HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-01-2003 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
July 1, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m., Tuesday, July 1,
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: Hon. Bob Young, Mayor.
The Invocation was given by Rev. Timothy Green.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, we’d
like to acknowledge our delegation portion of the agenda.
DELEGATION:
A. Mr. Willie Jones
RE: Thirteen Anniversary Celebration of ADA
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Jones, I’d like to remind you of the five minute rule.
Mr. Jones: Yes, sir. Okay. My name is Willie Jones and my address is 1155 ??,
th
Augusta 30909. I’m here in support of the ADA movement. On the 26 of this month,
th
it will be the 13 Anniversary of this movement. And the reason why I’m asking the
committee to look at this proposal to, really for transportation. And the idea is to
transport people from their homes, these people are in wheelchairs, and we need the vans,
at least two vans, to transport these people from their homes to Walton Options for
Independent Living on Walton Way. It’s 948. And these people will get off the vans and
thth
march from Walton, from Walton Options between 10 – all the way down to 4 Street,
to May Park. And we’re going to celebrate the movement. And we’re going to have
some key speakers there. Mr. Henry Howard, he will be the keynote speaker. And I
would like to invite the Commissioners that if you are in town to come and be a part of
this. And from Walton Options these people will walk and go to May Park, and I would
like for the Commissioners to look and see could they provide these vans, to pick them
up at their homes and also pick them up again at May Park to transport them back to their
homes. And that’s the reason why I’m here this afternoon, to ask will you give a gift to
the ADA movement as citizens, as this body of Commissioners, will you give this gift to
ADA? Thank you.
1
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. Jones. Any discussion for Mr. Jones and
ADA movement? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Colclough. I want to thank Mr. Jones for coming. He’s a
very active member and I think the first named member of our Transit Support
Committee, and I have to brag on him cause he’s represents District 9, he’s my appointee.
And he’s doing an excellent job there and kind of keeps us on our toes as well. Is Mr.
Johnson, I was wondering, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, whether Mr. Johnson or anybody from
Transit is here at the moment, because I think they may be able to add something to this
in terms of the coordination process of how this can be worked.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I don’t see Mr. Johnson. Maybe we can ask the
Administrator or Assistant Administrator, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Kolb, in that director’s absence, I think in terms of getting this
started to try and move in that direction there, is there something we can share with Mr.
Jones today in reference to trying to work with this? I think he has already mentioned this
to the Director and there has been correspondence, but it was going to have to come here
in terms of us being able to work with this and to get it moving.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, I am not aware of
any discussions between Public Transit and Mr. Jones at this time.
Mr. Mays:
Well, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we’ve got an item here on the agenda that
I do think that’s important. I, I don’t necessarily think we have to start World War III
about dealing with this, but when things are on the agenda and we – the backup is in there
and somebody is coming in reference to it, I just think that we either need to be prepared
to have reference, some statement from somebody in terms of doing it. I don’t like to
necessarily go forth and say, get accused in terms of the micro-managing business to
move forward with it. I’m probably prepared to offer a motion that we support the
concept of it and that the persons be appointed and designated, whether we work it
through Public Transit, and I would imagine in terms of vehicles’ sake they would be the
only ones in terms of being able to handle in terms of doing that with the equipment for
the purposes so stated by Mr. Jones. But I think if we participate in many things that we
deal with from the promotional events and the things that we, conventions that come to
town, other events that are there, and nothing could be more worthwhile in terms of
. So I’m going to make the motion that this be
supporting this one on an ADA event
passed on and that the Administrator and the Director of Public Transit, that they
th
coordinate a way to give us a report back. Our committee meetings are on the 7,
Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Do we have a Commission meeting prior to that?
The Clerk: No, sir.
2
Mr. Mays: Okay, committees meeting will be first?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Then if we could have this back at our next committee meeting.
Mr. Jones is a very active citizen. He gets about very well. He does a lot of promotional
work, not just for ADA, but for this city. Hate to just have him back for a committee
meeting. I think this is something we can handle on our own, if he’s taken the effort to
I’d like to see get us an answer
be here, and to put it together and to get it moving.
back at our committee meeting in terms of being able to get with Mr. Jones,
whatever we need to deal with on the staffing, the mobilization of the vehicles, have
that ready for the Public Services Committee and allow Mr. Johnson or the
Administrator, the Deputy Administrator to present it at that time and I hope at
that time the committee will unanimously approve it and send it on to this
Commission and unanimously approve it at that time.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second on the floor. Any further
discussions? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Mr. Bridges called and said he would be late,
but he will be in attendance today.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Next item?
The Clerk:
B. Ms. Denice Traina
RE: Preservation of Civil Liberties (USA Patriot Act)
Ms. Traina: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Traina?
Ms. Traina: My name is Denice Traina and I live at 631 Bohler Avenue. Good
afternoon. I’d like again to invite you to the public meeting on July 3 at the downtown
library concerning the Patriot Act. I would like to read the proposed resolution which
3
conveys a concern that is both personal and public in nature, and I would like this
governing body to consider passing this resolution:
For the purpose of defending the civil liberties and civil rights of all individuals
living in Augusta,
Whereas, the City of Augusta recognizes the Constitution of the United States of
America to be the supreme law of the land, which all public servants are sworn to uphold;
and
Whereas, federal policies adopted since September 11, 2001, including provisions
in the U.S. Patriot Act, public law 107.56 and related executive orders, regulations and
actions, threaten fundamental rights and liberties by (a) authorizing the indefinite
incarceration of non-citizens based on mere suspicion and the indefinite incarceration of
citizens without access to counsel, creating law enforcement and intelligence agencies,
broad access to personal, medical, financial, library and education records, with little, if
any, judicial oversight, driving a wedge between immigrant communities and the police
that protect them, by encouraging involvement of state and local police in enforcement of
federal immigration law, permitting the FBI to conduct surveillance of religious services,
internet chat rooms, political demonstrations, and other public meetings of any kind
without having any evidence that a crime has been or may be committed;
Whereas, new legislation has been drafted or pending, excuse me, entitled the
Domestic Security Enhancement Act, also known as Patriot II, which further dilutes
many basic constitutional rights, as well as disturbs a unique system of checks and
balances, by (a) diminishing personal privacy, (b) reducing the accountability of
government to the public, by increasing government secrecy, (c) seriously eroding the
right of all persons to due process of law;
Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, by the County Commission – this would be my
wish – that it remains firmly committed to the protection of civil rights and civil liberties
for all people, the City of Augusta will completely avoid discrimination in every function
of city government and vigorously uphold the constitutionally-protected rights of all
citizens to peacefully protest and express their political views without any form of
governmental interference.
It is hereby further resolved and is the policy of the City of Augusta that the City
Commission direct the police department of the City of Augusta to (a) refrain from
enforcing immigration matters which are entirely the responsibility of the Department of
Homeland Security, no city service will be denied on the basis of citizenship, and (b)
refrain from utilizing racial profiling or religious profiling as factors in selecting which
individuals to subject to investigatory activities except when seeking to apprehend a
suspect whose race, religion, ethnicity or national origin is part of the description of the
suspect and (c) refrain, whether acting alone or with federal law enforcement officers
from collecting or maintaining information about the political, religious or social views
or associations of any individual or group, unless such information directly relates to an
investigation of criminal activities and there are reasonable grounds to suspect criminal
misconduct, (d) report to the County Commission any request by federal authorities that
if granted would cause an exercise of power contrary to the Constitution of the United
States. And lastly, direct public libraries within the city of Augusta to post in a
prominent place within the library a notice to library users as follows: Warning, under
4
section 215 of the Federal U. A. Patriot Act, public law 107-56, records of the books and
other materials you borrow from this library may be obtained by federal agents, that
federal law prohibits librarians from informing you if federal agents have obtained
records about you. Questions about this policy should be directed to Attorney General
John Ashcroft, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen?
Ms. Traina: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard:
I have talked to Ms. Traina a couple of times in reference to this and
I think what she is trying to do is very good and some of the things I’m sure that we’ve
heard in that is something that a lot of us can agree with at this particular time, and I
would like to commend her and her group for bringing forth some of these items. The
only thing about this, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, is I don’t think we can go on record as
supporting this other than accepting this information. And I would just urge her to maybe
continue to lobby Commissioners and other people in this group to maybe gain some
support in the future of this, because I think that if you probably took a vote up here
today in support of this, you would more or less lose that particular vote. But if we
accept it as information, you have the opportunity to follow up on this and come back at
some future time. But I think what you’re trying to do, some of the things I’ve seen and
heard in this is something that’s really needed. And I know also that we’ve kind of gone,
I feel we’ve kind of gone overboard with Homeland Security on many things and we’re
going to have to be very careful there, and we just don’t turn our national legal
department alone, because we still have to put, protect our individual rights as citizens,
and I think that’s what you’re trying to do. But I’m not just sure that we can vote on that
I would offer a motion that we accept this
at this time or should vote on it at this time.
as information.
Ms. Traina: Can I, can I ask you, I was wondering if some, would some of you be
attending the meeting on Thursday, because we have invited some folks from both
Athens and Atlanta to speak, and they would certainly be more knowledgeable about the
whole nuances of the Patriot Act, and I know, I am hoping that the public will attend
because it will be a great educational moment for all of us, but it’s an opportunity to have
some of the questions you may have on your minds that might be preventing you from
passing the resolution right now, that might be answered, if more folks might be able to
attend that. Thank you.
Mr. Boyles: What time is that meeting?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Andy?
Mr. Boyles: What time is that meeting, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, what time is that
meeting?
5
Ms. Traina: The meeting is at seven o’clock on Thursday, July 3, on the second
floor of the main library on Greene Street.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I, too, agree with Commissioner
Beard. There are certain elements within the Patriot Act that concern me and the loss of
civil liberties to citizens of the United States, but I, too, with Commissioner Williams,
visited Ground Zero and a state of war exists between us an al-Qaida and other terrorist
organizations. Many of the acts perpetrated on this country and planned for this country
will be carried out by those in this country illegally or legally, whose activities, I feel,
need to be monitored. We have a very serious situation where since the September 11
attack on this nation, it’s small in comparison to what could be perpetrated upon the
people of this country, if we don’t take drastic measures to control those would-be
terrorists who are already within our borders. Again, I will go back and say I’m very
concerned about the loss of civil liberties that are accompanied with some of the actions
in this bill, but overall, compared to history, if we fail to take stringent steps now, we will
all be sorry later. And what concerns me is that some of the things in this bill, however
distasteful, may have prevented the 9-11 tragedy from occurring, and for us to step back
now and say we don’t need to take steps that have been identified that could have
prevented this, to prevent future tragedies, is a serious mistake, and a step that would
destine us to repeat that same history. And so I agree with some of what has been said. I
have some of those same concerns, but this country, make no mistake about it, is at war,
and we are not playing with small bombs and small terror anymore. The capabilities for
use of weapons of mass destruction is real. The people who would perpetrate it can come
into this country illegally, if they’re not already here, and I must support our government
in its actions to try to prevent other 9-11s from occurring.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I second the motion to receive this as
information.
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. Bridges out.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk:
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT:
C. To the Secretary of Energy in support of locating the Modern Pit Assembly
mission at Savannah River Site (Requested by Mayor Young)
6
The Clerk: Attached to your addendum agenda is a resolution.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Mr. Cheek, you wanted to
speak to this item?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. This is a project that will, at some
point, be conducted in the bounds of the United States of America to develop and
continue to maintain the arsenal of freedom which has kept us free and basically defeated
the other forces in this world who would dominate the world. This represents an
opportunity for us to support something that we bring a facility to a site who has national
expertise in dealing with this material, who has a long and safe track record of dealing
with this type of activity. One of the things I did want to add is that the accelerated
clean-up mission at the site has completion of closure of most of the area by 2006. If this
and other missions are not acquired for the site in some timely and in a reasonable time
frame, the site population, which is one of the largest employers in the state of South
Carolina and in this area will decrease by one half. Therefore, support for this and
eventual, and the eventual acquiring of this and other, support of other missions in
support of our national defense is essential, and I urge everyone to support the location of
the modern pit facility at Savannah River Site.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the
motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 21C. That’s item
1 through 21C.
Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion to approve and a second. Motion and second on the
consent agenda. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Unless there being any objection, Mr. Chairman, can we move Public
Services Committee items over to the consent agenda as well?
The Clerk: That would consist of items 24, 26, 27. 25, which I put before you is
a recommendation from our License & Inspection Department, alternative policy for
imposing penalty. Item 28, 29 and 30 on the Public Services agenda.
7
Mr. Beard: Could we add 31 and 32 from the Administrative Services, Mr.
Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. That’s fine. 31 and 32 from Administrative Services,
Madame Clerk, from Administrative Services.
The Clerk: Sir?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 31 and 32 from Administrative Services.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Could we add number 38, the
approval of a grant application to receive funding from the CJCC for the Solicitor
General’s office, State Court of Richmond County, Georgia, Victim Witness Assistance
Program? And also, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, the – item 37, if you’ll recall our dealing with
First Friday, we added a stipulation that that applied only to June and I’m told they would
th
like to have this item deleted so that the July 4 would not be handled under those rules.
They still want to work on some rules and that’s what I’ve been told by the Main Street
th
folks, they would try to apply that to July 4 Friday. And also I request that item 35, at
the request of Mr. David Crews, the CPA for Augusta GYN, PC be returned to the
Finance Committee. He thought he wanted it on all the way here today, but has some
additional accounting backup to supply us, and so if we could return that to the Finance
Committee.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Mr. Williams and Mr. Beard?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, item 37, I think Commission Shepard had it
to discuss. And I’m kind of lost. Maybe Commissioner Shepard can tell me, but I didn’t
think any action would be taken anyway. Just discussion about –
Mr. Shepard: Well, we can discuss it, Mr. Williams, if you want. I just knew that
we had passed, passed an action which was only for June, and I didn’t want us not to
have a position on the agenda for any matters that we needed to cope with for this Friday,
so I had really no concern other than the fact that we had sunsetted, so to speak, our
previous action. Now I’m told by Main Street that they would like some additional time
so that they could bring back a more permanent set of rules for normal First Fridays.
th
This July 4, I think everybody recognizes that we will have more than 5,000 people
gathering, Mr. Williams, probably on the order of 100,000.
Mr. Cheek: Let’s hope.
8
Mr. Shepard: And there’s no real action that’s appropriate for that size body in
light of what we had done before as to the June First Friday. It’s not a normal First
Friday, but if you want to discuss it, that’s fine.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Want to have the item pulled?
Mr. Williams: Yeah.
Mr. Shepard: If you want to keep it off for discussion, that’s fine.
Mr. Williams: I just thought since it was not a normal First Friday, you know, we
did have those things in place, but because it was not a normal First Friday, I thought
there was something in place that they was going to share with us, that the community
th
would know because it was of such magnitude of, you know, the 4 of July, as well. So I
mean I’ve got no problem, I just thought it was something because it was a very unusual
First Friday for us, that there was something different that they would be able to share
with us.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: The only thing is I didn’t want us to be in a position where we
couldn’t act if we had to, but I think it’s been handled administratively, Mr. Williams,
and we can hear from them, but I think the idea is the June rules will not apply on this
th
July First Friday, July the 4, because we made them – when we passed them applicable
for only one First Friday. That was the First Friday in June. So we can leave it on.
Mr. Williams: It don’t matter. I mean you can take it off.
Mr. Shepard: Okay. I still move to move to take it off.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: If they settled that, that’s okay. I won’t say anything. I was just
going to offer a suggestion that either the Administrator or the Downtown Development
Authority just give us an overall view of what’s going on Saturday, this is in relation to
First Friday, it’s in relation to everything else. But he may want to tell us what’s going
on [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any others? Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Pull 25.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Pull 25.
Mr. Hankerson: 25C on the regular agenda.
9
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
The Clerk: 25, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 25 still on the regular agenda.
The Clerk: I’m sorry?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Requesting 25 to remain on the regular agenda.
The Clerk: You’re pulling that for discussion?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes. For it to remain. Pulled all of them on the Public Services
part for the consent agenda, right?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So we took everything – do you want to pull 25?
The Clerk: We were adding it to the consent agenda.
Mr. Hankerson: If we add it to the consent agenda, then this proposal that was
made this morning –
The Clerk: That’s what, that’s what that item is. 25 is that proposal right there.
Mr. Hankerson: Right.
The Clerk: And it’s being added to the consent agenda, because it was voted on
in Public Services. They approved that.
Mr. Kuhlke: My motion.
Mr. Hankerson: We didn’t approve what --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem:: We approved Bill’s --
Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We approved Bill’s motion.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, which was the alternative, the second one on there, alternate.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay, but my understanding is, the reason I said pull it, my
understanding, thought the Clerk said we were pulling this with [inaudible] consent; is
that what you’re saying?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
10
Mr. Hankerson: And that’s not what –- we made a motion this morning. This is
not what we [inaudible].
The Clerk: Yes, the motion Mr. Kuhlke made in Public Services was to approve
that recommendation. The committee approved that. Mr. Mays offered that item along
with the other items approved in committee to the consent agenda.
Mr. Hankerson: I’m confused because I thought License & Inspection [inaudible]
automatic suspension. Right, automatic 30 day suspension, okay. I was confused with
[inaudible], we were accepting what License & Inspection had proposed.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: With the amendments. Okay. Do we have any discussion
on the consent agenda? Gentlemen, are there any items to be pulled? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’d like to pull item number 2,
please.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Number 2. Any other items? Hearing none – Mr.
Williams?
Mr. Williams: Item 25 that we just put on there, need to be pulled, Mr. Mayor
Pro Tem, just to get some clarification.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
The Clerk: The consent agenda, again, will consist of items 1 through 21C,
including items 24 – we pulled 25 – 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 38, deletion of item 37, and the
referral of Finance of item 35. We also pulled item 2.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Did I hear 26 on the list or off of the list?
The Clerk: It’s off the list. Item 26 and 29 were referred to the July 7 Public
Services Committee.
Mr. Cheek: Understood. Thank you.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
11
1. Motion to approve upgrading the communication equipment for Traffic &
Engineering, Victims Assistance, Trees & Landscape and Marshal Substation.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee June 20, 2003)
2. Deleted from the consent agenda.
2A. Motion to authorize the agreement between Augusta-Richmond County
Emergency Management Agency (EMA) and Georgia Emergency Management
Agency (GEMA) (Approved by Public Safety Committee June 20, 2003)
FINANCE:
3. Motion to approve LPA Group, Inc. Work Authorization No. 6, 2003
Terminal Area Improvements. (Approved by Finance Committee June 20, 2003)
4. Motion to approve abatement of 2002 tax on property at Map 59-3, Parcel
494 owned by the Land Bank. Approved by Finance Committee June 20, 2003)
5. Motion to approve the 60 month lease of Two (2) Caterpillar D8 Tracked
Dozers for the Public Works Department – Landfill Division from Yancey Brothers,
Inc. of Augusta, Georgia for $5,241.06 each per month. (Approved by Finance
Committee June 20, 2003)
6. Motion to approve the acquisition of Two (2) Slope Mowers for the Public
Works Department – Maintenance Division from Southern Turf Equipment
Company, Inc. of Lake City, Georgia for $27,596.80 each (lowest bid offer on Bid
03-086). (Approved by Finance Committee June 20, 2003)
7. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Pothole Patcher Truck for the
Public Works Department – Maintenance Division from Mays International of
Augusta, Georgia for $92,864.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-087). (Approved by
Finance Committee June 20, 2003)
8. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) 30-Ton Crane Truck for the
Public Works Department – Maintenance Division from Hydraulics Machinery, Inc.
of Tampa, Florida for $160,809.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-085). (Approved by
Finance Committee June 20, 2003)
9. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Work Detail Van for the Public
Works Department – Trees and Landscape Division from Bobby Jones Ford of
Augusta, Georgia for $24,351.46 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-155). (Approved by
Finance Committee June 20, 2003)
10. Motion to deny the request from GMAC Commercial Mortgage for
reconsideration of an abatement of the interest in the amount of $1,908.21 for Map
012-0-009-01-0 – Courtyard by Marriott LTD. (Approved by Finance Committee
June 20, 2003)
11. Motion to approve abatement of 2002 tax on City property (Map 72-2, Parcel
435). (Approved by Finance Committee June 20, 2003)
12. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) DUI Truck for the Sheriff’s
Office – Road Patrol Division from Emergency Vehicle Sales Company of Elberton,
Georgia for $119,572.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-092). (Approved by Finance
Committee June 20, 2003)
13. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Sewer Vacuum Truck for the
Utilities Department – Construction Division from Adams Equipment Company of
White Plains, Georgia for $199,970.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-088). (Approved
by Finance Committee June 20, 2003)
12
14. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Directional Pipe Boring
Machine with accessories for the Utilities Department – Construction Division from
Vermeer Southeast Sales and Service Company of McDonough, Georgia for
$132,000.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-093). (Approved by Finance Committee June
20, 2003)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
15. Motion to approve the installation of a Georgia Style Historical Marker, 30
inches high by42 inches wide at 702 3rd St., Augusta, Georgia by Magnolia
Cemetery. The marker is to recognize the burial place of seven Confederate
generals, poets, mayors, state legislators, war heroes, authors, educators, etc. The
marker and materials will be purchased by the Reverend Pierre Robert Chapter for
the National Society of Colonial Dames XVII Century. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee June 20, 2003)
16. Motion to approve the amount of $22,000 for the purchase of 10.2 wetland
mitigation credits required by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the
construction of the Jamestown Sanitary Sewer Extension Project. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee June 20, 2003)
17. Motion to approve funding in the amount of $62,673 for the adjustment of
manholes and water valves on Peach Orchard Road between Tobacco Road and
Gordon Hwy. in conjunction with the GADOT resurfacing project. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee June 20, 2003)
18. Motion to ratify funding in the amount of $175,000.00 for the emergency
construction of a new 6” ductile-iron water main along Mary Ave. and Ona Dr. in
Lakemont Subdivision. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 20,
2003)
19. Motion to approve a request from the Downtown Development Authority
regarding the release of $10,000 of Phase IV SPLOST funds for the removal of the
remaining utility wires and poles from Springfield Park. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee June 20, 2003)
20. Motion to ratify Commission Signature Letter authorizing expenditure of
$50,000 for temporary operations of the fountain at the 8th Street Bulkhead.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 20, 2003)
PLANNING:
21. SA-38 – Request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations for
Augusta-Richmond County amending Section 302 (Y) to provide additional
information to be included on the Development Plan. (Approved by the Commission
June 17, 2003 – second reading)
21A. SA-39 - Request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations for
Augusta-Richmond County amending Section 402 (E), Street Signs. (Approved by
the Commission June 17, 2003 – second reading)
21B. ZA-R-160 – Request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning
13
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County amending Section 2, 21 and 26 to provide
that inert landfills be referenced as inert fill areas. (Approved by the Commission
June 17, 2003 – second reading)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
21C. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held June 17, 2003.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
24. New Ownership: A.N. 03-19: A request by Gregory Glover for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Revelations
located at 3415 ½ Wrightsboro Road. There will be dance. District 3. Super District
10. (Postponed from June 9 Public Services)
26. Deleted from the agenda and referred to Public Services Committee.
27. New Application: A.N. 03-21: A request by Erika Devasconcelos for an on
premise consumption Liquor license to be used in connection with Los Primos
Mexican Restaurant located at 2906 Peach Orchard Road. District 6. Super District
10.
28. Discussion: A request by Christopher Long for a Special Events Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Stool Pigeons Coop & Pizza located at
277 Robert C. Daniel Pkwy. (in the parking lot). District 3. Super District 10.
29. Deleted from the agenda and referred to Public Services Committee.
30. Motion to approve a contract for the fifth year grant with the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources (EPD) for the purpose of funding the Scrap
Tire/Solid Waste & Education Program.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
31. Approve staff recommendation to adopt Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategy (NRS)/Urban Redevelopment Plan (URP) for an inner city target area.
32. Approve staff recommendation to amend existing contract to implement
Urban Redevelopment Plan (URP) for an inner city target area for an amount not to
exceed $150,000. The scope of work includes services for tasks and deliverables to
implement the approved plan including a housing market study.
FINANCE:
35. Deleted from the agenda and referred back to the Finance Committee.
37. Deleted from the agenda.
38. Approval of grant application to receive funding from CJCC for the Solicitor
General, State Court of Richmond County Victim Witness Assistance Program.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hearing no further items, all in favor of the consent agenda,
please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Colclough votes No on Sunday sales portion.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 9-0. [Item 27]
14
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1, 2A, 3-21C, 24, 27-28, 30-32, 38]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item 2, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hold up, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Mays: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: On item 25, that –
The Clerk: It was pulled. Yes, it was pulled.
Mr. Mays: I know.
The Clerk: Mr. Williams asked that it be pulled.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Item 29, please show, Madame Clerk, that I abstained in that vote
due to a client conflict.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item 29 was pulled.
The Clerk: It was deferred to –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It was pulled.
Mr. Shepard: Oh, I see.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, let it be known that I vote no on Sunday
sales on item 27.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams, item 2?
15
2. Motion to approve communication hardware upgrades for the new Animal
Services Facility. (Approved by Public Safety Committee June 20, 2003)
Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I pulled item 2 for two reasons. One
is that this item did not go through Finance and I’m wondering why it did not go through
Finance. The other reason is that I’d like to know where the funds coming from for this,
this hardware upgrade for the new Animal Facility.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb, you or somebody from IT want to address this?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. I had not noticed that it did not go to Finance on your first
question, so I don’t, I can’t answer that one. In terms of where the funds are coming
from, it is an amendment to the Animal Shelter project and we are adding funds in
SPLOST to that project.
Mr. Williams: Okay, but where the funds coming from in SPLOST? I mean you
say --
Mr. Kolb: The funds are coming from an appropriation from fund balance. There
is more collected than, sales tax was collected than anticipated, so we were able to take it
out of the fund balance and appropriate it to that project.
Mr. Williams: So this would be considered discretionary funds, is that right?
Mr. Kolb: No, I wouldn’t call it discretionary funds. I would call it fund balance.
Mr. Williams: Fund balance from the sales tax, from the SPLOST would be
discretionary, wouldn’t it? I mean fund balance and discretionary is --
Mr. Kolb: I wouldn’t call it discretionary. Now if that’s the way you want to
treat it, that’s fine.
Mr. Williams: Well, no, I’m just trying to get some decision from whoever put
this item on because $140,000 I think we’re talking about here and if I’m not mistaken,
we approved this in Public Safety, but it did not go to Finance and Public Safety, I was
told that the hardware was left out of the bid deliberately and then we come back and add
it in. So I need to know what --
Mr. Kolb: I’ve just been advised by the Attorney that we should pull this item
and refer it to the Finance Committee.
Mr. Williams: Well, but before we pull it, now I already done pulled it, we need
to discuss this thing a little bit here. I can understand that the Attorney wants to pull it
but I need to get some clarification because --
Mr. Kolb: I’ll give you some history.
16
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Kolb: When the project was first approved, and the project I’m talking about
is the Animal Shelter building, we did on purpose without the, this equipment being
included in it because there was not enough money in SPLOST to cover the cost of that.
And what we were hoping would happen is one of two things. First of all, that we would
generate a fund balance, which is what fund balance is generated for. In other words, we
collect more revenue than we anticipate and those funds can be used to supplement
projects that may run over, other projects if under would go to fund balance, and we can
use that for this purpose, or that the project itself would come in under what we
anticipated and we able to fund this project within that project scope.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Kolb: So that’s why it came back the way it did. Did it on purpose.
Mr. Williams: And that leads me to my next question, is that the fund balance,
you say, that we collected over and above what we thought we was going to collect it,
came in. But there been other projects and I’m thinking now the last serious [inaudible]
we had with the seniors and we were looking for monies and we didn’t have any monies
and there been programs that didn’t have enough funds to continue. But now we come
up with this kind of funds that we found that was in the fund balance. I remember --
Mr. Kolb: This is sales tax capital improvements. This has nothing to do with
operations.
Mr. Williams: I understand.
Mr. Kolb: You can only spend it fore capital improvements.
Mr. Williams: Well, there’s some capital improvement programs, as well. I
mean I mentioned those things, Mr. Kolb. We didn’t have any money, we couldn’t come
up with anything. What I’m remembering now is that we could have saved at least $1
million when we was going to initially go out for bids or go out to build this new facility.
We had inmate crews from not the local inmate crews that we use but several crews that
was lined up to come in here. We chose, as this body, chose to give it to a contractor that
we could have saved a million dollars on. Now here we are coming up saying we got
fund balance of money to buy hardware for the computers and the facility’s not even built
yet. There are other projects that ought to have priority, in my mind, to do those things
with that we -- and I’m not saying that shouldn’t be done, but I’m just saying that since it
didn’t come through Finance and there is other projects out there that we could use this
money for, we have not mentioned that. I need to know what the balance of the fund
balance, how much more that we took in that had not been reported that I don’t know
about, so I need to have something brought back -- is the Finance Director here? -- from
the Finance Director as to how much. Cause I’m sure this is not, you know, the end of it.
17
It’s not al of it. There ought to be some record. Maybe you got some numbers today,
Mr. Kolb. Maybe you got --
Mr. Kolb: I don’t have numbers today.
Mr. Williams: Okay, well --
Mr. Kolb: To go back to the recommendation that we made with respect to
awarding this to a contractor, we do not agree with your opinion that you would save a
million dollars with inmates.
Mr. Williams: Well, Mr. Kolb, you don’t have to agree. That’s, that’s, you made
a recommendation, this vote, this body decide to do that. This body is not you. Your
recommendation is all it in, a recommendation, and that as far as it go. We make those
decisions and this body elect to choose to give it to the contractor. But we was, we could
have saved and may just my opinion, I don’t do any contracting work, we had people to
come in here that do the work that tell us we could have saved that money, over $1
million. We gave out a $3 million project to a contractor that we could have saved this
city of Augusta at least a million. And we chose not to do it and we [inaudible], this
body voted. But that’s neither here nor there. But I need from you a report of how much
fund balance is left or how much we have now.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard? Go ahead, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: I’m just going to suggest, in fact I make a motion that this go
back to Finance with the action that Commissioner Williams, the items that he
suggested that he wanted.
And he is a part of Finance and others up here, too, and we
can put that information and discuss it at the Monday meeting, I understood that’s what
he wanted.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays:
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have no problem, in fact, I’m glad the
Commissioner pulled the item first. I think you’re going in the right direction to take it
back to Finance and I hope that the maker of the motion will accept a friendly
amendment or just a suggestion. I think there is a little bit more cooking on this burner
than just to send this back to Finance, and that it goes through that committee. Now I
want to make sure I was clear, that was what the little sidebar was a minute ago, Mr.
Mayor Pro Tem, with the Attorney, but I know one of the things that we’ve been
thoroughly on the same track, and I don’t think anything has change and the law
regarding special local option sales tax, is the fact that number one, there is no such thing
as discretionary money in sales tax period. As it relates to SPLOST. You either have a
related project or you have related categories. They can be moved and shifted but if they
are Public Works projects they have to remain in Public Works. If they are Recreation
18
they have to remain in Recreation. And etc. I think where some clarity needs to be done,
when y’all get this in Finance, is that the Administrator through the Finance Department
needs to bring you back a report on where the surplus was created at. That’s the first
thing. Because if it was created in an area that makes the area that you’re taking it to
ineligible, then that’s a violation of Georgia law. So that, that’s, that’s a deal there where
you’re already off the table. So I think when you get it back to Finance, rather than
I think if you
having to refer it to another committee meeting, for a lack of information,
were to put an amendment to that that allows the Administrator through Finance to
bring back where the surpluses have been accumulated from
, then I think, and only
then can you make an intelligent decision, and most of all, and I think Mr. Wall will
agree with me, then and only then can you make a legal decision on how you delegate
some other money. There is no discretionary pattern under Georgia law that you can do
that under. And I would hope that you would accept that to take it on to Finance, because
I think that’s the only way you are going to be able to do that and do it legally.
Mr. Beard: I will accept that
, because I figure that it needed to get back to some
committee so that we could solve all the problems in relation to this, and again, as
Administrator and our Attorney and others know that you have to be very careful when
you are dealing with the SPLOST funds, and I think hopefully if we take it back there,
with the [inaudible] made, we can kind of settle this and bring it back to the body.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, there’s 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. Bridges out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item? Mr. Williams?
The Clerk: Let me read the caption.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead and read the caption.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
25. Receive a recommendation from the Sheriff’s Department and License &
Inspections Dept. regarding a resolution to increase penalties and suspensions for
alcohol sales to minors. (Deferred from June 9 Public Services)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I wanted to get some clarification on exactly
what we were voting on. License & Inspection has brought to us a document that based
19
on what we already had, plus additional, some wording, so I mean I wasn’t a part of that
committee but I was there and I need to know clarification, just where we are.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, go ahead.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Williams, the motion that was made in committee and presented
to the Commission now is the second set of bullet points which, on the first offense, the
policy would be amended to read such, that suspensions to suspend alcohol license for no
less than 30 days on the first offense within the first two years. The second suspend for
not less than 30 days. And the third is revocation.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: That’s what I wanted to know, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and exactly
what we was -- because in the meeting in my sitting there heard several things, and most
of them was saying the same thing. But there was a discretionary period about how many
days and Mr. Mays mentioned about, I think I heard him talk about being able to come
back and appeal a situation. Talked about a business that may have been in business for
20 or 30 years and have not had any problem, then for whatever reason a problem came
up, and you got some that had this problem frequently. But that answered my question. I
mean somebody else may have something.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. [inaudible] motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: I move that we approve.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Have a motion on the floor.
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Just for the record, could the Attorney explain what is the appeals
process on that? Just for clarification.
Mr. Wall: Any time that a license is, well, if it’s revoked, you have to come back
and have a hearing at the next hearing after the individual who has had his license
revoked is given written reasons for the revocation of a license. So then there would be a
hearing at the next meeting. Beyond that, I mean it would be an appeal to the Court.
Mr. Mays: Let me ask you this, cause you mentioned revoked. With us going to
suspensions in this policy on first offenders, I guess that’s what I wanted the clarity on,
20
and maybe you’ve given it to me, that it applies only to revocations. How does that set in
terms of the appeals process regarding say first offender status, if we’re going to change
it, does it only deal with appeals on revocations? And that’s kind of what I wanted to get
clear for the record in terms of [inaudible] you are changing something to an absolute
policy that’s almost like a mandatory sentencing thing, and this is what we discussed in
committee.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] suspension [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: It would be a suspension and revocation and could be appealed, and
that’s the only reason I wanted to get the clarity of it mentioned in there, because I had a
little problem to a point if, if we’re going absolute it takes away any discretion that
you’ve got to use. And I made mention of that in committee. I think to a point of us
being tough and being absolute on it, I have no problem with that part of the resolution
and I think we need to shoe that type of resolve. But I did mention the fact that I thought
we needed to have some provision as it relates to suspension. If we’re changing policy,
that if you’ve got good corporate citizens, be it the little mom and pop convenience store
that’s been there for 10, 15, 20 years, never had a problem, does it -- and say under the
warning system could basically be dealt with on probation but to a point where you then
now take that license for 30 days even on the first offense, and even to a point of large
corporate chains with large investment to a point that an employee makes that error, I
kind of thought that maybe there needed to be more maybe in the [inaudible] process
[inaudible] allowing people to operate in those discretionary modes. This one really
takes us out of all of the discretion and I think in every operative of the Court that we
[inaudible] you’ve even had judges that have complained about the fact when you get to
all or nothing in absolutely sentencing to a point even on criminal [inaudible] and if we
get to a point of all or nothing situation, whereas I’m saying some of them problems on
the first offenses, maybe shouldn’t even be suspended. Maybe some of them should be
revoked. But to a point of where you may have a good citizen, one bad employee,
terminating them, getting them out of that picture, fining them, are you in an all or
nothing box? And that’s the only thing that I just brought, just for the fact of the
discussion, since we were changing it to this policy, and that was my only reason for
wanting to get it out in the open. I voted for it in committee. I thought that it was a good
resolution. But -- and it didn’t need to be [inaudible] on a one-vote technicality.
[inaudible] and so I voted for it in order to get it here, but I thought we should have that
level of discussion about it since we are changing the playing field for it and dealing with
something different for first offenders.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Well, I think I expressed my concerns about changing these
ordinances in the last meeting, when it came up before. Jim, what are saying here, cause
maybe -- I haven’t had a chance to really look at it, I know it was done in committee
today. We’re saying the first offense -- it’s an automatic suspension?
21
Mr. Wall: I’m sorry, the first offense in a two year period, there would be a
suspension for not less than 30 days.
Mr. Beard: But they have the right to appeal that?
Mr. Wall: They have the right to appeal that. The Commission will make the
decision, then it will come back and it’s heard again at the next meeting.
Mr. Beard: I don’t know, I just, I guess I need to digest this a little bit more as to
where we’re coming because I really haven’t, really didn’t [inaudible] in committee and
my thoughts all along has been on the point that, you know, people make mistakes and
personally, as I said before, I just don’t believe that increasing the fine or the penalties in
what we’ve had, increasing that and what we already had on the books, isn’t going to
make a whole lot of -- to me, it isn’t going to make a whole lot of difference. And I’ve
seen too many instances where, either within your law enforcement or other parties,
wherein, you know, this was kind of misused, and I’m not sure where I stand on this at
this particular point. I really need to really think about it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Bobby, and then Steve?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. And the reason I proposed this
solution, resolution, in hoping that we would get support because it’s time for us to look
out for our youth in the community. We have had numerous violations to come before
us, and usually when it get to us they’ve already been warned by the Sheriff’s
Department, but it does not seem to help. I think that we need to sound the bell, ring the
bell and let business owners know that they’re responsible for the clerks that they have
and also that the Sheriff’s Department, judges may also impose fines on the clerks that
sells the alcohol to minors. In South Carolina, they even got a little stricter ordinance on
tobacco law and they had busts on several stores for selling tobacco to minors. And it’s
happening in our community. It’s happening in certain areas. It’s happening and I think
that nationwide, I notice this and I’ve studied this, that there are training in place for
employees to make sure that they ask, properly ID customers when they come in to
purchase alcohol. So if they ID them and they have the proper ID, there is no reason for
them to sell alcohol to minors. So I hope that we could support this and we’ll see the
difference. At least we find out today that they have an appeal process, it’s not all
locked, if they are accused of it and maybe did not commit the violation, then they have
an appeal process. But I hope that we could do this and I think that some of the people in
the audience, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, like to speak to this issue, also. That it is a problem,
it’s a growing problem. And even in the religious community, we see it as a growing
problem with our youth, especially when we have youth programs and so forth, to try to
deter all this, and I think anything that we can do in that direction will be a great, great
help and I would hope that you would call on someone from the audience. I know we
have some pastors here today, too.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
22
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. This coming before us, and Jim, a
question to you, this is coming before us as a resolution but it’s referring to the Code,
which I thought we enacted by ordinance. Are we able to by resolution make these
changes? I mean, I’m in general support of the changes but is this -- can we do that by
resolution?
Mr. Wall: Yes. Now you’re not changing the Code section. The Code section is
set forth above, at the top of the page. It’s just saying that it may be put on probation,
suspended, and/or revoked. The -- we have heretofore adopted as a policy the guidelines
that are set forth up there, the one year probation, etc. So what you’re doing as far as a
resolution is not amending the Code, the Code would remain as is, but this would be the
policy set forth in a resolution by which the Commission would act insofar as imposing
suspensions or probation or revocation.
Mr. Shepard: So these are -- I hate to use the word sentencing guidelines, but
that’s the only thing that comes to mind here. They’re disposition guidelines --
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Shepard: That come before this committee, this Commission. That’s all,
thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I do see we have some -- that young man over there from
First Baptist, I mean Curtis Baptist. Curtis. Excuse me.
Mr. Harris: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. My name is Mark Harris, pastor of
Curtis Baptist Church, 1326 Broad Street. It’s just a pleasure once again to be here with
the Commission and stand in support of the resolution that’s in front of you. I
appreciated Commissioner Hankerson and really his commitment and passion about this
and wanting to bring this to the Commission. I think in all the discussion today we’ve
heard very clearly that it certainly borders on absolutes, it certainly borders on mandatory
sentencing, if you will, to somewhat make that comparison. And while there may be
some that are hesitant in that direction, we stand in support of this today because it is a
message, bottom line, that we feel like needs to be sent. And you as a Commission have
an opportunity to send a message that frankly I would say today has two major points to
it. One of it, one of the points is that it is a deadly serious concern. All of us recognize
the problems of teenage alcoholism. All of us recognize the problems of teenagers that
are already at risk when they get behind a wheel, it seem, of a car, for them to know that
the possibilities of a teenager with alcohol in their system behind the wheel of that car
definitely calls our attention to what a deadly serious concern it is. We also know it’s a
deadly serious concern because it’s a known fact that the earlier the person begins the
consumption of alcohol, there is a marked increase in the percentage of those individuals
that will become alcoholics and will become something in our society that we must deal
with in even greater terms later or. But I would just say not only is it a deadly concern,
but I think it sends a message for this Commission, with these strict guidelines, that it is
also a crime. And that’s the bottom line. While I now there are those that say that maybe
23
it’s a little stiff, there are those that say, you know, if I were to be caught up in this and
someone in my store sold it and I would lose my license for 30 days it may very well put
me out of business. Well, the answer to that, gentlemen, is that the crime itself is indeed
a crime, and the answer to not being out of business, if you’re shut down for 30 days, is
don’t let it happen in the first place. And that’s the message, and that’s what I really
believe, I wanted to share with you today. It’s about the message that we’re sending out
throughout our community, and I think you for your consideration and your time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, pastor. Any further discussions? Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’m just curious again and I want
to be certain about the appeal process because it doesn’t mention in the resolution, but I
guess it’s covered in the ordinance, but I think those of us that served in management
sometimes know what a disgruntled employee can do to you, too, sometimes, Rev.
Harris, and that may not be something that’s in your control. So I just want to make sure
that there’s an avenue of an appeal of an a process that we can go through for an instance
like that.
Mr. Wall: There is the appeal. Understand that the appeal is back to yourselves.
I mean you have made the decision in the first instance to put the license on suspension
or to revoke the license, and the purpose of that is, some person may come in here
unprepared, without witnesses or without documents or without the benefit of course or
whatever, and the appeal is so that the, both parties can prepare and submit evidence in
support of their position. And the Commission has the opportunity at that time to reverse
its decision, to change its decision. So that is the reason for the appeal process.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard, and Mr. Williams?
Mr. Beard: I hate to keep dragging this out, but I need to be clear on this. The
Sheriff’s Department has the right -- they don’t have the right to suspend.
Mr. Wall: No.
Mr. Beard: So it has to be brought to us first to suspend.
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Beard: Okay. And then that person has an appeal process after we have
suspended their license for 30 days.
Mr. Wall: Correct. Back to you.
Mr. Beard: That’s what I wanted to make clear. And Jim, is all of this
incorporated in this?
24
Mr. Wall: No, it’s part of the existing Code.
Mr. Beard: That’s what I needed to know.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I still need some clarification,
just after hearing all the discussion on it. Rob Sherman brought something to us and not
changing anything, but he said that probation period and before they was, the license was
suspended, we would have the option to go from zero to 30 days, up to 30 days on that
suspension. If we suspend them, if we come in here and suspend them, then we going to
come back the next week and drop the suspension that we gave two weeks ago, I mean
why not go back to zero and give the date, or if you going to give them 15 days, 30 days
and hold to that, whatever you going to give them. But if you got to, if you going to
suspend them and then they got a right to appeal and we got to hear that appeal then we
saying, or they get six votes to say okay, we going to turn around and undo what we just
did two weeks ago, why not put the zero to 30 days in here and we decide, or this body
decide how many days that is, and have no appeal? You understand what I’m saying,
Jim?
Mr. Wall: Well, are you saying that you set a date and not provide for an appeal?
I’m not sure you can do that. I don’t recommend that you do that. When you’re taking
away a property right, which it is, in a sense or there is a pecuniary effect to it, then you
need to grant the appeal.
Mr. Williams: Okay, and I think Rob brought the first offense within a two year
period is one year probation, one year’s probation, and from zero to 30 days, suspension
of alcohol license. In other words, automatically you got two years, within two years you
got probation. But you got from zero, which is from zero to 30, to give them 30 days, 29
days, 15 days or whatever amount of days you’re going to give them on suspension. I
mean you got the probation if they caught. It’s up to this board and that’s the appeal
process there, I mean when they come in and they are found guilty or if there is no set up
cause there is some disgruntled employees that can mess up some things, somebody
mentioned. We would give them the 30 days. If there was something that was done from
meanness and cruelness we might not give them but 10 days or 15 days. But if we going
to give them an appeal, two weeks later or whenever the time of their suspension, they go
the right to come back and appeal, then we going to turn around and change that, and
there wasn’t no sense in doing it in the first place. Am I the only one in outer space with
this or somebody else out there with me? Somebody?
Mr. Kuhlke: Let me pose this question. I think, Jim, if we, if we did what Mr.
Williams is talking about, if we suspended the license at all, even though they’re on
probation, they still have to come back and appeal; am I correct?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
25
Mr. Kuhlke: So you’re having an appeal one way or the other, if you suspend the
license.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I’m pretty well satisfied with it as it is, as long as they have an appeal
process [inaudible] I think you know, personally, I can vote for it, and I’m gong to call
for the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question has been called. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: A couple of points of clarification. One, I think we need to be real
honest. I think it’s a resolution that’s obviously well intended. I think that you know,
you’re dealing with this to a point that you, if you don’t for it it’s almost like saying you
want people to drive drunk behind the wheel of a vehicle [inaudible] things that aren’t
right. But I think in realistic terms what you’re looking at is that unless you got the worst
of the business owners that you’ve got, it means quite frankly what you’re really going to
do, you’re going to hear all these cases twice. That’s what you’re really fixing to get
into, cause when you start suspending, that’s what it means, it’s going to go to two weeks
and you’re going to hear them again. Now because you’ve got an absolute policy, that
means under absolute you can’t hear anything that day, so it means it goes then to the
second round of it. So all it means is you [inaudible] one time, making a decision, up or
down, and within some flexibility, it just means you’re going to vote on it that day but
you are going to hear it again two weeks. That’s just the law of the nature of American
business unless it’s the worst of the category [inaudible]. The second thing I’d like to
ask, and this is a follow-up on Steve’s question that he asked earlier, Jim, if, if, if we set a
policy and kind of under the Commission’s agreement this is what we follow, do we not
need to at some point change the ordinance? And my reason for asking that is which
supercedes what if we then, say for instance, you take business owner A’s license for a
given period of time under your policy, but it doesn’t read that way in your ordinance and
you are sued on the basis of what your ordinance says, now shouldn’t the ordinance and
the policy to a certain extent come somewhere in line at some point together? And I
mean that can’t be done today, but I think that’s where Steve was going with it, cause if
one says one thing and you can best believe if you’re going to end up fighting a major
corporation with it, you going to get an ordinance challenged if it’s different from what
your policy is, and I think that’s something that maybe the Commission needs to
consider. If y’all pass it, then I think you need to direct the Attorney to deal with the
ordinance so that your language reads the same way. That’s just a suggestion. But if you
got one where they are given ordinances to abide by a business and a business owner has
what’s in your ordinance and it’s different from the policy that you adopt, then you leave
yourself open. And Jim, you may want to answer that.
Mr. Wall: Well, I understand what you’re saying, but the ordinance would take
precedence over the policy. And let me give you a for instance. I mean even though you
adopt as a policy perhaps that there will be a 30 day suspension, automatic, and then they
26
appeal it and for whatever reason there are factors that come to light in the appeal that
you think that that is an overly harsh punishment, then you may want to give probation
rather than the suspension. If you put this set of penalties in the ordinance without some
caveat that you still have a revocation possibility, then you’ve tied the hands. And so in
my opinion, it’s better to leave it as a policy that gives you some flexibility. All the
ordinance says is it can be suspended, it can be put on probation, or it can be revoked. It
doesn’t specify how long a time period it can be put on probation, doesn’t specific how
long it can be suspended, etc. And this leave the sentencing guidelines, or, you know,
most of the Courts issue a letter insofar as traffic offenses or concerns saying you know,
the cash bond for such-and-such speeding is X amount of dollars. It’s not written into the
ordinance, it’s not written into the Code, it’s just the policy that they’re going to go by
insofar as determining what kind of punishment to impose.
Mr. Mays: Well, Mr. Mayor, and I’ll be finished. I’m just, I’m just raising the
issues so we can hear them loud and clear because obviously, and if I live for the next six
months as Chairman of that committee means I’ll end up hearing them three times. They
are going to come to the committee, they are going to come to the Commission, and then
they are going to flip back to appeal two weeks later. I got them three times coming up,
four of us have. But you mentioned, and I just don’t want to be picky about it, but you
mentioned in there when you started about the ordinance would take precedence over the
policy. Now I’m on record with that, and the reason why I’m saying [inaudible] appeals
process, let me ask you this, once the suspension is done, is there something written into
the policy or do you need an ordinance changed so that your suspension, does it start the
very moment that, the same date that that takes effect, that it goes it? Does it stop when
the notice is given to the Clerk, the Administrator or the City Attorney or the Mayor that
we are filing an appeal? I mean when does it start? Because you’ve got the automatics.
If you know they’re going to basically come back in two weeks, then when does it
officially start that they are out of that situation for suspension, because you’re looking at
a two-week period to go over, so if during appeals, then when pending appeals, with most
cases, with most things, then it’s almost like whether you grant a subject bond or whether
he’s out on bail or whatever the case may be, when does it start? Immediately. Okay, so
then, you’ve got an automatic -- and I guess this is from hypothetical terms -- is it
automatic then that you’ve got a two week suspension anyway, even if they appeal, if
they going to be without them for two weeks? That’s just the point I was trying to make.
It wasn’t to be argumentative. It was just to make it clear that once we suspend, even if
they appeal, they are licenseless for two weeks. Okay. Now you’re saying that it doesn’t
make any difference [inaudible] ordinance outweighs the policy, this is why I think to a
point yeah, have it in there, but I think if you’ve got them reading differently, if I’m
planning to oppose you and I am a business owner and you’re taking mine for two weeks
until I can appeal, and I think I’ve got a good case to bring in to appeal, but the only
reason you’re not hearing my appeal is because you mandatory decision to take them,
giving me the right to appeal two weeks later, but you’re not going to hear me until I file
the notice for appeal and do it for two weeks. Then I think you still leave yourself open
to a point that if your ordinance says something that’s totally different and says may or
shall and you got automatic in a policy that you [inaudible], if I was going to sue you I
wouldn’t sue on your policy, I’d sue you on your ordinance, because that’s what basically
27
what I think your Court statute is going to look at. Cause if you get somebody out there
to a point that say maybe has a case that you would reverse on appeal. You put them out
of that particular business for two weeks, and your ordinance says something different,
I’m not going to file a notice that I’m coming back to this Commission, I’m going to file
one that I’m going to Court immediately with you and I’m going to challenge you on
your ordinance. That’s why I think, I think you need to do it and that’s why the motion
as is I can’t support it. I’m in favor of the tone of where it’s going, but I think you got
some technical loopholes in there that I think you could very well get your socks beat off
in terms of a court of law with it, and I ain’t no lawyer, but I just think, you’ve said it
yourself, the ordinance takes precedent over the policy, but then you put the policy out to
make it absolute, I think you’ve got a difference that you can get whupped on,
particularly when it comes down to loss of revenue.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’m in sympathy with the object
of this resolution, but I am really concerned about whether it’s an ordinance change or
not, so I was wondering if the maker of the motion would accept a friendly amendment
that Jim review this, we could, before the next full Commission, to see that we are not --
looks like to me we are, we are trying to amend our ordinances without saying we’re
amending our ordinances, and I, maybe I’m off base, and maybe we’re predicting what
this Commission will do, just like you might predict if you’re counsel for somebody
down in State Court, what range of penalties one of the judges may choose. And so I’m
just, you’re putting -- the language of the resolution says in addition to the penalties
levied by 6-2-20 and so -- doesn’t that section of the ordinance, Jim, provide for all of
these penalties, I mean in some fashion? I mean suspension, revocation, and the
durations of various suspensions and revocations? We just, we’re kind of telling the
violators, the alleged violators, assuming that they are violators, what we’re going to do
when they come before us. Is that right?
Mr. Wall: Well, I think that is right. 6-2-20 is the criminal provision, and that
deals with a fine of $500 and imprisonment not to exceed 60 days, which obviously this
Commission cannot impose. That has to be imposed by the Magistrate Court or the State
Court. And so -- but it does provide for the suspension or revocation, as you pointed out.
But that’s the criminal --
Mr. Shepard: Here again, I would be more -- I mean I can live with the policy
we’re setting today, but I would be much more comfortable if we referred it, refer this,
well, if we adopt the resolution today, but yet that you harmonize this policy statement
with our ordinance violations. I think we’re trying to do an ordinance violation and not
call it an ordinance violation, but I can, I can wait to be convinced by your legal
scholarship. And so I put that in the form of a substitute motion that we pass, that we
adopt the original motion with the further caveat that Jim review this before the next
Commission and determine that we are in fact not amending an ordinance and can do this
by resolution.
28
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, we have a substitute motion.
Mr. Beard: I was going to second that but why not, Steve, just bring it back
period. Ain’t no need of adopting one thing and we have to go back and reverse that?
[inaudible] you know, we have Jim review it. I don’t think there’s no urgency that we
have this immediately, and I do, I think we ought to be right, and if we’re going to be
right, then we ought to have Jim review it and give us what it is, whether we are changing
one thing or changing the other, and bring it back at the next meeting.
Mr. Shepard: I can live with that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s the substitute motion?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a second?
Mr. Beard: I seconded it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson and then Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Hankerson: Gentlemen, what we see about the ordinance say appeal, that’s
nothing new. The only reason that the individuals that have been placed on probation or
very, very few have been suspended, I know within the last 2-1/2 years I know most of
them was probation, they all had that right to appeal, so the appeal process has been there
all the time. Only thing about appeal, most of the time we say when they have committed
an alleged accusations of violating the alcohol license, they come in and they know that
they have violated it. They don’t come in and say I didn’t do it. The officers caught
them red-handed. So the appeal process, they can appeal, but we just do just what’s right.
And the only thing I’m just asking us is to do what’s right. Now we keep, I think this has
been bounced around several times. We send it back, send it back, send it back. Just
make a decision of what we going to do with it today and go on and move on.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Jim, do you feel okay with the original motion?
Mr. Wall: I do.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, gentlemen, the question has been called. We have a
substitute motion. Madame Clerk, would you read the substitute motion, please?
29
The Clerk: The substitute motion was that you refer this to the Attorney for
review and that he bring back an opinion or recommendation regarding policy versus
ordinance at our next meeting, the amendment.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, all in favor of the substitute motion, please
signify by the sign of voting.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Williams abstain.
Motion fails 3-5-2.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That takes us to the original motion. Need that read?
Mr. Cheek: Yes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Read the original motion, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: The original motion is to approve the policy, proposed policy, first
offense within two year period, suspended alcohol license for no less than 30 consecutive
days, along with any additional probation or penalties imposed by the Commission;
second offense within two year period, suspend alcohol license for no less than 60
consecutive calendar days, along with any additional probation or penalties imposed by
the Commission; third offense within a two year period, automatic revocation of alcohol
license, along with any additional penalties imposed by the Commission.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the
sign of voting.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Williams and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
22. Z-03-41 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Priscilla L. Mason requesting a
Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home per 26-1
(f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property located at 1568 Citation Road and containing 1.25 acres. (Tax
Map 233 Parcel 52) DISTRICT 8 (No action vote by the Commission June 17, 2003)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Anybody from Planning & Zoning?
30
Mr. Speaker: Gentlemen, this is a request for a special exception. This item was
approved by the Planning Commission in their meeting on June 2.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Have any objectors at your meeting?
Mr. Speaker: Pardon?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any objectors?
Mr. Speaker: I believe there were objectors at that meeting. I, myself, wasn’t
there but [inaudible] petition submitted by objectors.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is the petitioner in the audience? All right. Give us your
name and address for the record, please.
Ms. Mason: My name is Priscilla Mason and I live at 1568 Citation Road. That’s
1568 Citation Road. That’s in Hephzibah. I am coming again and requesting permission
for my home to be allowed to be a day care home, with special permission. I have met all
the requirements and the Georgia law to obtain my license, plus I have gone through
Zoning and it was passed 9-1. As far as the -- the license will allow me to keep six kids
in my home, and that’s between the hours of 6 o’clock in the morning and 6 o’clock in
the evening.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any questions from the Commission? Do we have
objectors in the audience? Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and Commissioners. I’m Jimmy
Smith. I live in Ranch Estates, for the past 30 years, and I represent quite a few people in
the neighborhood. [inaudible] copy of the petition that we have. And this petition is just
the people that live in Citation and Centurion and the two streets that come in off of
Brown Road. It’s not in the petition from anybody that does not live in Ranch Estates.
We moved there in the early 70’s and I have a family that lives there, my daughter and
her family lived directly in front, and my 83-year-old mother-in-law lives next door. And
we have chosen that community some 30 years ago to settle in and have enjoyed it, the
community, and we’d like to keep it like it is. We don’t want to make an enemy out of
this lady or anything like that, but she had made the move to change the community, and
we are not satisfied with changing the community. To grant this petition would actually,
I feel and these objectors feel, it would change the character of the community, and we
respectfully request that you would deny this petition. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges and Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Bridges:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Citation Road is in an
established residential neighborhood and this home that this would be in is not in any out-
of-the-way or distant place from any of the other homes, residential homes there in that
31
area. And to allow a business to go into a neighborhood violates the integrity of that
neighborhood, and that’s not something that we’ve allowed in the past, I don’t think we
AndI make the motion that we deny the request for a special
should allow that now.
exception for zoning.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, this brings to mind a question I have and
perhaps staff could check up on it for us. A few years ago, this problem continued to
come up and at a public forum with State Representatives it was brought to their attention
that we continue to have the State license these type facilities without first going through
and gaining approval from the City. We were assured then by Representative Allen and
several others in attendance that the State was not allowed to give, by Code, licenses to
people until they had acquired proper zoning first, so I guess in a request to follow up on
this, and it may save us some problems in the future, is to have staff confer with the State
to see if that is indeed the case and the policy is they first get approval from the City for
rezoning before they’re allowed a license, because I know we have several of these types
of businesses that carry State licenses and operate that are not properly zoned, and we
need to be able to control that. We were assured the State was giving us that mechanism
to do that, and that seems to be a need for a policy clarification. And secondly, I concur
with Commissioner Bridges. For-profit businesses in neighborhood begin decay within
neighborhoods. You look at every neighborhood that has a problem because of
inappropriate zoning or inappropriate activities that were allowed to grow within those
communities, this is no more, no different than a for-profit business to repair a few cars,
build a few boats or anything else that would change the very nature of that
neighborhood. We must protect our neighborhoods. They are, in fact, the cornerstone of
our communities and our City, and the maintaining the integrity of the neighborhoods
protects our property values and [inaudible] desirable place to live. So I urge support for
denial on this request.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’d like to ask a few questions of
the applicant. First of all, I’d like to say that I agree with some of the neighborhoods. I
say some, I agree with some businesses in the neighborhood, and when you’re talking
about a repair shop, a car sitting around, and a boat. Andy mentioned about a boat repair.
We get a lot of petitioners come to disagree with a lot of the neighborhood businesses,
and some of those I can agree with and some I don’t. In this case, I don’t agree but that
just my personal opinion. I don’t live out in that area, but where I live, I wish the
petitioners would get together and get these drug dealers who are not licensed, who are
really destroying our communities, I mean [inaudible]. When you talking about
somebody who’s going to nurture a child and help somebody while they’re at work. Now
if you wanted to put up a Six Flags [inaudible] on the front of a house and maybe five,
four or five pets to go in the yard, I could see the neighborhood complaining. But when
32
you talking about a day care, when you’re talking about from 6 till 6 in the afternoon, and
even the stipulation that we have put on businesses saying there will be no sign, there is
several thousands of businesses being run and they’re bootlegging. Maybe y’all don’t
know what bootlegging is, but my granddaddy used to talk about it all the time. But
that’s business without a license. People are doing it, and this lady [inaudible] what she’s
going to do. Now we in the elected body can put stipulations down and say that she can’t
have a sign, she can’t have any indication at all to change the appearance of her home.
But for folks who can’t afford to take their child to Creative Day and other name
businesses need somebody like this [inaudible] or somebody else to feel secure with their
children. Commissioner Hankerson just got through speaking on behalf of children,
talking about alcohol. If -- everybody can’t afford to go to “a professional type building
or move a building down on Broad Street or some other location” [inaudible]. I need to
know from this petitioner what do your covenants say about when you purchase your
home about coming in there and buying that property and having it there?
Ms. Mason: When I purchased my home, there was a covenant that said that I
could have a business and I have a copy of it, that was in my home, [inaudible]
profession.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Ms. Mason: [inaudible] give me the right.
Mr. Williams: Jim, do we as a government body, do we supercede the covenant
from that community if it says that they’re allowed?
Mr. Wall: Well, I can’t answer the question directly as you asked it. Just because
a covenant allows something does not mean that it is allowed as a means of zoning. In
this situation, it still has to be zoned, even though the covenants may allow it.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, my question is do we supersede it? If the covenant
allows it, Planning & Zoning has approved it, it’s come before this body. Now we done
done this before in this same setting, we went against the guidelines and the petitioner
met all the guidelines for this city. 159 maybe 160, but 159 counties in this state of
Georgia. We are the only county that enforcing this kind of rule. If you do some
checking on the internet, make some phone calls, you going to find out that Augusta is
unique in that experience. Nobody else police this kind of thing. We got other stuff that
really serious that we don’t look at and here we are, and me and a couple of
Commissioners talked about his before, I wouldn’t want nobody to come and put a sign
on their house saying [inaudible] grocery store. I wouldn’t want nobody selling
transmission out their back yard. But you talking about a person who is taking care of
children on their own property, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and talking about the
American dream, to own your home and get into business. Everybody can’t go
downtown or go somewhere else and rent a building and pay for a house and then pay for
the utilities at that building, then pay for them at home, too. So this lady is not only
helping the community, but she’s trying to do something. Now she’s on welfare, coming
33
in here, telling us that she’s going to keep these children on welfare because she don’t
have nowhere else to put them. This lady is a business person who has been doing this --
[inaudible] small thinking, now I remember from last time, a number of years, how many
years?
Ms. Mason: 20 years.
Mr. Williams: 20 years. And here we are sitting here talking about we don’t
want business in the neighborhood. I agree with you, but I can’t see why we can let some
businesses go and we know what they do. We know [inaudible] traffic, we know the
traffic they bring in. Drug dealers have been sitting and parking at all time day and night
all over this neighborhood. Ain’t just mine. I got of them. But I don’t have the only
ones. We pass by them but we don’t [inaudible] about those, but then we going to
[inaudible] somebody who is trying to do something right. I’m not, all I can tell you is
that I wouldn’t stop here. If this board don’t approve, you, I would go as far as I have to
go if I were you, and, and, and you, you have done all the requirement that Augusta
Richmond County have requested of you, you need to do that. It been proven with our
bookstore. I didn’t support the bookstore. They met the guidelines. They carried us to
court. They ended up getting paid. So that’s all I got to say.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, do we have -- Madame Clerk, do we have a
motion and second? Could you read the motion, please?
The Clerk: [inaudible] deny the petitioner’s request.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the
sign of voting.
Mr. Hankerson: To deny?
Mr. Chairman: To deny.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Williams vote No.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Next item?
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENT:
23. Consider the appointment of Mr. J. Clay Coleman to the Board of Trustee of
the James Brice White Foundation to fill the vacancy due to the resignation of Mr.
J. Richard Blanchard.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen?
34
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, what is this? The J.B. White Foundation?
Mr. Wall: It’s created under a [inaudible] trust, but they set up the [inaudible]
whereby [inaudible] appoints the trustees. So it’s just part of the way the instrument was
drawn up.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you. Thanks.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the
motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES - INMATE CLEAN-UP CREW SUBCOMMITTEE:
33. Receive report from the Subcommittee regarding Inmate Work Crew Clean-
up Initiative.
The Clerk: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. We have been working, the
subcommittee have been working on the inmate crew labor for quite some time, along
with Public Works and other Commissioners that were involved on the subcommittee.
And today we want to present to you what we’ve come up with, the schedule for cleaning
and also to let you know exactly how many crews we have out working now. At our last
meeting, I know that all the crews were not, all the Districts were not covered because of
training for officers and also that some of the officers had been deployed. So at this time,
we are going to hear from Public Works, if you could come forward and explain to the
Commissioners the plan that we have. It’s a well designed plan, but make sure that you
understand exactly what is expected of the crews and how many and your Districts and
identify your Districts. All that is very important.
Mr. Stroud: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Commissioners, as you know we’ve been
working on the plan for the last couple of months. We’ve put into effect [inaudible] that
as we speak, in the District that Commissioner Hankerson spoke of. In District 1, you do
35
have an officer there. District 8, as well. 1 and 2, 3. 6, your officer is on military leave.
We have one officer that we just recently hired, who decided that this career field was not
for him, so that position is vacant again. And we also have another officer since the last
meeting going back out on military leave. We have one of the other new hires that have
already completed the training, so he’s certified now to go out and supervise alone. But
we still have 1, 2, 3 -- three more officers that we hired are still in the training phase,
because they have not gone to school yet, and therefore they are still pretty much piggy-
backing with another certified officer. [inaudible] your questions.
Mr. Hankerson: Before the other Commissioners ask any questions, I want us to
make sure that we understand the quality assurance and also the -- how we implement
additional work order, cause that has been very important to us, all of the Commissioners,
our constituents call constantly about areas in our District, so we want to make sure that
we understand how those areas will get covered, versus the schedule that is before us that
the maintenance management keeps that you have, that the crews that are in the Districts
are working on a daily basis, so we need to know how we are going to get these other
crews, to get a crew in our District if we have something that really came up that need
our attention, so make sure we do that. And also, we want to make sure that -- cemeteries
have been a big issue, too. We been hearing about it. I get calls about the cemeteries and
about how all that is included in the plan.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Hankerson, members of the Commission, if I understand your
question appropriately, you’re asking what do we do outside of this maintenance
schedule for citizen complaints or Commissioner complains, etc. If that is the question,
Augusta Cares exists for that, and the number is in there, 821-2300. They will receive
the complaint, either through a letter, through a telephone call, over the internet, and then
we will process it and get it to the appropriate department for them to act on it. There are
two crews that are floating among the 13 crews that are assigned, so they would pretty
much appropriately respond to those complaints. The schedule that you have really is,
that is in your book, is really public property. It’s owned by Augusta. And we put that
on a regular maintenance schedule, so naturally those properties that are privately held,
we do have to respond on a complaint-only basis, and they do go through License &
Inspection for due process and then they are also then processed through our maintenance
division. With respect to the cemeteries, that is, as I’ll -- and I’ll turn this back over to
Dennis, if I’m a little off, but they are, there are crews that are assigned to the cemeteries
through the Trees & Landscape Division and during special holidays. For example,
Memorial Day the maintenance crews will back them up and supply additional resources
to get the cemeteries ready for those particular holidays.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard, Cheek and Williams.
Mr. Hankerson: Just a minute.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m sorry.
36
Mr. Hankerson: Also, explain again, or tell us again how many crews are
working, assigned now.
Mr. Stroud: Okay.
Mr. Hankerson: And what districts are -- you mentioned some crew, some offices
that are not on board yet. I know the last time we had some districts that were not
covered at all, so a Commissioner needs to know whether his district is covered at all, and
before they ask you any questions, this’ll be my last one until you all ask questions, but
what -- how many crews do we actually have working?
Mr. Stroud: Currently, right now, we have eight crews physically working.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Eight is different from fourteen.
Mr. Stroud: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay, so I don’t want them to think that they have 14 crews. We
have eight crews working, and could you identify the districts that are not covered?
Mr. Stroud: All districts are being covered. It’s just that you don’t have your
assigned one.
Mr. Hankerson: Identify the ones that are not assigned.
Mr. Stroud: The ones that are not assigned right now is WD7, which he works in
District 1 and 2. However, we also have 1 and 2 covered right now. You just don’t have
your assigned one because he’s just terminated. Then we have one down, one of the
floaters that we spoke about who’s on military leave. But again, that situation is covered,
too. Then we have one more. So all districts are covered. You just do not have your
assigned one.
Mr. Hankerson: Which districts are not assigned? That’s the only thing that I just
want to know. You’re saying they’re covered. I’m hearing that --
Mr. Stroud: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: How many -- tell me whether my district has an assigned crew.
Mr. Stroud: You are District --
Mr. Hankerson: And I’m just saying, not me, but everybody. I want to identify
the districts that do not have an assigned crew.
Mr. Stroud: Okay. An assigned crew?
37
Mr. Hankerson: You said 1 and 2, I think.
Mr. Stroud: District 1, you are good to go.
Mr. Williams: Meaning, meaning what?
Mr. Stroud: Meaning you have an officer assigned. District 8, your officer is
about to begin training July 7, so he will be out of the loop. Still will there be someone
covering? Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: Is my district covered? Before, it wasn’t.
Mr. Stroud: Give me a number.
Mr. Hankerson: You mean my district number or the schedule?
Mr. Stroud: District 5. Unfortunately, your person just resigned.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, I didn’t have one the last time we met.
Mr. Stroud: But you’ve had one since then. He has resigned.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me ask you this. Do you know which district each
Commissioner is serving?
Mr. Stroud: I would tell you, Mayor Pro Tem, I try not to keep up with that. I try
to keep up with the entire county. I’ve got it written down, but I don’t know who’s got
each district.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That was the question he was asking you.
Mr. Stroud: That’s why I asked him which district.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Mr. Beard, Cheeks, Williams, and Brigham --
Bridges.
Mr. Beard: Thank you Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. My comments should be very short.
First of all, I would like to congratulate our young Commissioner down there. I think
he’s done an excellent job on this subcommittee. I’ve been here, Commissioner
Hankerson, since ‘96, and I think this is the first time -- I know in the last meeting, I
don’t know if it’s changed since that time now, but what you presented, and what Public
Works presented, in the last meeting that I was here -- you need to be congratulated
because this City has been in a mess for a long time, and this is the first consolidated
plan, and I think we do need to give it time to work. You’re going to have those
resignations. You’re going to have those changes. But whoever put this together, the
38
young man that’s standing up there in Public Works, and you, I think you did an excellent
job, and I just hope we would move forward on this, give it a chance to work, so that we
can see, and I don’t mean two months, because -- and you’re always going to get these
calls from our constituents. I’m getting a lot less now than I got a year or two years ago.
And we have something in place there. And that was worked from there. But we also
have to remember that the rain that we’ve had and the grass is growing like crazy, you
know that everybody’s going to be calling you. And now we at least know, if we don’t
have two, maybe we have one person working in that. And they’re trying to, and you
know it’s going to take time to get the training, and I think the warden understands that,
that you’re going to need time for [inaudible] these people because they have to go
through a training process. It’s a little different. So I want to congratulate you on what
you’ve done and your working with the Public Services.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I, too, want to congratulate you. I
love a plan and a schedule, and now that we can see in black in white that things will be
handled on a regular basis, is wonderful. Just a couple of things. What has been done to
compensate -- say my officer in District 6, is out on vacation for a week -- by the way,
am I covered?
Mr. Stroud: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. Say he’s out on vacation. Do you have a fill in person that
would continue the work and where the schedule wouldn’t slip?
Mr. Stroud: Yes, sir. What I’ve done is, when I’ve recognized that I have
someone out on vacation or some illness, we take that floater crew, and then he goes into
your district until your officer comes back.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. And secondly, and this may be more of a Public Works than a
crew question. I noticed that we have our detention ponds scheduled for annual cleaning
and maintenance. We’re into the hurricane season, and I know one time a year may be
okay if we don’t have a lot of rain, but if you get an accumulation of debris, that could
tend to block spillways. Do we have any type of regular, quarterly, just visual inspection
of spillways that would guarantee those things are clean, clear, and okay for use, as part
of this plan or any other plan?
Mr. Stroud: Yes, sir, we do. There’s a crew separate from this one that’s
obviously inspecting the inlets and outlets of those ponds. But when officers come up to
a detention pond that’s on their schedule, they, too, can inspect it. But, as you see on
their schedule, the actual cutting of it is still for that month, but the actual inspection, yes,
sir, that’s done continuously.
Mr. Cheek: Again, mighty fine job. This is excellent. I guess, just one other last
question. Now, in the event of rainy days that crews don’t normally go out of doors, do
39
we have any activities, sheltered activities, or any other type of work they can be diverted
to, where we don’t lose an additional work force?
Mr. Stroud: Ordinarily, the inmate crews does not go out in the pouring down
rain. If they are already out and they’re able to operate intermittently, then they will
continue to go to work. However, if it’s pouring down rain, they don’t go out that
morning. At most, the officers can conduct maintenance on their equipment. But they
won’t be out in the rain, cutting.
Mr. Cheek: And you may or may not know this, but would these crews -- I guess,
what’s the number of our existing cleaning and clearing crews, versus this number here.
I know this has got to be a force multiplier of ten, factor probably of eight or ten.
Mr. Stroud: Say your question again for me.
Mr. Cheek: I guess the question is, I know we have a number of --Public Works
is short staff to do this kind of work. We have a fixed number of people that we have in
Public Works that can go out and do this kind of work. With the addition of this schedule
and this plan, this multiplies this work force probably by a factor of eight to ten, I would
imagine. Is that a pretty accurate estimate?
Mr. Stroud: What I’m thinking you’re -- how many regular full-time crews do we
have? Five. Just in the maintenance division. That is not throughout the entire
department. We do have other regular crews. But, yes, there are crews, regular crews,
that are out doing traffic lights. There are crews that are out doing potholes, and regular
street maintenance. There are crews that do signs. But in the maintenance division, there
are only five regular crews. And I also wanted to add that to your first question about
vacations and the like, we have the bare bones minimum. So when one person is out,
we’ve got a hole in the system. There is nobody to fill it in. So we are at bones.
Mr. Cheek: We are below lean operation in that bare bones. And so we have
multiplied without, with little or no additional cost to the taxpayer, a tremendous number
of employees, basically, part time employees, if you will, to take care of business, and,
again, that’s a miraculous thing you guys have done.
Mr. Williams: Commissioner Cheek, I agree with what you said. I applaud
Commissioner Hankerson and Public Works. But I’ve been told for at least two, maybe
three, months that we’ve had all these crews. Now I’m hearing that these crews is not in
effect. I heard about somebody that’s been I guess, with the military, being transported,
or being called to active duty, but when are we going to complete the schedule for hiring
these people? And for the last two, maybe three, months, we’ve been told that we’re
going have 14, 15 crews. I know we got peoples filling in, and there are some areas,
District 1 and 2, is in probably the worst shape of all the district, you know, in this City.
So I think they need the most attention. But how much longer are we going to have to
wait? I mean, can somebody answer that as to when we going to get the full effect of the
crews, or when they going to be here, because we’ve been told for the last two to three
40
months that they was coming, that we hired these people. They being trained. It was
whatever and whatever and whatever, and they still not here. So are we going to do this
again? I mean, I don’t understand when we going to get full capacity. That’s what I’m
waiting on.
Mr. Stroud: Okay, Commissioner. The people who were hired, as we previously
-- however, as we kept saying, they are not fully trained. We have school dates of 7 July
for one, two, three officers. So at best that I can tell you, their training starts on 7 July.
The people are already in place, but again, they’re not 100% until they become certified.
Mr. Williams: So, with those people in place and they need to be 100% certified,
how much longer before they be certified? How much more time do they have?
Mr. Stroud: Four weeks, six weeks -- the school if four weeks.
Mr. Hankerson: Should I mention something, maybe clear up Mr. Williams’ --
Mr. Williams: I yield for a minute. Go ahead, Commissioner Hankerson.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Commissioner.
Mr. Hankerson: Right. The question that you’re asking is -- in our last meeting,
before bringing this forward, we made sure that we shortened the training period. And I
think the warden can better explain it about how many he has in training and how long it
takes, but we asked him the last time for them not to go through the full certification in
order to get this program implemented, and that’s what he agreed to do, to just train them,
the basic training that they would need to go ahead and start the program up.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Mr. Warden?
Mr. Leverett: Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, during the last
meeting, we did talk about an abbreviated training for the -- some of the corrections
officers that we hired. And we’ve done that, Mr. Commissioner. However, in order to
maintain enough trained or certified staff to be able to take the inmates out, what we have
done, we sent three to the abbreviated training, and now we’re going to send three more
to the four weeks training. So we’re doing it in part so that by summer’s end, by the end
of August, we should have everyone trained, and then they can take out the full crew.
Mr. Williams: Well, let me -- and this is just conversation here to -- I commend,
again, those people in Public Works and Commissioner Hankerson. As much rain as we
had, the grass, the empty lots, the vacant home, the debris around, it’s growing twice the
rate of what we’re doing here to get people out. So that’s why it’s such a big concern, to
get -- I had a call on Symms Avenue, I think it was, 330-something Symms Avenue,
about the lot next door that’s growing over on the property that the people are living in
and paying, and that they’re paying taxes, but the overgrowth is growing from the empty
lot where we tore down the house, and we don’t have the people to go in there. I get a lot
41
of calls because I mean, I’m really concerned. I think we ought to at least be able to
clean up. So this is not anything negative. This is a positive step here, and I appreciate
what everybody’s doing. But we need to get more aggressive. We’ve been told for two
to three months that we had these people hired and they was coming on board. We was
told they was out there until today. Now we saying today that people are being rotated.
You still getting the service. Well, you ain’t going to get the service when you rotate a
person, especially in a district like Bill’s district and my district. It’ll take forever just to
catch up in those. When you pull those people out of that area at the rate that stuff is
growing, at the rate of the abandoned houses, at the rate of the empty lots we have, we
need somebody yesterday. So all I’m saying is that I appreciate the short-term ya’ll
doing, and the long-term. We have been told these people are coming aboard. If we need
to hire more people, we need to send six instead of three, and then send six more after
that. Because we can use those crews to pick up -- people still dumping on empty lots. It
don’t make good sense because to put it in front of their homes, they’ll pick them up. But
people still taking stuff to empty lots, that our garbage hauler does not pick up. They
pass right by. And if we don’t call them, the neighbors complain, call into Augusta
Cares, it’ll be still in our district. So, like I said, this is not a complaint. This is just to
say, you know, that we appreciate, but we was told there was 14, 15 crews out there. We
find out that it is not, and I’d like to see each district with unit in it that’s working every
day. And those areas that need to be tackled with more than one unit ought to be able to
move from that district to the unit, you know, that needs them. And that’s just my
comment.
Mr. Leverett: I will not try to answer the scheduling part of the work. That is
Public Works. I won’t attempt that. But our training -- we sent, at the time that we first
began this, I believe we had seven openings. We’ve -- I hired those seven people. And
we have sent three of the seven to the abbreviated training. Now, when they go for the
abbreviated training, the only inmates that they can supervise are those inmates that are
minimum and trustee security inmates. I house medium, minimum, and trustees. If you
are a medium security inmate, you must be supervised by a certified corrections officer.
So, therefore, I sent three of the seven to the abbreviated training and gave them
minimum-security inmates to supervise. We sent one to the four-week school. He came
back on Friday. We trained the other ones, the other three, while the other one was away
at school. Now we’re getting ready to send these other three off to school, for the four-
week school, so when they return, they can take out a full crew.
Mr. Williams: My last question is, will there be somebody in this crew to work
on Riverwalk, as far as doing anything in that area down there?
Mr. Stroud: That’s a separate crew.
Mr. Williams: That’s a separate crew? Separate or not, will there be anybody
that will do anything, you know, anywhere? Is there a crew down there now? Whether
they’re with that crew, is there anybody going to be doing any work to help?
42
Mr. Stroud: If I’m not out of line, and I may ask that -- that officer has been
hired. That officer is with the Trees and Landscape Department, and that officer has
inmates.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I guess the answer’s yes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess this question’s for Dennis. And
I, too, want to commend Commissioner Hankerson and the subcommittee, and Public
Works for what they’ve come up with. I think it’s great. Dennis, the question I’ve got is,
on -- for District 8, like, my schedule, the work’s scheduled to be done in August,
December, and April. Is there a method or some kind of check sheet or some kind of
follow-up, say, 4-H Club wants the grass cut and ditches, you know, in August,
December, and April, in other words, could I go back and see some verification that was
done, other than looking at the physical location?
Mr. Stroud: Yes, sir. Weekly, we’ve established a time where we can meet with
officers and talk with them. Myself, members of my staff, are also doing [inaudible]
checks. The officers are reporting what’s done and what’s not done. So come August,
when you’re worried about a particular area in your district, you should be able to call me
up, and I should be able to tell you if we’re not there, or why we are, or why we didn’t do
what we said we could do.
Mr. Bridges: And you’ll be able to do that on a weekly basis?
Mr. Stroud: That is the plan, to try to do it at least monthly basis, because I know
things might train throughout the week, but at least monthly, I should be able to give you
a report.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Kolb: We’re also working on a computer system software program that will
take work orders. And you’ll be able to call Martha, hopefully, the first of the year, next
spring, and ask her about a specific location, and she’ll be able to tell you if it’s been
done.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Stroud, I wanted to first
compliment your department in the apparent use of a water-friendly herbicide around
[inaudible] Pond, which, of course, is named for a former Commissioner, but maybe
that’s why it gets so much attention, but I don’t think it might be my call. If you use
some sort of herbicide early in the season, which apparently is going to reduce the
43
amount that you have to do, and I think that no matter how many crews we bring to this,
we’ve got, in some of my colleagues’ words, we’ve got to work smart. You can’t just cut
it and cut it. You’ve got to look at other things, and I hope that kind of work will
continue. The reason I say that is I see, for example, Jackson Road, and I pick that
because all politics are local. Between the sidewalk and the curb, whatever that little
crack is called, you know, that apparently grows some of the finest Johnson grass, four or
five feet tall in that small area, that I will put up against District 2 or District 8 or any
District in the City. Am I to tell them that we can expect, for example, on Page 18, the
first line, that that area will be maintained at least in May, in September, and in January?
Is that the way I’m supposed to read this chart?
Mr. Stroud: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: And what, if the coverage is B, and the sequence is 14, which
means -- maybe I wasn’t listening closely enough earlier, but I’m going to seek
clarification on that, Mr. Williams. What does that mean?
Mr. Stroud: B and 14?
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Stroud: Area B and 14 -- if -- remember the map that we briefed off
previously, it’s kind of set up where we’re rotating around the City. Last meeting, we
changed that to location but essentially what it means is, I started at one point, and I work
my way around numerically.
Mr. Shepard: So that particular one would be the fourteenth location, the address
in that cycle or something?
Mr. Stroud: Yes, sir. Not necessarily that Jackson Road is going to be the
fourteenth road, but just that area. I’m sorry, go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: No, I’m searching for understanding here. I like, I think this is --
we’re going in the right direction. I want to vote for it, but somebody asked me how to
explain it, and I’m searching for that guidance.
Mr. Kolb: You need the map in conjunction with the chart that you have in your
books. The map has been divided up into -- help me, Dennis -- eight areas? Eight
districts. Each district has an --
Mr. Hankerson: A, B, and C.
Mr. Kolb: Correct. And within A, B, and C, you also have sequence numbers,
where those locations are. So you’ll be able to go to a map, go to area B and then go to a
number.
44
Mr. Shepard: Well, I mean, I’m certainly going to vote and support this, and I
expect, you know, I expect good things for this, and I compliment you again on using that
kind of approach. But I think we’ve got to work smart and we talk about how we’re
understaffed, and we’re not, you know, we don’t have enough folks. But we do have a
balanced budget, and we do have a fiscal policy this year that I think has been very
appropriate to the times, so, you know, you’re going to have to do with what -- we’re
trying to give you the resources, but we are constrained by budget, and I think this is the
kind of thing we need to implement to get through these kind of times. And I thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I want to add to that. The reason he asked you about the
sequence, because you’re right. We asked, you remember, I questioned you about
changing that to location so that they could understand. But in our book, it’s still saying
sequence, and that’s why he didn’t know what that was. Again, I want to apologize if it
sounds like I was trying to get smart with you with you tell them the district. I was
talking about the A, B, and C, because we don’t have that map available. That’s what I
was saying. I thought you had the map. So they could understand A Area, B Area, and C
Area. Another thing is that Mr. Shepard brought up a point. We talk about all these
streets that’s listed in here. Well, he mentioned that the grass between the sidewalk and
so forth in this area. We talked about going back and refining this with the streets. For
instance, if I, say, look on here and see the street that I live on, well, it’s on here, but I
don’t have any grass that the City’s responsible for for cutting, so in the future, some of
those streets are going to be eliminated, right? That’s what I understand. So we’ll have
less to look at when all of those streets -- if I go to my subdivision, well, they don’t cut in
the subdivision, but those streets are in here. But in your case, there are grass between
the curb and the sidewalk, and I understand you said that you would be cutting in that
area. That’s what you asked --
Mr. Shepard: If I could respond, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: It’s the crack between the curb and the sidewalk is like an inch --
it’s nobody’s yard. It’s like an inch in width.
Mr. Hankerson: I understand.
Mr. Shepard: And that’s why I say it seems to grow more in that little crack than
an entire yard.
Mr. Hankerson: You’re asking him whether they’re going to cut it on this
particular date that’s in this book, right?
Mr. Shepard: Right. Or herbicide it or do something to get rid of it.
45
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. I just wanted to make that point. Another thing that I
want to make clear for all of us to understand, that your area will be cut only three times a
year. We need to know that today. And also, the map is not available to give you a
better understanding of how to identify these areas in here, so Mr. Stroud do have a map
for us that we can identify the A, B, C areas. And, again, I want to commend him, also,
working with this particular plan, the subcommittee, in bringing this schedule up. This is
a great start for us, and we keep fine tuning it, we’ll get to where we need to be.
Mr. Beard: I call for the question.
Mr. Boyles: Not adequate debate, yet.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem. I, too, appreciate a good schedule, but I
do have some concerns, and I think I’d be a little bit remiss if I didn’t share those
concerns of the people of the Seventh District. There are an awful lot of people up in
Vineland and National Hills and Greenbrier and Waverly that live on easements that
border Rae’s Creek. According to this schedule, and according to what the folks have
been told who have called down and shared complaints, this schedule says those
easements will be cut in August, December, and April. That means that they’ve gone
since last year without those easements being cut. And those people have got to look at
those [inaudible] situations from now until August, if this holds up. Of course, December
won’t be too much, as far as cutting in the wintertime, and maybe we can cut a little bit in
April, but those are some of the concerns I have. I was under the impression that when
we started this, there would be -- or when Commissioner Hankerson started this, that
there would be crews assigned, a crew assigned to each district to catch up any kind of
emergency, any kind of complaint that Martha King may get with Augusta Cares. And
what I see is a total schedule, but I don’t see anything that catches the emergencies that I
thought we had talked about.
Mr. Kolb: The sheet that you have, the list of properties, are all City-owned or
City-maintained properties that we have to do. We put them on a schedule. Now, for
complaints, we do have two floating crews that do handle complaints, but they’re dealing
mostly with private properties that we have to go through a process with. If you have an
area that has grown up, what you need to do is call Mrs. King, and she will take care of it.
She will put the complaint in.
Mr. Boyles: But I’ve yet to see on here the easements for the creeks, such as
Crane or Rae’s, or Orange, or creeks that, I think, might be up in the Seventh District. I
don’t see that on here.
Mr. Stroud: What are we looking for, Commissioner?
Mr. Boyles: The easements on creeks such as coming out of Lake Olmstead up
Rae’s Creek behind East Vineland Road.
46
Mr. Stroud: East Vineland is here.
Mr. Boyles: Ramsgate -- East Vineland’s here, the road’s here, but I don’t see
anything concerning, say, the National Woods area down Eisenhower Drive.
Mr. Kolb: Is it publicly owned?
Mr. Boyles: Well, I understand it’s County easements, so --
Mr. Kolb: If it’s not publicly owned -- easements are not publicly owned. We’re
taking care of our properties. The easements would qualify as private property, in many
instances.
Mr. Boyles: So Rae’s Creek is not an easement?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Kolb: Correct.
Mr. Wall: I don’t know about all the creeks, but [inaudible]
Mr. Boyles: Well, I’m asking, probably, for some sort of clarification. Because
I’m being asked those questions, and I know -- they’re just questions that I have, and also
with the schedule -- from August, it’s not going to be touched until August, and they
haven’t been cut since last year, so. I know we’ve had rain, but we’ve had rain before.
Mr. Kolb: I don’t think we can answer that in this meeting. If you want to get
with us, and we can identify those, then we can tell them, we do maintain them, and if we
don’t, if they’re part of the schedule, if they should be part of the schedule.
Mr. Boyles: I just thought I’d ask for the people I represent.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I have a question. [inaudible] in my district, and I’m on
District 4. you have schedules set for May, September, and January. I know we have a
vacant lot that belongs to the County on the same block that I live on. And it has not
been cut. Matter of fact, I would disappear, short as I am, out in the weeds.
Mr. Stroud: As you know, Commissioner, vacant lots are a different story. They
go through, you know, License and Inspection long before they come to us.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: But it’s been in License and Inspections. I know because I
reported it about two months ago.
Mr. Stroud: Okay.
47
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: But this schedule -- if something is listed in May, that
means that you have to wait until September --
Mr. Stroud: Negative. Negative. That’s not what it means. That’s why the
officers are reporting to me weekly. And if there’s something that we fell behind on due
to weather like today, then I got mechanisms in place, and I can be able to tell you, okay,
your district is behind here for two weeks for this reason. We’ll just have to try to catch
you up.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’ll get with you after the meeting.
Mr. Stroud: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek? No, Mr. Williams, and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Williams: I got two points. One is, when we’ve been doing vacant lots and
stuff, when we’ve been going in on properties that’s not City property and building, the
cost to the homeowner, we have dropped the ball, and that, Jim, that’s not getting to the
proper -- it goes on not paying their taxes, like I was thinking they would have.
Mr. Wall: It goes on the lien docket.
Mr. Williams: It goes on the lien docket. And on the lien docket, if they never
sell the property, the City never gets its money. Now, if we going to change some things
that we’ve been talking about some amendments, but we need to do something that those
fines and those costs that the prisoners or the inmates or our own workers go on those
properties and clean those properties, we will always continue to clean them unless we do
something to get the property owner’s attention to know that we’re, you know, we’re not
kidding around, that this is a serious event. We’ve been cleaning other people’s property
and if we never sell those properties, we never get paid. Rob Sherman just inspected a
piece of property here in the Highland Park area where the homeowner was deceased.
The daughter came in and brought their property. And we cleaned it off. They paid the
taxes and was able to walk back in there. When I called to check to see what was going
on with that property, it was a lien, and if they never sell the property, we never get paid.
So we need to look at a way, an amendment to what we got now in order to put those
fines or put those charges in with something. Commissioner Cheek said he thought
[inaudible] if somebody know something --
Mr. Wall: We’ve got the nuisance abatement process, which allows us to put
those, assess those as basically taxes against the property, and we should be in a position
in the future -- and I say in the future, this goes back to sometime last summer, maybe.
Anything that [inaudible] since last summer should be where we can collect it.
Mr. Williams: Well, Rob Sherman, you need to come to the mike, Rob, I’m
going to need you here, but they have not been -- the real estate, property tax don’t even
know when the charge had been made to properties. Someone can go downstairs and pay
48
their real estate tax, and there’s no way for the tax commission downstairs to know
whether or not you’ve got a lien -- Rob, is that right, now?
Mr. Sherman: Yes. The [inaudible] for the overgrown vacant lots, we clean
them, we send them a bill, and we record it as a lien, just a lien against the property --
Mr. Williams: But it do not go to the tax office so they can see. Because once
you pay your taxes, they okay you, is that right?
Mr. Sherman: Well, what actually happens is that we send it to the Tax
Commissioner’s Office. They record it as a lien against the property. But until -- it
doesn’t necessarily have to be paid until the person sells the property. Then it has to be
sold in order to get clear title. The code that we’re using now, in rem foreclosures, this is
a new law under the state nuisance abatement law, and we’ll have three cases before you
on Monday that are coming under this law. Under that law, once we do the demolition,
we ask you to approve an ordinance requesting the Tax Commissioner to put it on the
courthouse steps for sale. Or let me back up. We send them a bill. They have 30 days to
pay it. If they don’t pay it, we buy it in. It goes as a general lien against the property.
It’s a lien against the property, is that right, Jim? But we can buy that in.
Mr. Williams: But you said demolition, now. We’re talking about going in on
properties that have not been demolitioned, some that we cleaned. We send crews and
clean off the property, and bill the property owner. They have not been recorded. There
has not been a process where that goes together.
Mr. Sherman: No. They’re all recorded. They’re all on the books on the fifth
floor as a lien against the property or as a general lien. But it can’t be collected until the
property is sold or until the person willingly pays it.
Mr. Wall: Or we could use the nuisance abatement. The new nuisance abatement
applies to overgrown lots. We can use the same process for overgrown lots that we
[inaudible]
Mr. Sherman: Let me add one thing --
Mr. Wall: We haven’t used this because the focus is demolition, but it can be
used that way.
Mr. Sherman: But with the in rem, with that law, and I think I’m right in saying
this, Jim, we have to take them to the court, and the judge has to order the property owner
to clean it. And, if course, if the property owner doesn’t show, then he can order it to be
cleaned, whereas with the ordinance that we’ve been using, we send the a ten-day notice
that if it isn’t clean, we pass it on to the City crew. And they put it in their work order.
One day, if we use the in rem, it’s going to be a lengthier process.
49
Mr. Williams: I don’t know the process. All I’m trying to get brought to our
attention is that we need to do something because there are at least four pieces of property
we have cleaned with inmate crews in a residential area in Highland Park, that I’m
thinking that those homeowners going be billed for the work that we went in there and
did. Because the neighbors are suffering with it. Now, when this piece of property was
sold in Highland Park recently, and when I called you, Rob, they paid the taxes, but the
Tax Office, and I went to them, they had no record of knowing -- and it may be down on
the fifth floor, this is the first floor that pay the taxes. There was no record showing any
liens. I mean, okay, maybe on the record on the fifth floor. But the bottom floor, when
they came in to pay their taxes, unless they sell the home, we don’t get paid. And this is
something we need to work on, Jim. We need to change that, so if we go on your
property, clean it up, we ought not let the taxpayer bear that burden for somebody else.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’m going to start nice and just ask
for a map, a GIS map of some reasonable size with a schedule for District 6 to post in the
community centers in the area, bulletin boards at grocery stores, to show the public that
we do have a plan, a scheduled maintenance plan and where their neighborhood falls.
Mr. Kolb: We’re going to put together a booklet that has the maintenance
schedules as well as maps in it, and we’ll get those to the Commission as soon as we
figure out how to do it so that map can be -- unless the map is a certain size, if we shrink
it down to a book size, you won’t be able to read it. So we’ll have to figure out how to
blow it up.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you. And the next, the next thing, the only piece of legislation
passed out of Atlanta in the four years I’ve been here was to affix the clean-up of these
properties to the dad gum property tax bill. Now where did staff not get the message
from this Commission that we expected that to be done?
Mr. Wall: That’s not what the legislation did.
Mr. Cheek: That’s what we were told it would do.
Mr. Wall: No.
Mr. Cheek: We were talking about getting these lots cleaned up, we had the
problem two years ago, we were not getting the money back to cover this until they sold
the property, the legislation was supposed to -- and we were told this, it was our
understanding from staff, we were told that this would cover that by affixing this to their
taxes, and if they didn’t pay it at the end of the year then we would foreclose on the
property. Not go through the same damn process we’ve been going through for the last
50 years. Now we expected a little bit more out of this, at least I did. That was the
impression I got, and I’ve been real proud of that. That’s the only piece of legislation
we’ve had since, passed out of Atlanta to support us since I’ve been here. Four years.
50
And it was supposed to. Because this Commission has all, we’ve all dealt with the
problems of these vacant lots and us having to clean them up for some exorbitant price
and not been able to collect a dime on it until they sell it, and if they lived in New York
they could care less. Now we were told that that was going to be done, and it sounds to
me like there’s a process we could follow now to do that, but we’re not following it. Am
I wrong in that?
Mr. Wall: Well, we have not at this point used the in rem foreclosure process on
just lot cleanups. We have been using it on demolitions. And I agree with you. You and
I share some frustration insofar as the, how far along we are on that process, and it’s not
Rob’s fault. It’s, I’ll take the responsibility because it’s a responsibility of the Law
Department to institute those in rem condemnation proceedings.
Mr. Cheek: But we’re two years into this. I mean.
Mr. Wall: I understand.
Mr. Cheek: I mean -- I’ve got a pet turtle that can walk it through faster than that,
Jim.
Mr. Wall: Well, I, I have would have thought the same thing, but I, I spent
several months trying to get those done and was not satisfied with the progress and had to
terminate an attorney as a result of that and move forward with the others and we’ve just
now gone through the first cycle. We’ve now got a process set up where we can do
those. I share your frustration. But that, that is a frustration that is -- we have been
working, trying to get that process moving. And hopefully, as a result of action that y’all
are going to take later today, we are going to have somebody that again is going to be
fulltime on doing that and to move those through.
Mr. Cheek: See, this is a case, and gentlemen, please forgive me, but this is a
case of where we are given, led to one impression based on reports we get, and then we
find out a year-and-a-half later that something completely different is being done or it
hasn’t been done at all or partially done, and two years later.
Mr. Wall: Well, with all due respect, I have advised the Commission periodically
about the frustration that I was having on getting some of that done, and so I think I have
kept the Commission apprised of the fact that I, too, was as equally frustrated as y’all
were insofar as the progress that was being made.
Mr. Cheek: I mean I remember general discussion of general frustration, but not
specific to this, cause I would have been screaming for body parts myself. But no further
questions, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion? We do have a motion and second.
We don’t have a motion?
51
Mr. Hankerson: I make a motion that we approve the plan to implement the,
the plan of implementation of the inmate work crew.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. All in favor of the motion,
please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Speaker: Any further discussion?
Mr. Shepard: Some unreadiness here. And I saw a gentleman out there that
wanted to address this, I thought, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You want to address this issue, sir?
Mr. Shepard: A member of the public.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I know I’m out of order.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Step to the mike and give your name and address for the
record, please.
Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry, I know I’m out of order. My name is [inaudible] and I
live at 219 Lafayette Drive. And the reason I’m asking for an exception to your policy on
people coming up here and speaking to this Commission, I am asking for an
exceptionship policy if you’ll give me a few minutes of your time. I might be dead by
next week because I’m not sleeping at night, I’m seeing my psychiatrist more, I’m
doubling my medicine over the same problems that’s been happening in this county. I --
this gentleman over here, Mr. Kolb, I called him 2-1/2 months ago and I told him about a
problem I was having with a drain line and whatever problems he was having with his
employees, Mr. Russell over there, who came in my house, I invited him in my living
room, and he comes in my house and he asked me to turn around to make sure I don’t
have a gun on me or something, and I had [inaudible] if he wanted a cup of coffee, and I
go in the kitchen to turn off the coffee water, he didn’t want any, and when I got back he
had his hand on his gun, so we, we’re not dealing with civilized people in this
community. I’ve been treated -- I think that inmates in the highest state of prison have
been treated better than myself. Mr. Boyles has been fighting for me for over a year now
trying to get a drain line fixed in my yard where it floods every time it rains, it floods in
my yard. The response that Mr. Boyles just got from Mr. Kolb over here was well, we’ll
discuss it. I know what [inaudible] these discussions never take place, and when they do
take place they are put on, they are put on, they get -- they don’t get done. And if you
don’t min, sir, I had a stroke and my [inaudible] rely on just a couple of notes here, but
the only person that’s really been sincere with me on this whole matter is Mr. Kuhlke.
He, my drain system was flooding, it was stopped up and it was flooding my driveway,
about that much water every time it rained, every time we had a hard rain, and we had a
record rain this year, as you well know. And I been fighting this thing for 15 years since
52
I moved there and it’s time something to be done about it. Mr. Kuhlke got me my
driveway repaired and he got me my drain well fixed. Mr. Boyles said he was going to
take care of it. Mr. Boyles, he meets confrontational people, and “people just aren’t
doing their job” and quote Mr. Kuhlke saying “people are just not doing their job.” And
there’s a lot of people on the roads, the roads and Mr. Stroud, he’s helped me out a lot. I
just recently met this gentleman and he got [inaudible] back and just today I found out
that Mr. [inaudible], the county engineer, [inaudible], is saying that even after they put a
new drain line in on my driveway, leading to the main drain sewer, not a sewer, I’m
sorry, drain line that goes between my property, Mr. [inaudible], I was told by Mr. Stroud
that Mr. [inaudible] put a stop on fixing my pipe, that it, because they county did not own
that pipe, they only were responsible for 8’ in my pipe. I was told that by Mr. Stroud this
morning. Now if that is my pipe, why am I allowing the county to have seven other
houses of flood water to come down the county’s drain line going through my pipe? I
should be charging you guys for the use of my pipe. If that’s my pipe, pay me
[inaudible]. I don’t think it’s my pipe because y’all been out there repairing it and you
set a precedent.
Mr. Cheek: Order of the day.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sir, can we get you together with Mr. Boyles? Who is your
Commissioner?
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get y’all together after this meeting?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir, but I just wanted to let the whole Commission know that
people under these guys are not doing their job and they need to go out somewhere in the
back woods and find them a pond and do some fishing, cause I’m sick and tired of it and
this has been going on for years and years and years, and it’s just come to a head, and
that’s why I’m up here being inappropriate right now, and I’m very sorry, I apologize to
the Commission and I apologize to anyone in here that’s offended by me coming up here,
but something needs to be done. People are not doing their job. Martha King [inaudible]
we care, I’ve called her twice and she’s got amnesia, she said she never talked to me.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. [inaudible]?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me get you with the Commissioners after this meeting.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You’re very welcome.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you.
53
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We do have a voting process on the floor.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, we’re in the middle of it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Voting on it.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting.
Mr. Boyles and Mr. Williams abstain.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
34. Recommendation from the Attorney regarding Ms. Tina Hattaway, Spring
Hill Terrace concerns regarding the concrete parking pad construction on the city’s
right-of-way. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee June 20,
2003)
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] grant the property owner an encroachment agreement, to be
non-exclusive on Spring Hill Terrace, to the extent of the concrete parking pad that’s
already been poured there [inaudible] the property owner will grant to the city [inaudible]
use of [inaudible] including turning around [inaudible] vehicles. This will all be within
the city right-of-way. I will draw up the appropriate legal documents and [inaudible]
survey if necessary to describe the exact extent of the encroachment.
Mr. Shepard: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yeah, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What?
Mr. Williams: Jim, now this is something that Steve had that he dropped over to
me that you got, and before I agree I mean I heard all that, but the, the complaintee, the
lady up here on Spring Hill, is she in agreement with this, is that what you’re saying, that
this is something that --
54
Mr. Wall: Well, [inaudible] literally about that much from this pavement that
she’s poured a concrete pad out in the street.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Wall: That’s the encroachment. And all we’re saying is we’ll let that
encroachment stay there, give her an encroachment permit, but the traffic will still be
allowed to drive on there and she cannot put a cross-tie, which apparently she did at one
time up there, blocking people from driving on that portion of [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I did go out there, as I told you I would, and
that’s the language I came up with as a result of the site visit. Now if you want to share
the problem, Mr. Williams, I’ll be happy to pass it on to you, but I think this will get it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If no further discussion, all in favor of the motion, please
signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Beard out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item?
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
36. Consider a request from Patrick R. Lay regarding an increase in the number
of taxicab passengers they are allowed to transport. (Requested by Commissioner
Williams -no action vote by the Commission June 2, 2003)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. We got a subcommittee
I’d
together, and I did have this on the agenda to go ahead and vote on this today, but
like to have this postponed until the subcommittee come back with a
recommendation.
Not for just this particular item but for a couple of things we looking
at changing. And just do it all at one time, if that’s okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
55
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Beard out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
39. Consider approval of the amendment to the Taxicab Ordinance.
Mr. Cheek: I move to defer to the committee.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Beard out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem:
40. LEGAL MEETING:
??
Discuss pending and potential litigation
??
Discuss personnel matter
??
Discuss real estate matter
??
Consider a claim from Ms. Paula Garnett regarding damages to her
automobile caused by striking a raised manhole in the Laney-Walker Blvd.
Reconstruction Project.
Mr. Williams: A motion to go into legal.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Wall: For the purposes stated there.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor to go into legal meeting.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Beard out.
Motion carries 9-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
56
41. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Wall: Need a motion to authorize the Mayor Pro Tem to execute the closed
meeting affidavit.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting.
Mr. Beard out.
Motion carries 9-0.
42. Approve salary for Staff Attorney I position.
Mr. Wall: I would ask that you approve salary for that position at $72,000.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Beard out.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 8-1.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on July 1, 2003.
________________________
Clerk of Commission
57