them manufactured?
Mr. Cadle: No.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Did you, were you able to get a petition from those property owners in
front of you? I know you mentioned, you said they had no objection.
Mr. Cadle: I went out on a weekend and talked to every resident that lives directly in
front of me and they said that they had no problem. Mr. Austin advised that I do that. But I
didn’t get their names on a petition to bring it to you. But obviously none of those people are
here.
55
Mr. Mays: Let me ask just one more question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: One of the -- you said you may have had one objector, George.
Mr. Patty: We had [inaudible] we definitely had one. We had calls from others
[inaudible].
Mr. Mays: Well, now, were they in the immediate vicinity?
Mr. Patty: [inaudible] they are.
Mr. Mays: And my reason for asking this is we’ve had some up-and-down issues about
Brown Road and I’ve seen us come in and we’ve turned people down on Brown Road and in that
vicinity where they’ve brought in folk that in the immediate area have come to support it, have
come to petition it, and you’ve had people from miles away on Brown Road to come and oppose
it, even after the Planning Commission have asked that it be approved. And we went back and
turned some of those down. I just think you’ve got some, some, some funny mixes out there to a
point of where, you know, it’s like [inaudible] somebody objects, you get some that nobody
objects and we still turn it down, and are we basing it on the fact that we’ve got objections, are
we basing it on things like you said it falls out of a criteria area and what’s in front of it? I think
you probably would have been strengthened, quite frankly, if you could have brought those folk
with him or brought a petition, you know, to do because it just seems like, it almost gets to like
the one we had with one of the day care centers. I mean you’ve got the situation where you’ve
got, you know, you’ve got to find a telescope to find them off the road. They go back down a
dirt road, you can’t see them from the highway, and then we got folk that don’t have objection
when they by the corner by the road. Just a lot of inconsistency, it seem to me, with how we’re
doing some of these. You got 80-some acres of land that you’re [inaudible]. Is there no deal in
between there like where we put manufactured or anything, where we put a time or condition on
them to be moved and then that expires in order to do that?
Mr. Patty: In that respect, I don’t think there is anything inconsistent. When we took the
action in ’98 or ’99, we said no new mobile homes in this area. And except for one that you
approved to actually reduce the number of mobile homes -- I can’t remember the specific
circumstances -- you haven’t approved it. And if he was in here saying, you know, two years
from now, I’m going to work on this house and have it done and in two years this thing will go
away, you know, that would be different. But that’s not what he’s saying. And you know, it’s
an unusual situation.
(End of Tape 1)
(Beginning of Tape 2)
Mr. Mays: --on the part of the board and its guidelines but to a point, quite frankly, of the
results and how they are determined. Because I mean I’ve seen them, I’ve seen them up or
56
down. And I’ve seen people come in with strong cases to support petitions and I mean we come
in and four or five votes say no, I don’t want this on Brown Road. That’s what I’m saying. I
respect the [inaudible] Commissioner. He’s made the motion and I probably will vote to do that,
but it’s just a point that I think that area, if you’re dealing with 80-some acres it just seems like
that’s a lot to penalize a young person [inaudible] deal with it and trying to deal with buying
property and then somewhere else to stay, you know, and you’ve got people around it that don’t
ever [inaudible] to a point, and [inaudible] we’ve cut that line off out there, but even when we
approved the plan, that wasn’t one that was necessarily [inaudible], and Ulmer said he
remembered being at that meeting. I remember not being at that meeting cause I knew how hot
it was going to be. That, that, that one was tough from the standpoint that there are some people
who cannot afford to do some tri-level, you know, homes but they got to live where they can
[inaudible] that’s the only thing I was just trying to point out, that I just, I just hope that when we
[inaudible] Brown Road that it follows the same pattern on Brown Road. Cause I’m getting to
where I’ve been here a long time to a point I ain’t seen one yet come the same [inaudible] Brown
Road. Sometime we for it, sometime we against it, and it’s beginning to be to a point that I’m
going to leave that alone. But it just seems sometime we got folk coming that useful and
progressive and somehow they get to be denied and sometime we get folk that know everybody
and they get approved. And that’s just my problem. I’ve dealt with Brown Road for a good
period of time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. While I feel for the applicant on this one,
the thing that we see over in south Augusta is that we have a beautiful road in Brown Road and
Old Waynesboro Road and that area, nice rolling hills just like you see over at Stevens-to-Lock
[sic] Road or Furys Ferry Road. But the only thin that we seem to be capable for a number of
years of bringing to that area was mobile homes and manufactured homes. So that the visions of
all of us trying to maintain property values in those area by having nice residential homes built in
those areas [inaudible] property value diminish over a period of time, because after one person
moves in there with a mobile home, then you have more and more and more and pretty soon
that’s all that wants to locate in that area. That diminishes our tax base by not having the full
[inaudible] type residential homes like you find in other parts of the city. It, typically these
properties end up being rental properties. And I’m not saying this in your case. But this is the
justification for taking that zone and protecting it, is because we would like to see it become
fulltime residential. I know that you’d like to live there for a temporary period of time and build
a house, but in most cases when that happens, that trailer doesn’t go away, it ends up being a
rental property.
Mr. Cadle: I would be willing, if the committee would allow it, for the ten-year period,
have it stipulated that it had to be removed. I would be willing to do that with those stipulations.
Mr. Cheek: Well, ten years in the life a mobile home is semi-permanent. That’s the only
reason. I have to support concurring with the decision of the board is that we are trying to -- you
have that land, you certainly want to sell it for more in the future than less, I’m sure.
Mr. Cadle: I plan to live there the rest of my life. That’s why I have 80 acres.
57
Mr. Cheek: And your kids may perhaps want to sell it for more than it’s worth right now.
But if we continue to allow the degradation that has occurred in many of our areas of south
Augusta with temporary manufactured housing or whatever to be the predominant mode of
house, those property values will decrease, typically what happens in those areas. And you know
there’s a problem area right up at the corner of Brown and Waynesboro that we’ve been fighting
for a number of years. That when you start getting more and more of these types of things in an
area, not necessarily your property, it impacts the entire area in a negative way, and this is why
the change was made, and again why I have to as a Commissioner concur with these findings.
This was a hard decision we made years ago and I hate that it impacts you in a negative way, but
we’ve got to protect the community as a whole.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion,
please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve been sitting here since two o’clock.
It’s time for a five minute recess.
(Recess)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, please take your seats. I hope you know where we
start, Ms. Morawski.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, we’re on number 25.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Let’s resume our meeting. Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
25. DOWNTOWN ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT – A request for concurrence with
the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve the creation of a
Downtown Resource Panel.
Mr. Kuhlke: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion and a second on the floor. Any discussion?
Mr. Cheek: I just want to make a quick comment.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
58
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
(Laughter)
Mr. Cheek: Okay, Willie, [inaudible]. I just want to say that this has been a long time
coming and I really think that the thought that went into this has been in-depth and thorough and
we’re going to see an opportunity here to have a group that lives in and works in and has a high
stake in the ordinances and rules and activities in that area to be addressed by people that
actually have to live with the decisions that are being made, and this is definitely a step in the
right direction.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. I’m in support as well, but at the same time I’d like to
know, I’d like to make sure that this is going to be inclusive of all the businesses downtown.
There are several businesses on side streets that I won’t say they’re not included, but there are
several businesses on side streets that have not had the opportunities to speak with. I think we
need to be inclusive. Downtown is coming alive and doing some things. I think there are some
great things happening. I’m glad to know that we are trying to get a panel and group together,
but I still want to make sure that everybody that wants to be inclusive is notified. I don’t mean
on that panel, I mean that there are businesses downtown, I think Commissioner Hankerson, I’m
th
trying to think of the name that is on 8 Street.
Mr. Hankerson: The Pink Slip.
Mr. Williams: The Pink Slip. I don’t know nothing about it, whether it green, pink or
whatever, but I [inaudible] well, I just want to be inclusive of everybody. Now I’m not saying
nobody has been left out, but I want those, I want downtown to look like downtown ought to
look. You know what I’m saying? All the businesses.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Give the Clerk your name and address for the record.
Mr. Lloyd: My name is Sanford Lloyd. I’m Chairman of the Downtown Development
Authority. I actually reside at 711 Woodgate Court in Augusta.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Lloyd: But actually what we’re here to do is offer a resolution of what is being
brought from the Planning & Zoning Commission. Because our involvement with all the
discussion and all the history about this creation of a Downtown Advisory Panel, the action, the
resolution that’s being offered does not actually address what came out of that particular, all of
those meetings. In fact, the biggest difference is that the resolution that’s being offered says that
the Downtown Advisory Panel will then present its findings to the Planning & Zoning
Commission for their approval before it can be brought to Augusta Richmond County
Commission, and the whole purpose of creating a body was to have it as an independent body,
that its recommendations could come directly to the Commission. And so we actually are not
59
here to support the particular resolution being offered by the Planning & Zoning Commission.
All of the discussion about this has not led to that resolution. And that’s really why we’re here.
I’m accompanied by Rick Toole, who is actually the Chairman of Main Street Augusta. And so
we actually have a different resolution to offer.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just a moment. Mr. Patty, could you come back to the mike?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Clarify for me --
Mr. Patty: It’s hard for me to speak after somebody makes a motion to approve
something I presented, so I will try. What Sanford is saying is true. We went through a long
process of meetings with stakeholders and we came up with a resolution similar to what you’ve
got in your hand. When I took that to the Planning Commission, actually the resolution, actually
the decision was that the Downtown Advisory Panel would meet and I would present the
recommendation, or a third party, I guess. The Planning Commission, when they considered
that, they felt it was going to be coming from me, that they wanted to see and vote on it. And
that’s how it got routed through them. And I’m here to present their recommendations.
Mr. Williams: So can I make a substitute motion, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: That the Downtown Development Authority and Main Street bring that
back to the Commission rather than going through the Planning Commission. To go with that
ordinance, now, same ordinance, but bring it back to this body rather than –
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll second it go get it on the floor. And I’ve got a question. Commissioner
Williams, rather than them having to come back to us, could your motion just include that, that
we adopt the ordinance but the recommendation comes back through the Downtown
Development Authority and Main Street Augusta, rather than the Planning Commission? That
way they don’t have to come back. I think that’s what you’re asking for anyway.
Mr. Williams: Yeah. I can amend that.
Mr. Wall: Not an ordinance. A resolution.
Mr. Kuhlke: A resolution.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Kuhlke: Right.
60
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Could we see the difference in language,
Jim? Where are we looking at it? Are you looking at it? You go ahead and find it and then tell
us.
Mr. Wall: Well. Is it what’s underlined? The change is apparently in paragraph one,
under the second bullet, where the one that’s in the book says the restaurant owner or operator in
the central business district to be selected by the stakeholder group, and this says a restaurant
owner or operator in the central business district to be nominated by the stakeholder group and
selected by the DDA/Main Street Augusta. Then the --
Mr. Speaker: That would hold true for each of those groups.
Mr. Wall: Okay. That would also be in the first -- let me ask you [inaudible] nominated
by the stakeholder group, who makes the selected?
Mr. Speaker: It would have to be the two groups.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I don’t think we can sit here and vote on this document because I
have not seen it. The lawyer is saying [inaudible]. I haven’t had a chance to read it. This thing
should have came to us prior to this meeting so we would have a chance to look at it, go over it
and read it, and kind of absorb it. I don’t know what it says. Jim has it. You say you’re asking
me to vote on it.
Mr. Toole: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, may we address the Commission?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir. Go ahead.
Mr. Toole: We spent a great deal of time coming up with the language that was utilized
by the Planning & Zoning Commission. That language was actually modified, as George Patty
indicated. There were two changes to the language that was submitted. The first change, and the
most significant, was that the Downtown Advisory Panel would present their recommendations
to the Augusta Richmond County Commission. And it would not go through Planning & Zoning
Commission. That’s the basic difference between what was originally discussed by the
stakeholder group in the downtown area and what George’s Commission decided. They asked
that it come back through their Commission and then to the County Commission.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, let me ask you a question. Did the two -- did y’all meet
separately?
Mr. Toole: No, sir, we met together, and I believe George is in concurrence with the
changes we’ve submitted as well.
61
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: But he’s saying to me that he’s bringing forth the recommendation
from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Patty: Bear in mind, I work for the Planning Commission, and that’s their
recommendation.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I mean if you guys have met, if you’ve been meeting all along, that
language should have been changed during the course of the meeting and then when you brought
it here it would have been one resolution.
Mr. Toole: It was changed by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lloyd: Without --
Mr. Toole: That is correct. Without --
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] this needs to go back.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I understand that the document was changed by the Planning
Commission after y’all had met?
Mr. Patty: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Without any [inaudible]?
Mr. Patty: I’ve met with them throughout. We were all involved together. But at the
Planning Commission meeting, that idea that it should come through them emerged for the first
time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So that, the document we have in our backup did not go through
these folks?
Mr. Patty: Oh, yeah, they saw it and they were involved in it, but the change that the
Planning Commission made on the floor of the Planning Commission, which essentially was one
word, that routed it through the Planning Commission rather than just through me. [inaudible]
necessitated going through a meeting and the time element is what I think they object to.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think this one needs to come back to us, rather than trying to
settle it today. It’s a separate -- Steve?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I agree with you. I move that we postpone
until our next meeting.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second.
62
Mr. Bridges: The motion is on the floor, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We did have a motion on the floor. A substitute motion?
Mr. Shepard: That’s correct.
Mr. Cheek: There was a motion and a substitute motion.
Mr. Shepard: The motion would be out of order, I’m sorry.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Chairman, I think Commissioner Williams’ original motion was to
revise and bring the resolution back to us, was it not?
Mr. Williams: Yeah, my motion was that the Downtown Development and the other
entity bring it to the Commission rather than taking it back to the Planning.
Mr. Cheek: You seconded that one.
Mr. Williams: And that’s what Bill seconded. But I think Jim said that he concurred --
that’s a lawyer word, ain’t it, Steve?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: That we send this back to be reviewed. Is that right, Jim?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a motion and a second on the floor. We have to dispose
of the motion and the substitute motion that’s already on the floor.
Mr. Williams: I need a legal opinion, though, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Wall: Yeah, you’ve got three. In essence there are three things that are changed in
the resolution that they are bringing to you today.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let’s deal with the motion first.
Mr. Cheek: If it’s germane to the motion --
Mr. Williams: Yeah, I don’t know how to vote my own motion now if the legal opinion
going to rule something different.
Mr. Wall: Well, the only thing that your motion would change is that the
recommendation from the Downtown Advisory Panel would be brought to the Commission as
opposed to the Planning Commission. That’s one of three changes in this resolution. The
second change is that the stakeholder group would make a recommendation of who the
individual would be that would sit on the Downtown Advisory Panel, but the DDA -- the
63
Downtown Development Authority and the Main Street would make the actual selection. In
other words, as presented in the book, the stakeholder group makes its selection. Under this
revised selection, the stakeholder group makes a recommendation, make a nomination, and then
the selection is actually by the Downtown Development Authority and Main Street. And then
the third change is that insofar as items that would be considered and brought before the
Downtown Advisory Panel, the resolution in the book had included policies relative to the
issuance of alcohol licenses for businesses in the downtown area, and that’s omitted from the
resolution, but they have no objection to that being added back in. So if you could amend your
motion to make those three changes, then you in essence have their resolution.
Mr. Williams: So move, Bill, if my seconder would second it.
Mr. Bridges: That’s three motions again on the floor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, he amended one motion. We have a substitute motion. Read
the substitute motion for me, Ms. Morawski.
The Clerk: The substitute motion that I have that Mr. Williams made was that it would
go through the Downtown Development Authority and Main Street and be brought to the
Commission as opposed to being, going to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What was the original motion?
The Clerk: The original motion was to approve it as written in the caption.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor the substitute -- Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I was just waiting until you got here, Mr. Mayor. The only problem I have,
and it’s just an observance and a question. The question is, and I [inaudible] I think these
people, everybody has gone to great lengths and it’s been a long time and a lot of different times
to try to put all of this together. My question is, I noticed in the backup minutes, and I imagine
this was done in whatever your voting procedures would be. On the boundaries, is everybody
together on those boundaries that you all set? Because I’m looking at Jim’s comments in
reference to what the resolution contains, I’m looking at your comments, Rick, on where you all
have been talking about boundaries. Primarily I’m looking at Broad Street in reference to the
thth
13 Street side, the 15 Street side. And with so many folk being involved in this and all the
different stakeholders, and the time you spent, I’d hate for it to go to naught to a point that if
thth
there are some real differences about the boundaries. [inaudible] 13 or 15?
Mr. Lloyd: [inaudible] the area.
Mr. Mays: And I’m going to tell you why I brought that up before Mr. Wall says it. You
all mentioned about the fact that the reason why you wanted it out of the Planning Commission’s
hands is that stakeholders were not consulted. And one of the things that always happens is
when you’ve got a lot of entities and we hear parts of the story, and then it changes. What I
wanted to make sure was that on the next two weeks, we wasn’t going to hear from four entities
64
of the different stakeholders who say we think it ought to stop here and expressed that in the
meeting, but we weren’t respected in that. And then you start the argument all over again. The
observance I’d make is that this Commission was the one, and I think we stand to bear whatever
blame that is in there to a point if we are going to loose it up, we going to vote on it, fine. But
we were the ones throughout this whole process that sends this thing over to the Planning
Commission. And [inaudible] there. Now [inaudible] also when you’ve got a board, and I don’t
always agree with what boards do, but to a point that I think that when you send something there
in that process, if you’re going to change that process, now if they’ve violated the spirit of it by
not having good bylaws and let everybody come to the table and that’s why you all are here.
Now I think you’re doing absolutely the right thing. But I would caution the Commission when
we start delegating responsibility and send stuff to a particular entity, and then after they’ve done
the work or voted up or down or it doesn’t go the way we want it to, we snatch it back from the
entity and say then that we are going to do it. Now when [inaudible] respect some protocol that
we have, both with your groups and with the Planning Commission, because it’s going to get to
the point in time where we say do you want us to even make a decision when you’re sending it to
us? [inaudible] do that. Now if they didn’t follow the procedure by allowing stakeholders to be
heard, I am totally in agreement with you, to a point that this is the body that it ought to be
before. But I think if you’re going to eliminate them out there in that process, we ought to be
very careful about how we do that eliminating before we turn around maybe three months from
now and assign them to another special task that lasts three to four months and you’re going to
[inaudible] well, we don’t want to deal with that, y’all should handle it yourself. And that’s why
I asked that about was everybody in agreement with it? Cause I can be happy if all those groups
are, you know, want to do what you’re talking about putting that in the resolution, you have my
support in terms of when it comes back to the Commission, you know, to do that. But it’s just an
observance, because I think all of you who work on these board do it because you love this city
and you want to see progress done. There ain’t no million dollar jobs involved in none of this,
and I think when you cross these lines up with different [inaudible], somehow or another we
need to make sure that everybody is being heard of and when we finally vote on something this
important [inaudible] it’s with one voice and not three to four different voices. That’s all, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Yes, Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, I believe that
Commissioner Mays has made a very valid point. You originally had sent this back to the
Planning Commission for them to consider the creation of an entertainment zone. And also to
look at a panel that you would control that would govern what would happen downtown.
Neither one of those has occurred, and really what you have is probably a very good
compromise, but I think that to be prudent -- I have not seen the new ordinance or the new
resolution that had been proposed by Main Street and DDA and you have not seen it, either. I
would recommend to you that you deny both motions that are on the floor and refer it back until
your next meeting so that we can kind of take a look at it and make sure that those elements are
included in the resolution as was instructed by Commissioner Mays.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Williams.
65
Mr. Williams: I wanted to defer to the Attorney who at a high rate of pay at this time of
the afternoon ought to be able to look and tell us are we making a -- and you said, are you concur
one time and now I need to know are you still concurring or do you think with the changes that
have been presented that this document is [inaudible]?
Mr. Wall: Well, I concur from the standpoint that I think you ought to know exactly
what you’re voting on because there are some changes in here. What I tried to do is outline
verbally for you the changes that are there. However, the changes that I have highlighted for you
are not a part of any motion that is currently on the floor, because your motion was to make only
one of the three changes. So what is going to be approved, if your motion passes, is not anything
that is currently written. And so I don’t think you’re pleasing what they want, not pleasing what
the Planning Commission wants, nor are you pleasing what the original group that got together to
propose this wants. So it will be a new creation that’s created here today. And I don’t think
that’s the best way to do things.
Mr. Speaker: Turn both motions down and make a new one.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Attorney, is it appropriate to table this until our next meeting or can you
postpone, but with two motions on the floor can you, you can’t do that, can you?
Mr. Cheek: We can dispose of it and then table it.
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, Steve tried to.
Mr. Wall: This is a subsidiary motion and you can take a motion to postpone to a later
time.
Mr. Cheek: That has to come after we deleted or disposed of the first two?
Mr. Wall: No, you can take it up now.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move that we postpone until our next meeting.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion on the floor to postpone until our next meeting.
Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just a matter of parliamentary procedure. Then when we reconvene this
issue, we’re going to have to dispose of the first two measures and then vote on it again with the
third motion; right?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We do.
66
Mr. Wall: No, it will come back with either of these motions having been acted on, so it
will be postponed and brought back.
Mr. Cheek: So the motions die, the motions die after this meeting?
Mr. Wall: Right.
Mr. Cheek: And come back again.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion on the floor. All in favor of the motion, please
signify by the sign of voting.
(Vote on motion to postpone)
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Ms. Morawski.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
26. Consider a request from Patrick R. Lay regarding an increase in the number of taxi
cab passengers they are allowed to transport.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Lay and Mr. Sherman. Mr. Lay? Give the Clerk your name
and address for the record, please, sir.
Mr. Lay: Patrick Lay. 255 Boy Scout Road. I was kind of hoping -- one of the
Commissioners left, I was hoping --
Mr. Bridges: Speak in the mike.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a quorum. Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Lay: Okay. [inaudible] seating capacity for a tax cab. We’re having a hard time
finding, we’re having a hard time finding vehicles that will do the job [inaudible]. And there are
a few higher-seating capacity vans out there that are giving us a lot of competition and we would
like to be able to pull up to the soldiers to pick up a load just like the rest of them do. The
soldiers hang out in a large group. Fort Gordon tells them to hang out in a large group for their
own protection, I guess, I’m pretty sure that’s what they tell them. And we need extra seating
capacity. We’re asking for ten passengers. And that’s not counting the driver. That would be
11 all together. And we really need this seating capacity in order to get the newer vehicles that is
required to do this [inaudible]. We also have church groups that we’d like to be able to take
whenever we can. But we just don’t have the seating capacity to do what we need to do. We’re
67
hoping that y’all will let us have that seating capacity today so we can move on and will certainly
help Fort Gordon. We’re trying to help. This is all a way of helping Fort Gordon. We need to
try to help Fort Gordon any way we can. And this is our way of helping them. And that’s about
it. We just need a higher seating capacity. We run across a lot of people in a group and they
won’t ride if they all can’t ride.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me ask a question, Mr. Lay. What kind of vehicles are you
talking about with higher seating capacity?
Mr. Lay: Well, what we’re thinking about, the larger vans. Not the mini-vans, the larger
vans. The larger vans, they have 15 passengers, but we’ll probably have to take a seat out. But
some of the capacity, they have 15 passengers. But we just need to be able to keep up with the
competition in order to take these people around. I guess that’s about it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do y’all have the 15-passenger vans?
Mr. Lay: We don’t have them now. We’re considering buying them. But it’s hard to
find a vehicle now that will take the place of these old station wagons. We was using the stations
wagons, we’re still using the station wagons, but they’re just about obsolete and we are trying to
find better vehicles to handle the workload.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Cheek: Just a quick question. I know each vehicle has a design rating for the total
number of passengers. Six passenger car. Seven passenger. SUV. 15 passenger van. Are you
asking us to allow more passengers per vehicle than it is designed for and has seat belts for each
occupant?
Mr. Lay: No, sir. What we’re trying to get, a higher seating capacity, you know,
whatever the seat belt requirement is, you know, that’s what we need. But we need more seat
belts. We need more seat belts.
Mr. Cheek: You can’t just rig seat belts in a vehicle.
Mr. Lay: No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying the newer vehicles have more seat belts.
Mr. Cheek: That’s correct.
Mr. Lay: A mini-van has seven.
Mr. Cheek: You’re not asking to put more than 8 people in a vehicle that has 8 seat
belts?
Mr. Lay: Just 8 can fit in a station wagon. [inaudible] but we need 11 people to haul
these loads, and that’s counting the drive.
68
Mr. Cheek: But that’s exceeding the seat belt capacity.
Mr. Lay: Not in a 15-passenger van.
Mr. Cheek: Okay, you’re talking about changing cars? To me it sounds like the
ordinance ought to be written that you’ve got the number of passengers by number of seat belts.
Mr. Lay: No, sir, we’re just asking for a higher seating capacity for a better, you know, a
larger vehicle.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman: What Mr. Lay is asking for is first to amend the ordinance to allow the cab
companies to drive larger vehicles that carry more passengers as they are designed to carry. The
ordinance now says that the maximum passengers that a taxi cab can carry is seven. We met
with the taxi cab companies I think in ’99, we set up a subcommittee of all the taxi cab drivers,
we discussed several of the regulations. This was one that we discussed. We found that there
were three companies that had large taxi cabs larger than what the ordinance allowed. We met
with all the cab companies early the following year, and it was agreed to at that meeting that
once those three cabs were broken down, they could no longer continue to use them, that we
would go back to what the ordinance says. So one of those cabs is broken. We still have two out
there. One carries 12, one carries 15. Everybody else drives a cab that carries seven passengers
or less. Now there are several large vans out there that have removed the seats so that they only
carry six passengers or seven passengers. And the vans get inspected twice a year, so that’s how
that is regulated. But what Mr. Lay again is asking for is we amend the ordinance to allow them
to use larger vehicles that what he is currently.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, that was part of the line of questioning that I had. So in
other words, even if you’ve got a 15-passenger van, we now limit that seating down to --
Mr. Sherman: Seven passengers.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I want to make a motion that we change that ordinance
to allow that seating capacity. Every other city I’ve ever been in, and you can get in the cab at
the airport, a 15-passenger van, it’s got seating capacity for 15. It’s definitely limiting
competition and commerce, in my opinion, arbitrarily. If there’s adequate seat belts and
coverage in the vehicle and it’s an approved vehicle, then taking seats out to meet some
ordinance requirement when we’re transporting a vehicle designed for that number of people,
they ought to be allowed to carry it. I just make a motion that we [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Lay: May I say one more thing?
Mr. Williams: Second it. I second the motion, Mr. Mayor.
69
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Discussion?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Rob? In regard to the van, passenger vans right
now, what, how are they regulated and who regulates them? Are they considered cabs or
limousines or what’s done in that regard?
Mr. Sherman: The mini-vans that are used as taxi cabs, again they are limited to carrying
seven passengers. The ones that have more seats, that they were designed to carry more
passengers than seven, they’re required to remove that seat so they’re in compliance with the
ordinances and they don’t pack it with more people than the ordinance allows.
Mr. Bridges: What this gentleman is asking for is the large capacity vans to be
considered as taxi cabs as well?
Mr. Sherman: That’s correct.
Mr. Bridges: What was the purpose of limiting a 15-pasenger van to seven seats?
Mr. Sherman: As far as I know, that’s what the ordinance says. Mr. Lay is the only cab
company that has approached us about this. I’m not sure --
Mr. Bridges: How many cab companies do we have?
Mr. Sherman: Well, I could have told you --
Mr. Bridges: Is there any kind of association?
Mr. Sherman: Well, we meet with the cab companies when issues like this come up and
we try to get an agreement among all of them that this what you want to do. And on the other
side, and I think Radio Cab is the cab company that usually is here to be involved in these
conversations, what their comments have been is when you get a large cab, 15 passenger, pulls
up in line at the theater, now the ordinance requires that once somebody gets in the car and they
ask to go to a location, they should pull off. But what’s going to occur, so they say, is that
they’re going to stay there until they fill up the van with the other 14 passengers. What’s going
to happen to the other cabs that are behind there is something the Sheriff’s Department will have
to regulate.
Mr. Bridges: And the reason I’m asking is there an association is we’ve got one cab
owner that wants to do this, and it sounds reasonable. But there may be other issues out there
that we don’t know. Is it possible to coordinate this with the other cab companies and let them as
a group bring back a recommendation to us?
Mr. Sherman: We can do that. The other ordinance that we’ve looked at, they do limit
the number of passengers, but to the number of seat belts that are in the vehicle.
70
Mr. Bridges: Were the other cab companies notified of this ordinance? I mean do we
send them any kind of notice or anything like that?
Mr. Sherman: No, this is something that Mr. Lay [inaudible].
Mr. Lay: I’m trying to do myself and I mean I figure all the other can companies will
follow me, considering the same situation. I’m just speaking for myself mainly.
Mr. Bridges: I think there are probably so pros and cons there, Mr. Chairman. I’m not
going to make a motion at this time, but I’m wondering if maybe we don’t want to consider
notifying the other companies of this and let them as a group bring back a recommendation for
them because I’ve seen situations where I think maybe it’s the light thing, the attached light. We
have different -- it sounded like a good idea until some of the other cab companies, you know,
made mention of other issues involved. So I don’t want to get in a situation where we’re doing
something for one cab company and there are others out there that have very good arguments for,
you know, not doing this.
Mr. Lay: I’m sure that all the other companies will go along with this.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I think the motion, Mr. Cheek made the
motion, was that -- I know we talked about 15-passenger vans, but Mr. Lay is asking for a total
of ten, even though you’d put them in a 15-passenger size van. So I just wanted some clarity on
the motion of that, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: The motion was to allow these cab companies to operate vehicles at their
design capacity, which if it’s a 15-passenger van with 15 seat belts, then they can operate it with
15 passengers.
Mr. Boyles: That’s not what Mr. Lay is asking for. He’s asking for --
Mr. Lay: That would be fine, also.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Lay, please.
Mr. Lay: Excuse me.
Mr. Cheek: Well, no, I don’t see us adding seat belts to vehicles to put people in
positions they’re not designed for or allowing more vehicles are designed for. This is, I guess,
Andy’s compromise on what’s, what’s being deemed safe by the Federal Highway Safety
Administration for vehicular travel.
Mr. Boyles: But my understanding was that he was take a 15-passenger size van, take the
back seat out, if I heard that right, that could be used for luggage or whatever else, and that
71
leaves you with 12 seats including the driver. And Mr. Lay is only asking for ten, so that would
give you one extra space up front, maybe the passenger side seat.
Mr. Cheek: But, and I guess Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, for clarification. The intent of the
motion is to allow the free market to dictate the need for luggage space or seating capacity. If
they have a need for that, they can take the seat out without us arbitrarily affixing some number
to a 15-passenger vehicle below its design limits. What we do not want to have, and maybe the
ordinance needs to have this as well, is that for every person there has to be a seat belt. But the
market dictates that in theater traffic you have no luggage, and if the predominant amount of
their business is traffic from Regal Cinemas to Fort Gordon, then they don’t need the luggage
space so they don’t need to have their 15-passenger vehicle arbitrarily downsized to 12, for
instance. We don’t need to be in the business of telling small and independent businesses what’s
best for them to do based on some arbitrary though that seven is good or six is good. If the
vehicle has a 15-passenger design limit, then we ought to allow that. If they decide to pull the
seat out based on their market needs, that’s their decision, but for every passenger there has to be
a seat belt. That’s all I said.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Were you --
Mr. Boyles: Based on the clarification that I got, I make a substitute motion that we
send this back to Public Safety and let the Public Safety Committee study this issue.
Mr. Bridges: Second it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Substitute on the floor. Motion dies for lack of a second.
Mr. Boyles: I thought there was a second.
The Clerk: Mr. Bridges did.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I seconded it, yes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear you. Go ahead, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. As Chairman of Public Safety, I’m going to address this
issue now. I don’t mind addressing it in the meeting. But let’s quit playing games here and let’s
talk facts. We’ve been discussing taxi cabs and taxi cab lights and who can run and who can’t
run, who can go to the airport, who can’t go to the airport. The small businessmen have been
72
suffering, women as well. Now we sitting up here acting like we don’t know what’s going on.
This gentleman came and asked for permission to have ten, but if he can get a van that holds 20
and there’s a seat belt for every person, why would we eliminate some seats to give him luggage
room if his passengers would ride and could be seated with seat belt with luggage in their laps or
whatever the situation is? But we sitting here playing games. This time out. This man is a
businessman. He’s paying tax money into this city. He said he support Fort Gordon. Soldiers
do travel in bunches because it’s safer for them. If other entity can do it, why can’t he do it?
Now how many times we stop the taxis to see whether that seat taken out? [inaudible] during
inspection time when they know inspection to take the seat out, and if you look at the screws that
was bolted down, you can tell they was just moved. So why don’t we allow this man to have the
right to buy the equipment with the proper safety devices, seat belts or whatever? Why we got to
pay this committee to study this? This ain’t no safety issue. If you don’t have the seat belts, if
you don’t have the license and stuff, maybe that’s an issue. But we need to let him go. We want
to hold him to ten. If he had a 15-passenger van, that wouldn’t make any difference to us. The
revenue he brings in help paying taxes to this government. Now that’s what we ought to be
regulating, how much money he’s been bringing in [inaudible] service that we ought to be
collecting taxes off of.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. I have a question for Mr. Lay. You said you support
Fort Gordon, you pick up soldiers. When soldiers are going TDY, out to the airport or going to
the bus station, how do you handle their luggage if you’ve got all 15 seats full?
Mr. Lay: Well, we have luggage racks.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Oh, you have --
Mr. Lay: We tie it down on a luggage rack.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: On top of the vehicle?
Mr. Lay: We tie it down. And if it’s raining, we use a tarp to keep their luggage dry.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If you pick up a group of soldiers who are going TDY or going
home for the holidays, and you’ve got a 15-passenger van, most of these guys travel with duffel
bags.
Mr. Lay: We don’t have 15-passenger vans yet.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I mean I’m just asking a hypothetical question. If most of your
soldiers, your young soldiers who you pick up have duffel bags and luggage, where would you
store the luggage if you had a 15-passenger van? You say you put them on top of the van?
Mr. Lay: Well, it depends on how much luggage they have. Some of them don’t hardly
have no luggage at all.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: When you’re going TDY, Mr. Lay --
73
Mr. Lay: They take one bag, you know. We don’t take them TDY.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: They got to get to the airport, Mr. Lay.
Mr. Lay: We take them to the airport. When they go home.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: They have their bags and stuff. I’m asking where you put the
luggage if you’ve got all 15 seats filled.
Mr. Lay: You mean if I had a 15-passenger van?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir. If you’re picking up 15 GI’s from Fort Gordon, they are
going home or they’re going TDY, they’ve got to go to the airport, they’ve got to go to their next
duty station, how do you handle their bags, their baggage?
Mr. Lay: Well, if I didn’t have enough room down in the passengers, I’d run two
vehicles.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Thank you. That’s common sense.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So you’ll run an empty vehicle with the bags?
Mr. Lay: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: They can’t take but so many. If it takes ten and he ain’t got room but for
seven, he can’t take but seven, the others have to wait or catch another ride. Why are we fighting
this?
Mr. Lay: Have a luggage rack.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. The reason I said what I did about the ten
passengers is because Mr. Lay asked for ten. Every other issue we’ve had on cabs, taxis, that’s
come before Public Safety. Mr. Cheek made the motion to make it 15. Now it doesn’t matter to
me, you can get one of these buses like city transit has that might hold 25, and I don’t care. But
what I’m saying is that Mr. Lay asked for ten and the only way he can work that is into a 15-
passenger van with the back seat out.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Boyles, let me respond to that. If Mr. Law gets a ten-passenger van
and he --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: He cannot [inaudible] no more than --
74
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] will accommodate. I believe --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Leave somebody at home or standing on the corner.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: He can only take what [inaudible] would allow.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I was getting clarification from Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] understand that. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, the only reason I said 15 or the number of passengers
that the vehicle was designed for with seat belts is because Andy’s been out of Mayberry, been to
New York and Washington and Boston and all these other places, where they have design limits
based on the number of manufacturer-designed positions there are for passengers. The reason
we’re here today is because we set an arbitrary seven number some time ago where they could
have two cabs working instead of one. If you’ve got 15 soldiers that want to go to Barracks A,
they should all be able to ride in that same vehicle without having to spend extra expense of
bringing two cabs. If there are less than that, he’s going to have to pay the expense of a bigger
vehicle that uses more gas than an eight or seven or four person vehicle. The market will dictate
that. The reason I said 15, and perhaps the language should be clarified, is that the vehicle
design, the manufacture designed occupancy limit should be the limiting factor, not some
arbitrary number this government sticks on the number of seats available in a taxi cab. Go to
New York. Go to Boston. Go to Washington. Go to Albuquerque, New Mexico. Go to San
Francisco. Dad gum it, they do it that way. We pick arbitrary numbers because we want to play
these little games and all these little companies and everything. He asked for ten but if you go to
these other cities they have vehicles that carry 15 and they don’t have a problem with it. We
need to set the market free on this. Possibly the reason we don’t see more taxi cab companies
here today is because every time they come we treat them like a bunch of nuts and run them out
the door without any kind of real hearing on their issues. These other small companies have got
issues, just like the big companies do, and this is a case where we have an arbitrary government
rule in place that is limiting market competition. It needs to be changed to allow them to buy a
vehicle and then fill it with the number of people that it is designed to hold. That’s all the
motion says. That’s simple.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
75
Mr. Shepard: Well, of course when I wanted to ask a question of the lawyer, I guess I
have to answer it myself. I’m going to charge you for it.
(Laughter)
Mr. Shepard: But don’t we have -- this is an ordinance change. That’s an ordinance
change. It’s not here in the form of an ordinance, so I can tell you whatever your philosophy is
about business, I really don’t care. But it ain’t going to pass before a second a reading cause I
ain’t waiving it today, gentlemen. So I think we ought to send it back to the committee, get the
ordinance right, and bring it back. And I call the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question has been called. All in favor -- we have a substitute
motion. Read the substitute motion.
The Clerk: The substitute motion by Mr. Boyles was to send this back to the Public
Safety Committee.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the substitute motion, please --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: I think, so that we don’t do this all over again, and Steve’s position is the
same is mine. He was going left instead of right, Steve. I think, though, it needs to be given
some direction that at least a proposed [inaudible] whether it’s in committee or whether it’s here.
Then that way you’ve got something to [inaudible] up or down. The comment I wanted to make
was that I remember when this change was made, and I think the Director out there will bear me
out, is that you’re probably going to have more companies than just Mr. Lay that would be in
support of some sort of change. Because we allowed that, and quite frankly, those independents
who are running those large cabs, they were new vehicles, they were very clean. In fact, they
were probably than some [inaudible] who were objecting to them. But the point being some of
them are going to ask for that same change to be made. And so he’s not going to be the only
person, and I don’t think that’s a bad idea. To a point that it just gets us back to where we were
arguing to a point back in ’99 about doing this or not doing it. So I think it’s going back and
[inaudible] give Jim something to write, something to bring back and it can be discussed during
that time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, we do have a substitute motion on the floor to send this
back. All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams vote No.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 6-2.
76
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. We will send it back to committee. Next item, please.
The Clerk:
27. New Application: A.N. 03-14: A request by Laura L. Davis for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Adam’s Lounge
located at 127-129 Ninth Street. District 1. Super District 9.
Ms. Davis: My name is Laura Lynn Davis. I live at 2435 Castlewood Drive in Augusta.
I’m currently a business owner on Broad Street, right now at 1149 Broad Street, Adam’s Pizza
and Subs. And --
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: So move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion?
Mr. Mays: Hope you have as much luck and success with this one as the one you’re in
now. Glad to have you downtown.
Mr. Bridges: I just wondered if there was any opposition here.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, sir. All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, please.
Mr. Speaker:
28. New Application: A.N. 03-15: A request by Ok Sun Lord for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with LS Daniel Enterprises DBA LSD Gas Station
located at 3735 Mike Padgett Hwy. DISTRICT 8. SUPER DISTRICT 10.
Ms. Lord: My name is Ok Lord. I live at 2462 [inaudible] Drive.
Mr. Speaker: This is a new location. There is not a building at this property yet. This is
a request in anticipation of construction of a building at Old Waynesboro Road at Mike Padgett
Highway. The License Department and the Sheriff’s Department have reviewed the application.
With regard to the zoning of the property and that it will meet the distance requirements where
the proposed building is anticipated going, it meets the requirements that we review in the
77
License Department. The Sheriff’s Department has also reviewed the application and at this
time they don’t feel that it can be -- their recommendation is to deny, so our recommendation is
to deny this application. Richard Elim is here from the Sheriff’s Department if you have any
questions. The applicant is presently on probation and will be on probation until October 7 for
violations of alcohol ordinance at the location at 4630 Mike Padgett Highway.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Given the information, I make the motion that we deny and uphold the
recommendation of the Sheriff’s Department.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion to deny.
Mr. Cheek: Second it for discussion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Second it for discussion. Discussion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I’d like to hear from the petitioner and from the Sheriff’s Department. I’d
like to hear from the petitioner.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sir, are you going to speak for her?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir. My name is [inaudible]. I’m one of the LSD partners.
[inaudible] gas station. And also [inaudible] employees doing the wrong thing and [inaudible]
one month suspended license the last year and I got one year on probation. And what I wanted is
to own another store and the only thing I wanted until I spend the money on that property, I want
to make sure I [inaudible] license and with the probation until October 7 and then my [inaudible]
probably November or December. So I don’t want to spend the money and then if it’s not going
to pass, so the only thing I ask is Commission to pass the alcohol license when the probation’s
over.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: How much longer -- I guess the Sheriff’s Department needs to address.
How much longer is the probation period?
th
Mr. Elim: Mr. Williams, he will be clear from probation on the 7 of September.
th
Mr. Williams: Be clear the 7 of September?
Mr. Elim: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: That was a one year probation? Okay. That’s all I got, Mr. Mayor Pro
Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays?
78
Mr. Mays: Yeah, let me ask this. [inaudible] at the location where the violation occurred
that [inaudible], is that location -- I want to get clear now on probation versus suspension. Is it
still under current operation?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Mays: Okay, and it’s under a probated status?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir. [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: That was going to be my next question, any other violations since we put
them on probation.
Mr. Speaker: No, sir.
Mr. Mays: Okay, Mr. Mayor, then my question would be to the Attorney. Under a
probated status of where you’ve got a license holder on Avenue A is probated and the rights on
Avenue A, doesn’t he have the same rights on [inaudible] discretionary power and we can do a
lot of things, but do they not have the same rights on Avenue B to a point that if they’re in
business now? I would think if we’ve suspended and taken [inaudible] some situation with
moral turpitude [inaudible] but to a point if we have got an operator that’s still operating and
going to progressively put up another business and we’ve not taken the license, doesn’t the
applicant still have some rights, that they’ve not violated any law, just put them on probation?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir, I mean you can grant the license. They’re not automatically
precluded. However, is it a consideration that the Commission can use the fact that he is
currently under probation so as to deny an additional license, then the answer is yes. But clearly
he is not disqualified from being approved today for a license just simply because he’s on
probation.
Mr. Mays: And my only observance of that is if you’ve got somebody trying to deal with
[inaudible] development, mistake has been made, he’s paying for it, the stigma of probation is
there, if it’s going to put up a newer and brighter and bigger place, then it may be a newer and
better applicant and owner [inaudible]. I just, I just think if it’s a trouble spot and you have a
problem and you have some more violations, then I’d be the first one to say you probably need to
deny. Period. Or the one you’re in, in fact, needs to be dealt with. And I can understand your
need to bring it to us when we’ve got them in this status. But if the gentleman is there and in
business and going on about abiding the law and basically doing nothing else [inaudible], I’m
happy for anybody, quite frankly, that can go and get a business going and put up something and
build something new [inaudible] economic [inaudible] in order to do it. And I just think to a
point that the discretion in that deal is real far-reaching to go over and taken his current status, I
think he ought to be on probation if he’s that bad and he ought not be operating. But if he’s on
probation and fixing to build a brand new store to a point do it to a point of allowing him to get
into business is one thing. I think if he’s learned his lesson of being on probation, he gets in
department in terms of [inaudible] new place. He’s not looking to see [inaudible] out again.
79
And I can understand the position -- those technicalities have to be brought to us. But I think
sometimes we need to have, just like the rule of discretion is [inaudible], it ought to swing both
ways and it ought to be fair and it ought to be to a point if somebody is trying to do right in the
situation, allow him that, particularly if he hasn’t done anything else wrong. That’s the only
thing I was saying. [inaudible] personal feelings about it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Kim, you need to get maybe a
guarantee of a license in order to get your construction loan?
Mr. Kim: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: And you realize that if this were granted, and then something were to
happen with your current license, you could have a big building out there with no license?
Mr. Kim: Yes, sir. That’s why I’m going over there and watching the store real closely.
I don’t want to have no kind of trouble any more and I been taking the [inaudible] watching
closely. You know, don’t happen no more like it did.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have an original motion on the floor; correct? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Is the applicant willing to, I guess, submit in the form of an agreement that
should any problem arise without any argument he would forfeit the license to this new location,
should there be another incident? I guess my concern is that I’m not sure of the precedent, but it
seems to me we don’t typically grant expansions to people under probation and my question is, I
don’t have a problem supporting that as long as there’s no more problems at this location where
you’re under suspension, and I don’t want to deny him the right to expand his business and grow,
but then again I have a real problem with granting approval to somebody that’s under probation
now for a new liquor license. So I guess what I’m saying is I’m not sure the precedent is there,
Mr. Attorney, so maybe you can help me out.
Mr. Wall: Well, I mean, he still would be entitled to due process in my opinion, and I
don’t know that an agreement that he would automatically forfeit would be enforceable by the
courts, particularly if he goes out and spends in excess of $100,000 or whatever he’s going to
spend building one. I mean that’s a pretty severe penalty that I don’t know that the court would
enforce. So I think he’s still entitled to due process.
Mr. Cheek: Have we ever allowed an expansion like this to occur for an owner that is
currently under probation at another location?
Mr. Speaker: I’m not aware of it, sir.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
(Train)
80
Mr. Bridges: I can’t hear what’s been discussed.
Mr. Speaker: Probably have with some of the convenience stores, the larger chains of
convenience stores. I don’t know that we could give you an exact location.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] exact location but I could go back and research the record. We
have had some in the past that have added new stores and new locations that have been on
probation at some of the other stores.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles and then Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I make a substitute motion that it be approved.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jim, there’s a reason we have people on
probation, and that’s to see what they do, if something should transpire between now and the end
of the probation, we’ve back in the box we are now. I comment the gentleman for coming and
trying to get a license before you build the building because we have had people that built the
building and then came and tried to get the license and the neighborhood rises up and it’s near a
school and all of that, so I think you’re being very wise and putting first things first. But given
the circumstances of the probation, I can’t support the motion that’s on the floor. By the way,
Jim, how long after we turn this down will he have to come back?
Mr. Wall: If he is turned down -- that’s just what I was going to -- you’ve got to wait one
year, so you may want to allow him to withdraw it if that’s the will of the Commission, not to
approve it. That way, he can come back after he gets off probation and reapply.
Mr. Bridges: And I would encourage the owner to do that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion? We do have a substitute motion on the
floor to approve. All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign --
Mr. Williams: What’s that motion now?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion to approve.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion fails 4-4.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion was denied, sir.
81
Mr. Kim: I [inaudible] withdraw the motion and then I come back.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We already voted.
Mr. Wall: Well, come back.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: He can come back.
Mr. Wall: The request is to withdraw it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, we have a request on the floor to withdraw the motion.
Mr. Bridges: I move for approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Discussion?
Mr. Mays: Without prejudice.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Without prejudice. All in favor of the motion, please signify by the
sign of voting.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, sir. Next item.
Mr. Speaker:
29. New Ownership: A.N. 03-16: A request by Kyong Ae Kim for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Liz Mart located at 4127 Windsor Spring Rd.
District 6. Super District 10.
Ms. Speaker: [inaudible] 4127 Windsor Spring Road.
Mr. Speaker: There are no objectors present. The License Department and the Sheriff’s
Department have reviewed the application and recommend that it be approved.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Mr. Cheek?
82
Mr. Cheek: This is on the end of Windsor Spring Road near [inaudible] Elementary
School?
Mr. Speaker: This is south of Tobacco Road, the former Holiday Mart, on the right side
going south.
Mr. Bridges: Is that near the fire station?
Mr. Speaker: Yeah, yeah.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. No objection.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. All in favor of the motion, please signify by
the sign of voting.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item?
Mr. Speaker:
30. Discussion: A request by the RCSD for a hearing to consider the possible probation,
suspension or revocation of the alcohol license held by Brenda Palmer for Alex’s Sports
Bar located at 3160 Wrightsboro Rd. for the following violations: sale of alcohol to a minor
11-19-02 and sale of alcohol to a minor and hours of sale violation 3-5-03. District 3. Super
District 10.
Mr. Speaker: Was cited at that location, actually made three citations on two different
incident dates, the first of which was sale of alcohol to a minor on 11/19/02, the second of which
was the sale of alcohol to a minor and hours of sale violation. The date here listed is wrong. It
actually was on 3/19/03. We made citations to the owner of the restaurant, the license holder,
Ms. Palmer, who is here today.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Give the Clerk your name and address for the record, please,
ma’am.
Ms. Palmer: Yes, my name is Brenda Palmer. I live at 2227 Bayvale Road, Augusta,
Georgia 30909.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
Ms. Palmer: Well, on the second [inaudible], we haven’t been to court yet on those.
We’ve been cited for them but we haven’t gone to court with them.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do you understand what the suspension and revocation is?
83
Ms. Palmer: For the first one it was for serving a minor, and I have her -- she was taken
under oath and she told the officer she didn’t get a drink there. We told the officers [inaudible]
get a drink there, but when we went to court, we were told that even though we didn’t serve her
and she never received anything in our restaurant, that we are still legally responsible so we
pleaded guilty the first time. We didn’t know -- I mean we thought that was what you were
supposed to do. If the law states you were guilty, we pleaded guilty. But I have her signed
statements and she’s willing to testify that we never served the child and she never got anything
to drink at our restaurant. And on the second two, like I said, we’re still going to court on that
one.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The second two, was that sale to minor?
Ms. Palmer: Yes, sir. Sales to minor and after hours. We haven’t been to court yet on
those two.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do you have statements from that person, too?
Ms. Palmer: I have statements but I don’t have them with me. They’re in the court
system.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
Ms. Palmer: Uh-huh [yes], on the first one.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: On the second one?
Ms. Palmer: On the second one? I have statements from her, too, but not with me,
because I didn’t know if I could discuss it or not before I went to court. But we have a petition
in the court system to dismiss with her statements that are in the court system.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir?
Mr. Speaker: If I may, I checked on the person that was [inaudible], that person is
involved in a pre-trial intervention program where --
Mr. Bridges: I’m sorry, I can’t hear. Can you speak into the microphone?
Mr. Speaker: The person that she’s talking about, the person that was cited, [inaudible], I
might be butchering her last name, but she was cited and she is currently involved in a pre-trial
arrangement to where she can pay a fine, community service, and at the end of that term her
record will be clear, sort of like a State Court version of First Offender.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges?
84
Mr. Bridges: Officer Elim, this lady is stating that she never served her, that the child is
willing to testify. Is that your finding?
Mr. Elim: I don’t know whether the child is willing to testify or not, sir. But what I can
say is that with checking with the State Court, that person is involved [inaudible] paying a fine
and will be working off community service. At the end of that time --
Mr. Bridges: For this violation?
Mr. Elim: For this violation.
Mr. Bridges: So she admitted guilt to this violation?
Mr. Elim: Yes, sir.
Ms. Palmer: She admitted guilt to drinking, but not in our restaurant.
Mr. Elim: That might be true, sir.
Ms. Palmer: Yes. She testified that she never got anything at our restaurant. She was
never served there.
Mr. Speaker: It was two separate situations.
Ms. Palmer: Right.
Mr. Speaker: On the particular date the initial charge was made for the minor, a
[inaudible] was generated to our office, which we followed up on and went back and cited
[inaudible] for serving to a minor and for after hours. The prior charge was on the night of the
actual incident, was a deputy on the scene. Two deputies go into the restaurant, not knowing that
they actually had a restaurant license and could be open. Walked into the restaurant, check on
that, because they thought it was just a bar. You know, supposed to be closed at this hour.
When the deputies go into the door, they saw alcohol on the bar, being consumed, and they made
the appropriate charges and made a report. We charged them based on that. Additional charges
[inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: Now I’m confused. Let’s just talk about the first one. Did the, did the girl
drink from their restaurant or not? Is she charged with drinking from that restaurant? Did she
plead guilty to drinking from that restaurant?
Mr. Speaker: I was talking about the second incident.
Mr. Bridges: All right, let’s talk about the first one. The second one’s in court so we
don’t know nothing.
85
Mr. Speaker: I’m not familiar with that one.
Mr. Bridges: But she’s being asked, you’re asking us to suspend?
Mr. Speaker: With the second violation.
Mr. Bridges: But that’s in court.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: So -- we don’t know if she’s guilty or not so how are we going to give her
probation for something we don’t know if she’s guilty or not? I guess that’s where I’m coming
from.
Mr. Wall: We’ve argued this before.
Mr. Bridges: I know we have.
Mr. Wall: There’s a different standard of proof. In criminal court it’s beyond a
reasonable doubt and there are any number of reasons that an individual could get off in a
criminal proceeding that does not mean that -- basically a preponderance of the evidence is what
you have, prevents you from finding that the charges are supported and that the individual did in
fact sell to a minor or allow the sale to a minor. So -- an in fairness, y’all have done it both
ways. You’ve waited for a court determination and other times you have gone ahead and made
the decision.
Mr. Bridges: Okay, officer, tell me about the second one again. What happened there?
Mr. Elim: The officers went up to this location about four o’clock in the morning.
Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, went out to the location about [inaudible] just a bar. They
actually had a restaurant license [inaudible]. Once they get in, they alcohol out on the table and
was being consumer. They contact [inaudible] asking about the location. He told them they do
have a [inaudible]. They found [inaudible] violation.
Mr. Bridges: So you’re convinced that a minor did drink in the second incident?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Bridges: Jim, what does our ordinance say in regards to selling to minors as a first
charge? Is it a year probation?
86
Mr. Wall: Well, it’s not an ordinance. It’s a policy where on the second violation, then
there is suspension for [inaudible]
Mr. Speaker: First offense is one year probation. The second offense is [inaudible]
notes, the second offense is one month suspension. The third is one year suspension. The fourth
is revocation.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Ms. Palmer: May I ask something?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Ms. Palmer: Just a -- I have this girl’s statement from the first one telling where she got
the alcohol from. That she did not drink or was served in my bar. She told the officers there.
She went to court. She told the judge that. And on the second young lady, she was an employee.
She had gotten, she was out drinking with her friends, she got in a fight, the dropped her off there
because they knew she was living with Alex. Alex was going to take her home. Yes, she had
been drinking. But no, she had not been served there. We’ve got that in a --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame, the officer -- and I’m not disputing your word. But he
just told us the deputies were in there and found alcohol on the bar after hours.
Ms. Palmer: Well, I don’t mean to say that, but no, sir, they did not. No alcohol.
Nobody found any alcohol in that building.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: In light of all that’s been said, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m going to
make a motion that we place them on probation for one year.
I’ve heard two sides that was
drinking. Whether or not there was drinking in this facility has been proven yet. The other case
is still in court. But I think a one year probation so we can monitor from the Sheriff and work
with them. You have the opportunity to stay in business but at the same time they know that
they are on probation and we will revoke their license if necessary.
Mr. Bridges: Second it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Have a motion and second on the floor. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I don’t know if this is within protocol, but if I hear --
I’m very concerned about shootings and other problems. We put Club Tinted Windows on
notice when we had crowd problems, fight problems. I think in addition to this, that we should
consider if there are other additional problems of violence in the parking lots of that
establishment that that’s going to bring this probation into consideration and we move to deny at
that point.
87
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I have a serious concern here about
serving not only at this business. I don’t know whether it’s true or not, this accusation, but any
business serving alcohol to minors, I think that we need to look at just rubbing them on the hand,
we need to get tough as nails on these businesses that are serving alcohol to minors, serving that
poison to minors. And just one year probation is not enough. I think we need to look at if they
are caught serving alcohol to minors, we should look at suspension not less than 30 days. Then
we can send a strong message that we [inaudible] today like this, but I’m going to bring it to
Public Service Committee that we change our policy on first offense of serving to minors and get
tough as nails. 30 days suspension. Not no probation. Cause I care for our young people out
there and they getting into a lot of trouble because of alcohol. Alcohol and tobacco and drugs.
And when they are apprehended or get caught doing that, we need to do what we need to do.
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Somewhere in there was there a Sheriff’s
Department recommendation? Maybe I missed it.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir. Keeping with my initial statement, we didn’t want to put her out
of business. We just wanted to -- like I said, we’ve been working with her. But we wanted to
bring it to her attention and we ask for a week’s suspension and a year’s probation.
Mr. Shepard: So the only difference from the motion that was made was a week’s
suspension?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: And I do think we take it very seriously about shooting and what-not. And
Mr. Cheek, Commissioner Cheek is correct, we have encountered that in other locations and
we’re not going to tolerate it. So I can live with the recommendation, the first motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Hardwick: My name is Bob Hardwick and I was hired by the company. Excuse me,
I’m hoarse here. I was hired by this company to improve the relationship over there in terms of
immediately after this alleged first incident happened. And I just wanted to bring a couple of
things, make a couple of things clear. The Sheriff’s deputy that has mentioned that the second
alleged consumption was observed by the officers, and I submit to you, sir, that that is not what
happened. What happened is that the deputies that was there, we’re allowed, we’re allowed to
drink Coke in the building, but not alcohol. The night in question, regarding the second issue,
the only thing the officer saw on the bar, not tables, was Cokes. Was a Coke there. The officer
who arrived at that time, if he thought is was alcohol he could have tested it or he could have
confiscated it to show that it was alcohol. There has never been a finding that that was alcohol.
Number one. And number two, the issue in terms of whether or not this was alcohol is before
88
the court at this time so that the court can adjudicate whether or not it was alcohol or whether or
not this was a situation where the police officer involved wanted to basically on a one-on-one
basis make an example out of this club in terms of what they can and cannot do. But the point is
that since we’ve been there, what we’ve done, and we have increased the police there, from three
officers to five. There is no, there is no minors there. We have a metal detector that will not
allow anyone to come in. We don’t have regular -- we don’t have regular ID’s. Everyone who
comes in has got to have a license showing their age. The bottom line, the bottom line here is
that -- excuse me -- is that there has been no consumption by minors there. And I feel what’s
happened here is that the club is being suspended without due process. Because there has never
been any showing that there was alcohol. The other thing I’m going to bring to you is this, the
young lady that the officer alleged pleaded guilty to drinking there, she did not plead guilty to
drinking there. She pled guilty to drinking at the club next door and she came over there.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me just stop you. Let me ask you a question. Is it a club or a
restaurant?
Mr. Hardwick: It’s a restaurant and a club. It’s just like Applebee’s. It’s the same as
Applebee’s. The have consumption license as well as --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Applebee’s is a bar and a restaurant. Applebee’s is a bar and a
restaurant.
Mr. Hardwick: It’s the same. Alex’s is a restaurant and a sports bar.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. You’re saying club. When you say club, I’m thinking of
nightclub.
Mr. Hardwick: It’s Alex’s Restaurant and Sports Bar. And what the confusion, what the
confusion has been thus far is that there has been an assumption made by the Sheriff’s
Department that it was simply a club. And that precipitated the officers, the second incident.
Now on the second incident, you said you wanted to talk about the second incident, the officer
never came in. The officer knocked on the door and one of the employees, Alex, went to the
door to let them in. They had full range, they had full range of the restaurant. They could have,
if they thought there was alcohol there, then they had, they had all the range in the world to
confiscate it, or whatever. But they chose not to do that because they wanted to come in here
and make a point to the Commission that in fact there was alcohol. But this restaurant is being
asked to be put on suspension or probation for an alleged crime that no one has not been proved,
even by the officers that was there. And on top of that, they’re in court.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Have the officers worked with you in the past in terms of y’all
having issues at the restaurant [inaudible] -- let me finish my question. Have there been
shootings and other incidents at that spot where the officers have worked with y’all?
Ms. Palmer: Okay. First of all, when we first opened, we were strictly going to be a
restaurant, not a restaurant and bar. And then [inaudible] turned it into a restaurant/bar. We
serve a lot of food but still, like a bar more so than a restaurant. So when we first opened, we
89
didn’t make people be 21 to come in. And then after the first ticket, as I told Sgt. Smith, I did
not know that if they didn’t get served in there, I was still legally responsible. I just thought I
was only responsible for the ones I served. So after that, we went strictly to 21 as of midnight so
that we would not have these problems. But as far as shootings go, I remember one shooting.
We had a lot of problems because we would ask for four deputies from Richmond County.
Sometimes we would get two, sometimes we would get one. So we had to go to private security.
We now have six on weekends. And we were having problems with loud music in our parking
lot and teenagers. But we don’t have this now because we want to security, private security. We
still have Richmond County every other weekend. That’s the only time they can work it, and we
have three of them, but we have to add three more of our own. So we were trying to work with
them but to be honest, this is new to me. And especially the type of business that we do, it’s just
totally different than anything I’ve ever worked with and I did not understand that we’re
responsible for the parking lot, we’re responsible if anybody walks in your building, but I’m
aware of it now.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir?
Mr. Hankerson: I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Just as point of clarification, because of
the motion on the floor for a one year probation, may I get some clarification back on item 28,
when we had a similar situation, and wasn’t there a one month suspension and Mr. Harris or Mr.
Sherman, there was a one month suspension, and plus the guy is still on probation? So I mean
where is the consistency?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] on that other agenda item, that [inaudible] was placed on one
month suspension and a year’s probation. I don’t know if I can remember all the details of it, but
it was selling on Sunday, is that correct?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] some zoning violations as far as where the owner lived at that
time, as far as where his license was actually --
Mr. Speaker: Let me clarify again. I don’t know Mr. Hardwick. I’ve talked with Ms.
Palmer. I’ve worked with Ms. Palmer. If I wanted to bring [inaudible] before this body before
this time on anything other than alcohol, I would have been justified in it. We’ve had shootings
in September, we had two in September, one of which the owner, the listed owner of the
restaurant or bar, restaurant/bar, told the officers she didn’t want a police report. She had a bullet
shattered a window, a door. Didn’t want a police report. So that’s a direct sign that we went up
there and talked with her. That’s a direct sign that they didn’t want us to know about it.
[inaudible] problems that they’re having and [inaudible] before this body. So if -- the Sheriff’s
Department gets no pleasure out of putting y’all through this, of putting them out of business.
That’s not what we’re here to do. We’re just here to [inaudible] everybody on the same level
90
and consistency. We ask for a week’s suspension because we felt that her was sole [inaudible]
being a heavy bar type of business, we felt that the economic impact on her for a week would be
equal to that, to the best we could figure, of a month in the situation Mr. Kim was. We tried not
to hit her too hard by that. Now anything other than that is not true. We’re working with them,
try to work with them, get no pleasure out of bringing them here.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chair?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: My recommendation was a probation for one year so they could continue
to operate and not have any more violations, which the Sheriff’s Department should be
continuing to monitor them. But all this other stuff is surfacing now and I’m going to call for the
question that you can continue to operate under probation and not have any other incidents in
your business and you can continue your business, but the stuff that you’re bringing up now and
the stuff that’s in court and the stuff that has happened and what you’re trying to do sheds
another light. So I think we need to go ahead and vote while we still maybe have enough votes
to get you probation. But without all the other stuff. This other conversation is going to lead us
somewhere. So Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m going to call for the question and maybe we can get
you a probation before [inaudible] any more violations.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question has been called. Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I’m going to be very quick. I would make this suggestion, regardless of what
way the vote goes, I plan to vote for Commissioner Williams’ motion. I do agree with you,
Marion, the timing of it, probation may be the best thing that you can get on the vote on this
floor. But it may not be all that’s happening in this whole situation. What I would suggest,
though, that regardless of what this body does, that ownership and the department continue to
work together, cause I heard something in there that I -- and I’d be remiss if I didn’t bring it up.
And we brought other situations into that discussion so it’s already been opened up to do that.
We had a similar situation that we were getting ready to do suspension on and I think where you
may have some problems on your side and misunderstandings and some things happened that
shouldn’t have been, but also our concern in this situation -- Mr. Elim, I know you represent
them in this area, this isn’t downing you on that -- but what’s bothering me is with the number of
alcohol licenses we got, Mr. Mayor, the number of people asking for special duty [inaudible] not
being able to make money, I hear folk wanting to work, and I think something in there, if people
want to be able to get some [inaudible] it seems as though [inaudible] this is just an observance,
gentlemen, but when I start hearing about folk asking for two to three deputies, then get one, they
may be assigned two to three, and one show up, now what I’m saying [inaudible] I don’t think
regardless of whatever [inaudible] rendered, whether we put them on probation, whether we
suspend them or whether we revoke them, we ought to still be able to try to work together in this
situation. It shouldn’t leave here where something else continues because we had this happen on
Tobacco Road and to a point where we start getting folk hired and sending them out there on
time. Now some of it’s the applicant’s fault [inaudible] to a point where you ask one deputy to
control a parking lot and the owner has asked and will pay for three, and one gets there, and one
gets there when he gets off his shift, I think somewhere in there we need to be accommodating or
91
we need to try to work with whatever private duty force are in these places so that we can handle
them. I know we’ve got a lot of clubs out there.
Mr. Speaker: I understand what you’re saying, Mr. Mays. I don’t mean to cut you off. I
understand what you’re saying. You are absolutely correct. But in this particular incident, these
special duty officers did not and will not want to work for that location because it’s got to a point
where they could start another assignment with less trouble and someone easier to work with.
Ms. Palmer is --
Mr. Mays: Let me cut you back off. We have that problem about folk, and I’m not
saying we ought to put folk in harm’s way.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: But to a point if it’s that uncontrollable then you all should have been here
with another issue before now. If it was that bad, if it was that uncontrollable then it should have
been here. And I say the same thing I said to Lt. Smith, when he came at that time. If folk don’t
want to do the work and don’t want to do it -- and I get complaints, and I’m not going to call
names, but I got folk in the field every day from the Sheriff’s Department that complain to me,
Mr. Commissioner, I can’t get a special, what’s the deal with it, it goes to certain people? Now
if we want to the chase, we can go to that, gentlemen, and I’m not going to open that can of
worms. But to a point you say about folk about wanting to work, there are some deputies been
there, been requesting, and don’t ever get a chance to go to work. And they want to work but
they don’t get assigned. So I’m not, I’m not buying that about the fact that nobody will go over
there and work. Now if you’ve got some folk who can’t work in a situation that they [inaudible]
if something is going on wrong [inaudible] I say the same think I said when I came here 20-
something years ago. They should call for their back-up, they should shut it down, and you
should ask for revocation. That is the law. And if they’re breaking it, bring it before [inaudible],
but this [inaudible] some folk don’t want to work there and that’s because some people are
getting special and some are not, that’s a whole other issue. But I think if a club owner asks,
then I don’t think [inaudible] just because folk don’t want to work somewhere. If the situation is
that bad, Richard, [inaudible] .
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mays, I understand exactly what you’re saying, but you’re not
understanding what I’m telling you. I’m not saying people can’t get work, don’t want to work.
What I’m saying is in this particular instance what has happened is that the special duty officers
that worked, it’s documented, special duty officers have worked at that location and got
problems from the owner about how to handle the special duty assignment. Therefore, that kind
of word gets around and guys would just rather work something else.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] working with that particular owner. That’s what [inaudible] and
then if they do not cooperate and then they break the law then I agree with you, they ought to be
here.
Mr. Speaker: That’s where they are.
92
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] you’re not going to send somebody somewhere because
somebody doesn’t want to work. [inaudible] raise taxes to deal with public safety [inaudible]
people could not [inaudible] enough money and we have it to a point where folk [inaudible] can’t
go to work or you don’t want them to go and I get complaints from your folk in the field and
you’re not the Sheriff, I realize that, but I get complaints from deputies every week, some of
them have applied for special [inaudible] funeral, much less go to a nightclub. So I mean I’m not
buying it in that category.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mays, all I can do is tell you that --
Mr. Mays: And I’m not lying.
Mr. Speaker: I’m just telling you what I know [inaudible] we have [inaudible] --
Mr. Mays: I’m just [inaudible] --
Mr. Speaker: What I’m telling you is in this instance I know what’s going on in this
place. I talked to her. She will tell you that she’s tried to get special duty officers and when the
officers come there, they have a problem with her daughter, who is the actual owner. I have not
had a problem working with Ms. Palmer. Every time me and Ms. Palmer get to talking, that’s
why the place is still open, cause me and her can talk. It’s not that our guys don’t want to work.
The guys do want to work. They need the money. They’re making $15 an hour, they’re working
every day. What you’ve got is you’re got an opportunity to go work where you don’t have
problems, you don’t have headaches or you go there where you’re going to have a problem and
when you’re going to have a problem with the owner that increases it. I’m not talking bad about
them. I’m just trying to tell you what’s going on.
Mr. Mays: Let me ask you this, then. [inaudible] Are they breaking the law [inaudible]
go there [inaudible] get along?
Mr. Speaker: I believe it might be a little bit of both.
Mr. Mays: Okay, cause what I’m saying is if they are breaking the law, then I support
you 101%.
Mr. Speaker: And we’ve worked with them.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] personalities, then my goodness, folk ought to be able to work that
out. It shouldn’t be to a point that if you can see it and you can work it out, then you’ve got
some folk that can’t work it out. They all paid by the same source.
Mr. Speaker: That’s right.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. No further discussion.
93
Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] clarity, since that is my District. District 5, not District 3.
That is my District, and I’m going to be observing, too. I’m getting tough as nails.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Mr. Boyles abstains.
Motion carries 6-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Ms. Morawski.
The Clerk:
31. Approve an amendment in contract with Beam Pavement Maintenance Company in
the amount of $31,739 regarding rehabilitation of runway intersection.
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the
motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, please.
The Clerk:
32. Presentation by Main Street Augusta, Inc. concerning the adoption of temporary
guidelines for the event known as First Friday.
Mr. Toole: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Commissioners, I appreciate your patience with us this
afternoon. You have -- it was submitted to the Clerk of Commission, the First Friday guidelines.
These are temporary in nature. They were designed to try to protect First Friday, the merchants,
vendors, and the people who participate in the First Friday event. These are temporary in nature.
They were established to provide us an interim set of guidelines that could be enforced by our
off-duty police officers that worked this particular event, as well as on-duty police officers that
thth
are in the area. We basically consider the First Friday, as it’s held right now, from 5 to 13
Street, and from Greene to Reynolds Street, as a private area, or as an area -- it’s a public area
that’s held for a celebration or a public event. In doing so, we need these guidelines to provide
our officers the teeth, so they can actually maintain control in these areas. We have event staff,
both volunteers and the members of the Main Street program, that work during those events, and
then we follow up. We need these as an interim guide until the Downtown Advisory Panel has
adopted, and permanent policies are in place for use of public places in the business community,
in the community business district.
94
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Rick, has this been approved by
anybody? I didn’t see it was before any minutes of any other body. Has it been --
Mr. Toole: No, sir. When we called Ms. Bonner and asked her if we should go in front
of the Public Services Committee or to Commission, she said she’d put it in Commission. And I
will say that I needed some policies adopted probably three months ago. I think everybody
knows what happened back in October, and we were caught a little flat-footed in the Downtown
area. I took over Main Street in January, and we’ve been trying diligently to try to establish
guidelines and activities that would provide a family environment for people from that time
period, from five P.M. until 10 P.M. When we have difficulties, it basically stems from two
reasons. One, these are people who are what we call rogue vendors or musicians that try to move
into the Downtown area. Two, people who like to carry around alcohol in either class or metal
containers in the Downtown area, open up their trunks and just have a little bar set up out of their
trunk, and number three, after 10 P.M., when it’s shut down. But what this does is it gives us a
framework in which to operate until the Downtown Advisory Panel can actually establish
policies that’ll be adopted in the form of ordinances for Downtown activities.
Mr. Shepard: I don’t quite understand. I have a few questions, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. You said MSA, which I think is Main Street Augusta, will
only be responsible and or liable for this physical area until 5 P.M. until 10 P.M. I mean, I’m
kind of questioning that language. You’re admitting liability during that time. I don’t
understand what you’re trying to get at there.
Mr. Toole: Commissioner Shepard, I think either real or perceived, there’s an implied
liability to Main Street, since we were pretty much handed that First Friday event. It started out
as an Artists’ Row gallery crawl. Over the time of years, that thing has grown tremendously into
which now there’s upwards of 5000 people visiting, and they’re spread out throughout the
Downtown area. We see that continuing to increase, and it does increase in May, June, July.
Once you get the April timeframe, you start seeing a steady increase in the attendance in the First
Friday event. The First Friday group actually -- the Artists’ Row said they needed somebody to
take care of it. I think Main Street was the logical adoptive parent of it back a couple of years
ago, and from that time, it has grown, and Main Street assumed some responsibility for control
and development of that First Friday event.
Mr. Shepard: I’m looking at Paragraph 3A and the second line thereof. It says, no resale
items will be allowed. What is the thinking of that? I’ve seen resale vendors down there that
gave you absolutely no problem. What’s the thinking there?
Mr. Toole: The idea there was to try to prevent people from coming in, buying
something up at the Dollar General Store and coming down to sell. There are resale items, but
95
these would be people who buy purses that are handmade purses, and they sell it for the
individuals that actually develop those purses.
Mr. Shepard: And I’ve seen, I think, second -- you know, what they call -- some clothing
sold on the street, but I didn’t see that that was any problem, or have you had any specific
problems with people reselling clothing down there?
Mr. Toole: I think the resale -- Chris?
Mr. Naylor: Commissioner, the reason we brought these guidelines to you is because we
were having problems such as this, and people reselling. And we were trying to stay within the
handcrafted, the artistic type thing. Because we have no real guidelines and hard and fast rules,
when I would go up to say something to someone, they say, hey, I can set up wherever I want to.
Well, this is the reason we brought these. These would be guidelines as temporary that would
limit it to handmade, handcrafted items. And we have a lot of artisans around in this area, rather
than having folks come in and just reselling. You can go to different shows all over the country
and buy some of the items that they’re selling at miniscule cost and then come set down and sell
it. We also don’t want them competing necessarily with our merchants Downtown. We have
jewelry shops Downtown, the Brass Ring, and so on. So this is one of the reasons we brought
these to you. That way we can say, these are the guidelines that have been established, and the
Commission has approved them, and so we can establish.
Mr. Shepard: Well, let’s talk about someone who owns a business Downtown, has a
business license, is a taxpayer, and wants to set up on Broad Street. This language would not
allow that, will it, if they were reselling items?
Mr. Naylor: If a Broad Street merchant, and the way we try to establish it -- if they want
to set up in front of their shop, that is their prerogative, because they are there 365 days a year.
And we normally ask them. Now, most bring in different artisans or different merchants. They
have the first right of refusal of who sets up in front of their business because they are here 365
days a year, they are generating sales tax revenue.
Mr. Shepard: What about this license, the fees that are going to be paid? How is that
going to be accounted for? Are they going to have stickers, decals?
Mr. Toole: Basically, we have a form that we change the color of each month for First
Friday, and that form is filled out and provided to them, so it’s displayed on their whatever, on
their table.
Mr. Shepard: But I don’t see that in what you’ve proposed here. Did I miss it? I mean, I
could well have missed it.
Mr. Naylor: It may well not have been spelled out. But when they apply and when they
pay, they do get a vendor form of some choosing that we have, and we wait until basically the
last minute, so it could not be forged in one way or the other. It is not spelled out specifically in
here, but we do give them a vendor pass.
96
Mr. Shepard: Well, I mean, I think ought to put that in there, if you can.
Mr. Toole: I think it can be added, and please remember, Commissioner, these are just
temporary. I hope they’re not going to be used more than two First Fridays, because I hope the
Downtown Advisory Panel will come back, be approved, and then they can begin establishing
permanent policies.
Mr. Shepard: And then you have it said in Item 4C, it said no food vendor will set up on
the City right of way without permission of the City or MSA. I mean, who are we going to go
to? I mean, if you have somebody out there with the City’s permission, and then somebody else
is standing there with MSA’s permission, how you going, how you going to deal with that? I
mean, shouldn’t you have just one source for the permits?
Mr. Toole: Obviously, if a food vendor comes in, they’ve got to show the Richmond
County Health Department -- I think what we’re trying to do -- if the City, if the City
Administrator came in and said, this vendor’s coming in Downtown to set up for a particular
event, I’m not going to overrule the City Administrator from sending somebody down,
obviously, but our idea is to have a database with forms filled out for each of our vendors, both
food and retail vendors, so we know who they are, who the responsible party is, what the items
that they are selling, whether it’s food or retail items. And so we know where we place them for
the event, and so we use a map, a keyed map, so we know where people are placed. So the idea
is, there again, the intent is to have some control over and not have rogue people come in all
hours during the First Friday event.
Mr. Shepard: And finally, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, after the numbered paragraph 6, there’s
the language that says, MSA has the right to refuse any vendor they deem not acceptable to the
purpose or intent of the event. How we going to determine that? I mean, that sounds like the
discretion that was vested in the sheriff that got shot down a few weeks ago. I think this needs a
lot more work. I mean, I like the way you’re going, but I think you need to come back with
some more ascertainable standards. Temporary or permanent, I think they ought to be
ascertained.
Mr. Naylor: The primary goal is to have the items handcrafted, whether that be at home
or in a business. They would be juried in by a group made up of Main Street volunteers who
serve on the board as the committee. These are to a point some rough guidelines, but we need
something to be able to help us out during First Fridays. These are what we came up with.
We’re not -- and as I was working on these, I’m not a legal expert, but I was coming up with
guidelines that I know that I need in order when I’m down there talking with people, and people
are coming in and filling out applications and requesting space, that I have to have some
guidelines that I can follow, that when I go by and say, I’m sorry, you can’t set up because you
don’t meet these guidelines. I’m granted that it’s not a total legal document, but it will help us,
and that’s what we’re looking for.
97
Mr. Shepard: I understand that, but -- last question, to the attorney. Jim, I mean, isn’t
this language, the right to refuse any vendor they deem not acceptable, isn’t that void for
vagueness. I mean --
Mr. Wall: It is, and, you know, I appreciate what they’re trying to do. I think -- my
suggestion would be that you approve these guidelines in concept, recognizing that they’ve got a
First Friday that they need to plan for. Let me work with them to try to finalize some of the
language. They will come back on June 2, with is before the First Friday, but if you approve
these in concept, then they can move forward, with so far as getting vendors to fill out
applications and use this as sort of a structure, and then hopefully you can approve the final
nd
version on June, I think it’s the 2.
Mr. Shepard: I would make the motion that they be approved and that they have a
sunset provision that they be allowed to be used for the First Friday in June only and after
that you have to come back to the Commission.
That’s a sunset provision. And I want to see
this cleaned up. And I guess, what I really -- what really got my attention is, and I guess maybe
it’s just because my office is on Greene Street, but Greene Street has an ‘e’ on it. I know you
both know that. So let’s get it together.
Mr. Williams: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: A motion and a second. Is there anything? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Cheek: Gentlemen, you’ve come a long way in a short period of time. I want to
applaud you for these changes. I see some changes with the open container, and I guess this will
be considered an event, and will allow that transit, but then we’d be monitoring for the people
with the trunks and the coolers and so forth. One of the -- I guess one of my pet concerns is Item
5B, acoustic -- this voice-only amplification. And if you’re strumming a guitar, and you’re
standing in a crowd two people back from the actual semi-circle there, it’s going to be very
difficult to hear the guitar and the voice, and I just wish we could look at some wattage level that
we would allow for the acoustic instruments to be modified, either through microphone or
plugging them into a small amplifier. We do want to have good sound quality. That really
enhances Downtown, and I just wanted to offer that for consideration, but we’re definitely on
track to making First Friday a great event to be recognized all over the Southeast.
Mr. Toole: I appreciate that, and we have struggled with the acoustic versus the
amplified. Our problem comes in, again, with rogue type people who move in or people who
move in -- they set up acoustical, and then they plug in, and all of a sudden, instead of playing 20
watts, they’re playing 150, 200 watts, and it became a real issue for two First Fridays, and we’re
really struggling with voice amplification, knowing that they can drop the microphone down a
little bit and pick some of the playing. But we’ve run into so many difficulties. What we hope to
do in the future is to move our electrical bands over to either the back side of the Commons or
into the Amphitheater, where there can be actual concerts held, and then we keep the acoustical
and maybe low-volume activities on Broad Street in itself.
98
Mr. Cheek: Just something for consideration. I just -- I know there’s a need there, and it
really does enhance it, to have that music and those guys set up along the way.
Mr. Naylor: I’d just like to add that we do have some groups that come down that are
acoustic that do use voice amplification that have done a great job, that will work with us. We
have a lot of vendors that work with us. It’s just that we need these for those who choose not to
work with us, who choose to give us a very difficult time, who have nearly physically threatened
some of the Main Street volunteers and staff, and would have to call deputies over. So that’s the
reason we need your support with these guidelines, and I appreciate Commissioner Shepard’s --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. And I agree with Andy, and I certainly
agree with Commissioner Shepard. Let me talk about the fees in here, though. I’ve got three
points, or three issues I’d like address. First of all, it says that this fee will be to offset the cost of
extra security and other expense. I guess y’all going to regulate the money that comes in in fees.
I mean --
Mr. Toole: Commissioner, right now we lose money. We take it out of our budget to
supplement our off-duty patrol. This just tries to go and offset some of the costs associated with
the temporary duty policemen that we have.
Mr. Williams: Well, now, and I can see the fee increasing or growing as First Friday
progresses and people start to come. We talked about vendors who resell. First Friday has
grown to the point now I think where people out of state, even South Carolina, have wanted to
come over and resell. Are we going to limit it just to people Downtown? Are we going to say,
they went to the Dollar Store in Aiken and brought stuff over here and sell? Because there’s
such thing as supply and demand. I mean, if they was forcing people to buy, you know, you can
say, well hey, now, you can’t do that. But how can we regulate when someone goes somewhere
else and buy at a low cost and then sell at another price. I mean, those are some of the issues that
Steve brought up that are flagged -- went up with me, too. We want vendors to come. We want
-- the more vendors we got [inaudible] then the more resale they’re going to do. And if we’re
going to have these type vendors that come in, and if you look at any major city, you look at the
sidewalk sales, so to speak, how people, how vendors have been on the street and selling all
over, not just in downtown. How can we regulate that when we say you can’t go to the Dollar
Store and buy t-shirts and sell it for two dollars?
Mr. Toole: Commissioner, you’re right on target. It’s something we’ve struggled with. I
will say that First Friday’s growing, and it’s growing very, very quickly. And, as a result, we’re
trying to set a benchmark or a baseline to start from. I can’t say that we would prohibit long-
term resale of items. But right now, if you look at the history of First Friday, most of the
vendors were set up in the Artists’ Row area, and the artists wanted things that were handcrafted
or in keeping with what they feel like their environment is. We have a lot of potential for
expansion, and as we expand into the Commons and into the area over near Riverwalk -- as this
thing continues to expand, we’re going to have more opportunity for people to come in, and I
think we need to leverage that opportunity, and bring more people in, and allow these sales.
99
Mr. Williams: And that’s my point. When we set up, you know, all this stuff on Artists’
Row and where we initially started at, this thing will grow and get -- I mean, humongous, if, you
know, if we continue just to add it in. And think we ought to add it in. Well, as long as we can
control it. But when growth comes, it comes good and bad. You can’t sit here and say, well,
you know, everybody’s going to do what’s right, going to sit in the same place, and then go do
that. We know growth come, and we need to be prepared for it. We need to be able to handle it.
If you break the law, then you need to suffer the consequences.
Mr. Toole: That’s absolutely correct, and we’re trying to grow in a controlled manner, if
that makes sense.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I second Steve’s motion. I don’t have anything else. I’d just like
to see us come back, and it’s probably going to take us some time, not just a week to, kind of,
repeat this and get it right, but I think we need -- I think it’s something to work with. I think it’s
something to go by. But I certainly wouldn’t want to see it in stone where, you know, this is
what it’s going to be.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, thank you Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Let me ask you gentlemen two other
questions. Is this a city-sponsored event, in your opinion?
Mr. Naylor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: Okay. And then my question is, how many people do you think -- I’m
going to have three questions -- how many people do you think are attending at, say, the last First
Friday, which was this month, I guess?
Mr. Toole: I would say we were somewhere between five and seven thousand people.
Mr. Shepard: Five to seven thousand people?
Mr. Toole: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: All right. Thank you so much.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further questions? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion
please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Ms. Morawski.
The Clerk:
100
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
33. Approve the reprogramming of $10,847.05 in Year 2002 Emergency Shelter Grant
(ESG) funds and distribute on a pro rata basis to the Year 2003 ESG sub-recipients.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Smith?
Ms. Smith: I’m going to need some help from her. Be clear, she’s a right hand person,
also. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, this item originally came before the
Administrative Services Committee on April 28. It has to do with approving the reprogramming
of $10,847.05 in Year 2002 Emergency Shelter Grant funds and distribution of those funds on a
pro rata basis to 2003 ESG sub-recipients. I think that that meeting, and again, I was not at that
meeting, I think Mr. Hankerson and maybe one or two others may have had some questions,
concerns about the process, the guidelines and actually the program documents that we distribute
to the ESG grantees. I think you have in your package a whole stack of more papers. That paper
includes our grant agreement and other documents, particular documents that we use to give
guidance to the grantees in terms of what they’re expected to do, time frames, etc. There’s
actually the contract that we use for the shelter recipients. That package also includes the
Federal Register guidelines and some other official documentation that points out how we
distribute funds and what we’re required to provide. All right. Okay, well you don’t have that
package.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, sir. Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: We had it in our last package. I’ve been over it, the guidelines. I mean
[inaudible] why [inaudible].
Mr. Smith: I don’t really have a whole lot more. I just wanted to say one thing, because
I know basically what some of the concerns were. Again, this was the reprogramming of funds
from two our grantees. One was Hale Foundation, Inc. Basically they decided that they couldn’t
use the funds and thought the easiest thing was to give the funds back. They couldn’t use them
in the time frame. Give somebody else a chance to use the funds. The other organization is the
Transition Center, Inc. Transition Center was granted 2002 ESG funds amounting to $5,823.53,
of which $800 was used during calendar year 2002. I need to say that we decided to reprogram
those funds because of the following: the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
(HUD) monitored this organization’s performance regarding prior use of funds pursuant to ESG
program regulations and found it in non-compliance. HUD disallowed previous grand
expenditures amounting to $7,615.39. It was not considered appropriate or good grant
management policy to release funds to any non-compliant grantee when there was an outstanding
disallowed balance, as well as unresolved audit and performance issues anticipated, to resolve
further violations of federal law, federal regulations. Grant documents clearly require
compliance with federal laws, regulations and guidelines. We are required to reprogram or
subsequently lose leftover funds from year-to-year if we don’t act accordingly. This was the
proposed action herein. We are still finalizing the disposition of the Transition Center project.
HUD has allowed additional time for us to review legal, as well as program issues regarding this
grantee. We have prepared a draft letter and actions regarding this project. We’ve been in
101
discussions with, as I mentioned, the City Attorney and that’s pretty much where we stand at this
point. So I wanted to bring this to your attention, let you know that we have over this past six
months, I believe exercised due diligence in trying to resolve issues, working with the grantee. I
do have Rose White here today, who is my right-hand person, in the administration of the CDBG
and ESG programs, who will also be able to help me answer any questions that you might have
regarding this matter. So I turn it over to you.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. To the Commission, I think that what we need to do is this
need to go back to the committee as it was first sent out. As you remember, we discussed the
Transitional [sic] Center back several months ago. We appointed a subcommittee consisting of
Mr. Kuhlke, Commissioner Cheek, also appointed to that was Mr. Sanford to work with the
grantee. At that time, they said that she was out of compliance. I’m still hearing now that she’s
still out of compliance. I’m wondering is this a new investigation or this is the same old
investigation before Mr. Smith arriving here. If it is the same old one, I don’t think she should
be held accountable today for -- I mean withholding her funds. And she did everything that she
could to come in compliance. Now that’s what I want to know, whether this is something new.
We know about all the old, but we appointed a subcommittee and that subcommittee have never
came back to us to say whether she agreed to appoint a new board. All of this was discussed.
Her finances. And I’ve been calling the grantee to find out how the progress has been going.
I’ve talked to Mr. Smith upon, right after he came here to discuss this matter, too. And the
grantee is here today and we want to hear from her also, because I think it’s very unfair to say
she’s still not in compliance. If she’s not, then she’s not. But from my understanding that she
did everything that we asked her to do to correct the non-compliance. My understanding also
that as far as finance situation, that she sent everything over to Mr. Sanford and I don’t know
whether that has been returned. She cannot accept any new clients because she was told not to
accept any new clients. That handcuffs her from the project that she has over at the ministry, that
she can’t accept new clients. Are they supposed to go through someone else? [inaudible]
supposed to do? Another problem, before we ask Pastor [inaudible] to come, another issue that I
want to bring forth, the reprogramming, and I hope we do not vote to reprogram the funds for
this particular reason. If you look on your backup sheet, all of these organizations already have
been programmed, so we have $10,000 that we are going to issue to someone, I think we need to
hold that $10,000 because when you hear me bring back to you the report on the Senior Citizens
Council, you’re going to need this $10,000 and about $150,000 or more to go along with it, so
every penny that we have, even if she does not get the money today, we do not need to give this
to someone that is already getting it. What we need to do is, I’m asking Mr. Smith to consider, it
to just hold that. Be we have some difficult days ahead. Believe me or not. And so I just want
to hear at this time from the pastor. She’s here. Co-pastor. They’re here to hear about whether
they’re in non-compliance and whether the committee has met with them and what she has done
at this time.
Mr. Smith: Can I just, while they’re coming to the podium, let me just make the point
that these are categorical fund. They cannot be used for activities like CDBG [inaudible] more
open. These emergency shelter grant funds are very restricted. When I talk about pro rata
distribution, I’m talking about equal share of very minimal funding to the grantees that we have,
the other grantees. And it’s not a lot of money. We’re talking about $1,200 per grantee, and
that’s pro rata, to help them. We’re already being cut back because Congress basically decreased
102
the allocation that we’re going to be getting, across the board, all jurisdictions have a decrease
based on Congressional decision. So that’s one thing. The other real quick thing is that this is a
continuation of our working with and through the subcommittee. We actually have a letter that’s
drafted back to the subcommittee members, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Cheek, to address each one of
these, and we do plan to bring that back before the Administrative Services. So I just want to
make sure that everybody is on the same page, because we are going through a consistent
process to try to work our way through this, responding to the mechanisms that we set up to
address this.
Mr. Hankerson: I understand that. And that’s why I’m saying that the subcommittee was
instructed to come back to the committee, not come back to this Commission to make a decision,
to make cuts, and I think that’s premature at this time. And another question. Mr. Smith, are
you saying that these are for, these $10,000 could not be used toward Senior Citizens Council?
Mr. Smith: Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Pastor. Give the Clerk your name and address for the record,
please.
Ms. Banks: My name is Pastor Maggie Banks. 2030 Wrightsboro Road, Augusta,
Georgia 30904. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and Commissioners.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Pastor, could I get you to talk into the mike?
Ms. Banks: I would like to thank all of you for bearing with us and to Mr. Smith and Ms.
White. Because I do not know the heart of the presenters concerning this matter, I’m asking
[inaudible]. We started this program five years ago with minimal resources. We found out there
was money to help fund the operation that we are serving, so we can to the Housing &
Neighborhood Department and shared what we was doing. Serving the population of substance
abuse led us to receive these funds. In the past 4-1/2 years we’ve served more than 400 people
that were substance abuse or [inaudible] homeless. We have put many days of sweat and hard
work into this program. We have no paid salary. We didn’t receive any resources from grants
last year, although we was awarded money from ESG and CDBG. Many of our [inaudible] came
because of shortage of funding. We depend largely on volunteer services. After starting this
program, we was able to write a grant to purchase the property located at 1835 Wrightsboro
Road. We was leasing the property two years before purchasing it in the year 2000. When we
serve the homeless and the substance abuse population, there is no facility in the CSRA like our
facility. Our ministers [inaudible] on a broad spectrum [inaudible]. Program [inaudible] consist
of living quarters, educational hall, computer lab, business center, and resource library,
[inaudible] program, resume writing, interview techniques, etiquette, life skills programs. The
Transition Center collaborates with other agencies. I have approximately 30 churches, 20
corporations and three local hospitals regularly giving support in our effort in serving our
community. We have the space to increase bedding for substance abuse residents [inaudible]
homelessness and [inaudible] funding. Property at [inaudible] Wrightsboro Road has the
103
capacity to produce income from eight rental units. This income allows us to become self
sufficient. Which allows our clients to graduate and move into independent living, which is one
of the greatest achievements [inaudible] chemical dependency program. We have available to
you who would like to validate my report [inaudible] success story of those who have reunited
with families, reunited with their children, parents, started businesses, married, gone back to
school, paid off legal fees, and become self supporting. Because of the confidentiality, it make it
not possible to open reveal names and addressed. Many of these people would still be under
bridges, in condemned houses, abandoned cars, walking the streets, with nowhere to go, stopping
you at the red light, begging you when you walk into the post office, approaching you at the gas
station. Many of us do not have the [inaudible] to change the status. Compassion is not when
you have pity for the person that’s there, but when you have a heart and the passion to impact a
change. If it were not for the grace of God, we all could be very well on the streets, homeless
and having withdrawals. Because we could not get to another hit unless you robbed or killed
somebody. Could it be your father, your daughter, your mother, your father, your sister or your
brother or your grandchild? Who can help them? Or who will help them? Or who will take the
time to help them? Or who will even love them enough to help them? Transition Center has a
proven track record. [inaudible] who most need it. The jails are already overpopulated. The
taxpayers are already paying excessive dollars. The penal institution is a revolving door for a
great number. The cycle must be broken. Transition Center has been [inaudible] positioned here
in the heart of Augusta, the CSRA, to do that just that. My prayer is that all others will catch on
fire and help eradicate this [inaudible] which is raging through our community. Substance abuse,
homelessness, it’s not confined to the ghetto. But it eats its way through the sewer, walls of
pride that make our belief that we can escape this by moving to another subdivision in a newly
developed area. For you to [inaudible], it takes more than a house and key [inaudible].
Homelessness is a state of mind that manifests itself through the [inaudible] of substance abuse.
Prostitution [inaudible] lives. I am sure you will agree with me that it is a very grievous and
painful matter when [inaudible] the programs that are really affecting change experience
insurmountable struggles to receive continual funding. In our judicial system, I believe a man is
innocent until proven guilty. So please allow me at this time to ask, to ask you what do you want
of me now? I’ve come into compliance on everything you’ve requested of me. Remember
vision will never die. And the late Nobel Peace Prize winner, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said “I
have a dream.” And I am a drum major. And yes, we are helping one another. The [inaudible]
former President John F. Kennedy words, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what
can you do for your country.” Transition Center is answering this call. Will you continue to
help us take back our community? The vision of Transition Center is [inaudible]. Together the
men from the streets that are homeless and substance [inaudible] and change their environment,
[inaudible] stable living arrangements, and re-education, redirect and give them hope. Building
the lives is much like building a brick wall. You can only do it one at a time. [inaudible] my
prayer and [inaudible]. This task is being accomplished. Our desire is to move forward and
[inaudible] achievable mission. Through faith, we’ll equip the disadvantages [inaudible] all that
come to us with [inaudible] desire to change their lifestyle and behavior. For this we have
vowed to help. We encourage, we engage in follow-up after the program requirements are met.
To the Honorable Mayor Pro Tem, and to all of you, thank you for listening. Thank you for
taking the time to hear what Transition Center is doing. I have come into compliance with
everything they’ve asked of me. Should they take the money? Does that mean that my name
will be clear? Then give it to them. Should they take the money? Will this make a
104
determination that I cannot apply any more? Give it to them. Transition Center is built on hope.
It’s built on the things of God. So take it. Enjoy it. Take it. Just divide it among whoever you
choose to. We are determined to do what we have been asked to do and that is to serve this
community in the CSRA.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Pastor. Rev. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Rev. Banks, for those
words, encouragement and her format. But I need to hear from Warren and also the accountant.
Commissioner Hankerson mentioned about it being in compliance. I talked with Rev. Banks. I
supported her. I tried to let her know that I saw the need. I visited the facility probably some
two years ago. But I need to hear from the Director, I need to hear from the accountant. I want
to know about compliance, whether or not your recommendation is saying that we should not
fund them or should not continue to fund them. I been standing on issues of right. I want to
support and I want Sister Banks to know that I’ve talked to her several times here in the last few
months. [inaudible] bring there. But I need to know what she was told cause I been hearing
different stories. And I can only support what’s right, so I wanted to hear it from the department
head and then I want to hear it from the accountant and I got some questions.
Mr. Smith: I’m going to ask Rosa White to come make some comments, also, but let me
just start off by saying this is absolutely nothing personal at all. This is business. It’s looking at
federal regulations, it’s looking at how programs should operate, and sticking with the letter of
the law, working with the grantees [inaudible], helping them to understand what their
responsibilities are, but then also moving forward. I have administered these programs since
way back -- I don’t even want to tell you how long. I was around before ESG was even a
program. I designed the first program statewide in Virginia, so I have dealt with a lot of grantees
and helped them through all kinds of processes. We have a situation here where this is an
excellently-conceived program in terms of what the person, what the organization wishes to do.
But when it comes to the actual implementation of things, when it comes to complying, when it
comes to making sure that certain things are accounted for, when it comes to responding to
things like centralized referrals and sticking to a process that everybody else adheres to, that has
fallen short. We’ve gone back, we’ve looked at this, we’ve done site visits. I’ve done personal
site visits. My staff has done several site visits. And to this day, as far as we understand, certain
situations are still in place that are in violation of federal regulations under the ESG program.
I’m going to ask Rose to come up to say a quick few words and highlight anything that I’ve
overlooked, because she’s been kind of the day-to-day overseer on this, she’s the expert on the
ESG program, at least in terms of how we administer it here in Augusta. Rose?
Ms. White: I want to start out first by making sure that you understand what the ESG
programs funds are specifically supposed to be used for. And they are supposed to be used for
homeless activities, and in this instance. Did you all receive the packet that we developed? You
have that? Okay. Okay, then. Under the ESG program and the reason why we want to
reprogram these particular funds, the ESG program, we are allowed 24 months to use the funds.
These were 2002 funds and we have until December 31, 2003, to use the funds. Because we
have unresolved findings with Transition Center, they are not going to be able to use the funds
by December 31, 2003. Okay. What we have anticipated doing is reprogramming the funds and
105
allowing the use of the funds by dividing them among the agencies that was approved for 2003
ESG money. The 2003 money has not been released, had not been released at the time we
prepared this agenda item. We received the 2003 grant agreement from HUD Thursday. So it’s
really going to be probably about two more months before the release of those funds. I can
[inaudible] on and on. I guess I need for you all to ask me questions. We cannot actually say
that she, the findings are closed until HUD closes the findings. The findings are still open. We
are trying to work with her, and I’m just up to the wall with this, you know. The last time I was
up there I interviewed the clients. The clients said they are required to attend her church. They
are taken to the church, and this is just what one client. And you know the other three, you know
when they’re covering, you know, you get that gut feeling. So ask me questions and then I can
respond and tell you more of what you want to know.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Ms. White, from what I was told that Rev. Banks was not able to
take clients straight in, they had to come through a service, and I say service, but she could not
take walk-ins, I guess, is that the direction?
Ms. White: Okay, she was receiving CDBG money and she was receiving ESG money.
In order to receive the ESG money she has to document that the clients were homeless. Okay,
we tried to resolve it. I told her go back, identify how many people -- it was $7,600 -- okay, you
know, if you could document one person as being homeless, I’m quite sure that would cover the
cost for the whole year. I think she documented three. She got information. When HUD came,
we showed the information to HUD. HUD, HUD believed that the signatures were the signature
of one person. They just felt like that wasn’t acceptable. HUD said city, pay the money back.
The $7,600. Okay. She’s changing the center to a homeless shelter in addition to accepting low
income clients who are suffering from substance abuse. Okay. If she wants to get ESG money
and homeless money, then she would have to go through the Homeless Task Force for
certification of homeless process. Otherwise, she has to document income of persons for CDBG,
and that’s what she couldn’t document.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I’m under the impression that there was some misunderstanding or
misinformation in the beginning. Are you saying this was after they was out of compliance, after
the trouble came, is when they was told to go to the agency to get [inaudible] people? I mean --
and I don’t know if I’m saying it right or not. But the understanding that I had was that they was
not allowed to take people off the street who was homeless. In her statement she talked about
people living under the bridges, and there are people doing there. There are people walking the
street, there are people doing that. People living in barrels and everything else. But was she not
allowed to take in those type persons at any time?
Ms. White: She could have taken in those persons if she could have documented that
they were homeless. And a way to document that they were homeless, if a person is homeless
they are usually going to a soup kitchen or going maybe to the Salvation Army. All you have to
do is contact one of those agencies and say has that person received services or whatever there?
And if the person had been put out by their parents or whoever, all she had to do was get
something from the parents saying okay, I put my son or daughter out. It’s a matter of
documentation. Document, document, document.
106
Mr. Williams: And I guess my next question would be to the auditor. When you met
with Sister Banks, how did that progress? I mean what happened with that?
Mr. Speaker: Well, we didn’t do the audit work.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sir, would you give us your name?
Mr. Speaker: We didn’t do the audit work.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let her know who you are, for the record.
Mr. Lloyd: Oh, I’m sorry. My name is Sanford Lloyd. I am a CPA here in Augusta,
Georgia. And I have worked some with Pastor Banks and Transition Center. The capacity in
which I worked with them is accountant. Trying to do some financial statements, trying to
prepare some monthly information. We did not do the audit. The audit was done by [inaudible]
Anderson. But I have seen a copy of the audit report and I did participate or sit in on a meeting
earlier this year with Neighborhood & Housing representatives as they spoke with Pastor Banks
regarding the audit report and other things. The audit report itself does [inaudible] in terms of
proper documentation for financial purposes. The audit report does not allude to any
wrongdoings or anything. It just is documentation which has been talked to Pastor Banks about.
The audit report itself took place in 2002. So the year it was audited was 2001 and the year 2002
was probably a similar year because [inaudible] information [inaudible] Pastor Banks, what she
needs to do. At that meeting earlier this year with Neighborhood & Housing representatives,
they wanted to ensure that she was going to now start having some monthly work done. And I
agreed to do that, basically at no cost to Pastor Banks, because she couldn’t afford to pay for it.
At that particular point in time, I agreed to do that. I spoke to Ms. White since then and she
wanted to know if I was doing the work or what was the status of it. And I told her that Pastor
Banks had submitted the information to me that I needed to try to do this work for her, but I had
not done it. And I told her the reason that had happened was simply because, one, trying to do it
pro bono and the time in which I had gotten it. So in terms of her being in compliance with
[inaudible] monthly financials and so forth, I can’t say that that is the case. However, I do want
to take the opportunity to say that from my involvement in this particular situation, all of the
things in terms of what is or is not or has or has not been done, have not been strictly Pastor
Banks’ doing or not doing. In the conversation with Neighborhood & Housing, at that particular
meeting, there were times and things that Pastor Banks had actually requested that they provide
her in terms of giving her some guidance and showing what it is she absolutely had to do since
this was her very first time in this particular program and they administer programs on an on-
going basis continuously over years. That was surprising to me that they had not given any
guidance, even when some have been requested. So the picture is not painted that indicates that
Pastor Banks and the Transition Center has done absolutely nothing to come in compliance and
has done everything without requesting any guidance from anybody about anything. And I think
that what I found unbelievable was the amount of money that they may be willing to put in the
program and [inaudible]. You are talking about a year plus what the program [inaudible] and
you’re talking about after HUD came in and made these findings, that all of this started to take
place, that you haven’t done this and you should be doing that, when the size of it says these are
some things that you would have had some meetings with this person prior to this time, and
107
that’s still -- I just don’t want the picture to be painted that Neighborhood & Housing has done
everything they could to help [inaudible] this person and this person has done absolutely nothing,
particularly right now when she has actually brought me the finance information. We have
started doing the work on it. And she has not offered any resistance to suggestions that we’re
making in terms of doing that. It is that the time frame of being back here and the looking back
over here and saying this is what has happened. You cannot argue that if it happened. But that --
[inaudible] we are with that.
Mr. Williams: Okay, that goes back to Warren and Ms. White now, because from what
I’m hearing you saying, and Richard, this my last question that I got, why didn’t Housing &
Neighborhood have a guideline that went along with the funds and the implementation of the
guidelines when the money was transposed to them? I mean was there not any meeting except
the check? I mean what? Ms. White?
Ms. White: Okay. When the agency is given their agreement, their guidelines are
attached to the agreement and explained to them. I need to explain to you, it’s just like Uncle
Sam, there’s no way but Uncle’s Sam’s way. I have did everything. I have sit down personally
with Pastor Banks. I have, for six months I even filled out her pay requests and I told her, okay,
you need to fill this out and bring this in cause I don’t have two hours to spend with you at the
office. And she would walk right in there and she would have it and poor, little sympathetic me,
go ahead and fill it out for her again. But anyway. Pastor Banks is going to run her program the
way Pastor Banks wants to. She’s not going to run it the way we want her to. And I have to
object to what you said about we haven’t did anything to assist her. We have broken our backs
to assist her. But like I said, she don’t want anybody into her business. That’s why she do it her
way.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Andy?
Mr. Cheek: Ms. White, you mentioned providing assistance. Two years ago the
Commission mandated there be classes held for different groups like this to teach them how to
come in compliance, fill out paperwork. Have there been such classes held for our [inaudible]
and recipient groups?
Ms. White: We haven’t had any classes for the [inaudible] recipients.
Mr. Cheek: I don’t, I certainly don’t expect y’all to spend [inaudible] hours with
everybody, but that was a request, and I realize we were in transition from different directors and
so forth, but that is one of the things that the Commission mandated, that we do have those
classes, and certainly if people don’t conform after having the classes, some time to get the
training wheels off. I don’t expect y’all to spend your whole life running their program for them,
but they do need some help in that respect. I guess at this juncture it’s a case where we have
been entreated to take the money and use it somewhere else basically by the recipient and if they
can’t conform or comply to the regulations that we have to live under and we continue to have to
reimburse the federal government or take money from other agencies, then we are about at the
point where we have no choice. So --
108
Ms. White: I would like to also say that when I went out and monitored, there were
findings that I cited and HUD [inaudible], HUD agreed with my findings.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Rev. Hankerson and then Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Hankerson:
What I’m hearing from Pastor Banks, also I kept hearing the tone of
clear my name and reputation and so forth. As I first stated, the committee has not, the
subcommittee has not met back with us, and I don’t think that we can resolve everything here
What I’d like to do is put
that’s concerning the Transition Center this afternoon, this evening.
in the form of a motion that we deny the request to reprogram this money and that we send
this back to the committee and when we send it back to the committee, then the
subcommittee will probably be ready to meet with us, and also look at how she can get her
named cleared and move on and listen to her in committee about the plans for that.
And I
think that that’s a step we need to take and I’d like to put that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Bridges: Point of information. Is that for both the one we’re discussing in 38?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, 38 is an entirely different issue. Difference agency.
That’s different.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second. Would you like to speak, Mr.
Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I was going to say it sounded like to me
we’re getting into a he said/she said situation. I’ll go and vote with Rev. Hankerson’s motion to
send it back to committee and try to work it out there.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’d like to make a substitute motion, though, that 38
is for a different agency, Augusta Youth Center, and not the Transition Center. I’ll make the
substitute motion that we give the Augusta Youth Center the $10,000 here [inaudible] UDAG
money and send Transition Center back to committee so we can --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We can’t do that.
Mr. Wall: UDAG is not part of this.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I’m sorry. We’ve been discussing all this, I though the -- the
motion to give the recaptured UDAG to Augusta Youth Center.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s a different item.
Mr. Williams: I thought we were on --
109
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] UDAG.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, I just want to call to your
attention issue that we have in terms of denying this particular recommendation, and you can do
as you want. But we are under HUD mandate at this time and instead of just denying the motion
outright, I would prefer that you delete that from your motion and just refer it back to the
committee.
Mr. Hankerson: I mean with the mandate, what’s the time frame? We’re not mandated --
I mean we have time till next committee?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: He’s requesting that you delete --
Mr. Hankerson: I understand the question. We’re talking about a mandate. I mean our
backs up against the wall?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: No, we’re not talking about a mandate at this particular time. It’s just the
impression that I believe that the Commission is giving to HUD that they -- they have made
some findings, and at this point you’re doing an investigation as to whether or not there is
relevancy to those findings and how you’re going to respond to them. And if you’re going to
refer it back to committee to do that type of investigative work, to make the denial at this time I
think sends the wrong message.
Mr. Speaker: I agree.
Mr. Kolb: I think that denying at this time, when it’s being investigated, sends the wrong
message back to HUD.
Mr. Hankerson: The only thing we’re denying is that this money not be reprogrammed.
We’re not saying what we’re going to do with it and we’re only asking a couple of weeks till
committee to make that decision. I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question has been called. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think in terms of this it’s obviously going to be some
more discussion on this, but I think in, somehow we don’t need to leave here today without I
think at least a point of having some further dialog to a point that I think the Commission has the
110
ultimate say in terms of how [inaudible] the money and whether it stays in place, whether it’s
divided up, or whether it’s, you know, sent back to the federal government. But the point is, I
think if the, if the department under the new director and goodness knows Ms. White has her
hands full in terms of [inaudible], at the same time I think Pastor Banks has taken on new
assistance there from Mr. Lloyd. I think we could stay all day and make certain accusations of
whether the [inaudible] is at fault or whether the center is at fault. The money was given. It’s an
obvious need. I think we can [inaudible] into compliance if there are some loose ends there to be
done, and I think we ought to at least leave in the spirit of doing that. And I think that that’s a
two way street. I think it has to work both ways to a point in doing that. I, for me, want to see it
succeed. I remember when you first got the money that was there. Obviously there is a need.
But I think if there are rules, then certainly rules have to be applied. I don’t think anybody that
wants to personally come and get some money that should go into this program, at least I don’t
think so, [inaudible] but I do think in the meantime, and this is coming back to committee to be
discussed, that there needs to be some further talk and further understanding to a point that -- I
don’t know the makeup of the board that’s there. I know from the work that Mr. Lloyd will do
for you is in more than capable professional hands in terms of doing that he will do. But I do
think that there needs to be a final clearing of air of what definitely needs to be done. And kind
of move from there. The other question I have, Mr. Mayor, on the time frame, Ms. White
mentioned the fact that in this particular calendar year, and maybe this is [inaudible] that as we
continue to move and work with the center that they would probably on the 2002 money,
regardless of the compliance status, be able to [inaudible] that money in this calendar year and
would that be correct in there, Mr. Smith, or would that depend on some other parameters
hopefully changing within the next --
Mr. Smith: I’m going to be very objective [inaudible] standpoint of looking at this
programs, how they operate and letter of the law. You have a federal agency that told you that
this service agency is in non-compliance, didn’t use the funds properly, you need to pay back
almost $8,000. Okay? Now with that scenario. We turn around and we give the same recipient
to continue their work when we owe them, the federal government the funds for them not
complying. Now how does that look? What kind of response are we going to get?
Mr. Mays: That’s what I wanted to get clarification on. I heard [inaudible] calendar year
and I just needed to get that further clarified in terms of where that position was. But I made the
other statement because even though we’re talking about the compliance issue right now, we still
have a bigger issue in terms of more money that we are still dealing with that we have put out
there [inaudible]. I think that’s the thing Mr. Lloyd was talking about in terms of the bigger
money picture, more so than the $5,000 picture. We’ve got some six figure situations that have
occurred and what I just wanted to know to a point that when we move on trying to keep, if the
small figure was going to be something that we were going to have to reprogram or to not deal
with it, I just did not want that to block the issue of us continuously working with it and to make
a larger issue still work.
Mr. Smith: [inaudible] two separate tracks and [inaudible].
Mr. Lloyd: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, may I say one thing?
111
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, [inaudible].
Mr. Lloyd: And that is just to say that Pastor Banks really didn’t come today to try to
change the outcome of the recommendation, but more than anything else, just wanted to be sure
that everybody understood that it wasn’t a one way street. That was her only intent.
Mr. Hankerson: I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question has been called.
Ms. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, ma’am, no, ma’am. The question has been called. We’re
going to take a vote. There is a motion on the floor. All in favor of the motion, please signify by
the sign of voting.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 7-0.
The Clerk:
34. Approve implementation of DemandStar to enable automated and online posting
and management of bid documentation.
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second it.
And I’d like to be recognized.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion?
Mr. Shepard: Briefly, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: I would have the movant would entertain a friendly amendment that
would request that the affecteddepartments, which I think would be Purchasing and IT,
would make a report of their implementation of DemandStar to our Automation
Committee.
This seems like an ideal case for that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cheek: So be it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion -- we don’t have a quorum. That’s it,
gentlemen. We don’t have a quorum.
[MEETING ADJOURNED DUE TO A LOSS OF A QUORUM]
112
Nancy W. Morawski
Deputy Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Nancy W. Morawski, Deputy 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 May 20, 2003.
____________________________________
Deputy Clerk of Commission
113