HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-02-2003 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
September 2, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:08 p.m., Tuesday,
September 2, 2003, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
Present: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard, Beard,
Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by Rev. Mark Harris.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
RECOGNITIONS:
Mr. Chris Ezernack
Mr. Michael Saxon
RE: Water rescue of Gavin Roberts while swimming in Spirit Creek.
The Clerk: At this time, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we would
like to recognize Mr. Chris Ezernack and Mr. Michael Saxon. Would you please join the
Mayor at the podium, please? This recognition is being given to these young men, a
citizen of character, for exhibiting the character trait of alertness, being aware of that
which is taking place around me so that I can have the right responses. Mr. Saxon and
Mr. Ezernack distinguished themselves for an act of heroism for the rescue of Mr. Gavin
Roberts during a swimming accident at the Spirit Creek in early August. Both of these
gentlemen exhibited selflessness action, reflected great credit on himself, and an example
of good character. Given unto my hand this day of September, 2003, Bob Young.
(A round of applause is given.)
Main Street Augusta
Mr. Chris Naylor
RE: Mr. Jamie Burcham
Dedication of September First Friday in his memory.
The Clerk: Mr. Chris Naylor.
Mr. Naylor: Good afternoon. Mr. Mayor, Commissioners and guests, I’ve been
requested by the board of Main Street Augusta, Inc. to come before you today to ask this
Commission of Augusta Richmond County to dedicate this First Friday in the honor of
Jamie Burcham, dedicated artist, dancer, producer and motivator. Jamie came to the
Main Street board last year with an idea of street performers at First Friday to give
residents the opportunity to see how this art form could add to the atmosphere of the
1
monthly events. The board invited Jamie’s newly-formed group, Behind the Masque, to
perform the following First Friday, and they were an immediate hit. Guests young and
old were mesmerized by the performers and were treated to some of the finest
entertainment we have seen at the event. Over the past year, the group provided new and
innovative performances such as the Marine Monument, dedicated to the World War II
th
soldiers capturing Iwo Jima, Lady Liberty and the talking Lincoln Memorial on the 4 of
July. Jamie epitomized the essence of First Friday. We lost Jamie’s talents, along with
his passion to bring the arts to everyone in the community, with his passing last month.
On behalf of the Main Street board of directors, Behind the Masque troupe, and his
friends, I ask this Commission to formally dedicate September, 2003 First Friday in
Jamie’s honor. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Chris. Is there a motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor then please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Naylor: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All right, take up next the consent agenda.
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 34. That’s items
1 through 34.
For the benefit, if there are any objectors, I will read those petitions, and
if there any objectors to those petitions, would you please signify your objection by
raising your hand?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by William Blue III for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Top of the
Hill Lounge located at 2306 Gordon Hwy. There will be dance. District 4. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 25, 2003)
2. Motion to approve a request by Gary Couillard for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with OMK, Inc. d/b/a Food & Gas located at
1342 Gordon Hwy. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee August 25, 2003)
3. Motion to approve a request by Thomas S. Pak for a retail package Liquor,
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Fulcher’s Package Shop located
at 2458 Windsor Spring Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee August 25,
2003)
2
4. Motion to approve a request by Robert W. Moak for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Barberitos of
Augusta located at 2803 Wrightsboro Rd. There will be Sunday Sales. District 3.
Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 25, 2003)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk. Gentlemen, what is your pleasure
with respect to the consent agenda? And are there any items on the regular agenda you’d
like to add to it?
Mr. Shepard: I move approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Would anyone like to pull any items?
Mr. Beard: 23.
Mr. Mayor: All right, number 23 for Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Clarification on that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Bill?
Mr. Kuhlke: Item number 7. For clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Would you like to pull any other items?
Mr. Bridges: I’ve got a question on 21. What was the source of funding on that
one, George?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we searched the budget and
the only alternative that we can recommend to you is looking at your contingency
account, which has about $3,700 in it. I think Commissioner Shepard could speak to that.
Mr. Shepard: I could. Because we approved it in the Finance Committee. It’s
not the general fund’s contingency, it’s the Commission other’s contingency [inaudible]
and we’ve got $3,700 there so that would be a funding source.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to pull any other items? We have items 7 and 23.
Okay. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: 18.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
3
Mr. Hankerson: I had a question about 21, since I had that on the agenda and the
source of funding. I don’t know.
Mr. Mayor: Do we need to discuss it? We can pull it and discuss it.
Mr. Hankerson: I just want to make sure that I’m not robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t we go ahead and pull that item?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Since the Commissioner has some questions about it.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by William Blue III for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Top of the
Hill Lounge located at 2306 Gordon Hwy. There will be dance. District 4. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 25, 2003)
2. Motion to approve a request by Gary Couillard for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with OMK, Inc. d/b/a Food & Gas located at
1342 Gordon Hwy. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee August 25, 2003)
3. Motion to approve a request by Thomas S. Pak for a retail package Liquor,
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Fulcher’s Package Shop located
at 2458 Windsor Spring Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee August 25, 2003)
4. Motion to approve a request by Robert W. Moak for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Barberitos of
Augusta located at 2803 Wrightsboro Rd. There will be Sunday Sales. District 3.
Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 25, 2003)
5. Deleted from the consent agenda.
6. Motion to approve Change Order No. 2 to Ammar Construction, Inc. for
$19,039.00. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 25, 2003)
7. Deleted from the consent agenda.
8. Motion to accept grant from FAA in the amount of $150,000 for Daniel Field
Airport. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 25, 2003)
9. Motion to accept FAA AIP Grant #26 in amount of $3,512,962 for
Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field. (Approved by Public Services Committee
August 25, 2003)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
10. Motion to approve bid award Municipal Building Snack Bar RFQ# 03-117 to
Fruit ‘N’ Juicy. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 25, 2003)
4
PUBLIC SAFETY:
11. Motion to approve service contract between Augusta-Richmond County and
Augusta Youth Center. (Approved by Public Safety Committee August 25, 2003)
12. Motion to approve acceptance of PetsMart Charities grant in the amount of
$2,000.00 for a trial program involving the implantation of an identification
microchip into pets adopted from Augusta Animal Services. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee August 25, 2003)
13. Motion to approve recommendation to accept the low bid of Corporate
Office Interiors & Designs for furnishings for the new fire stations. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee August 25, 2003)
FINANCE:
14. Motion to approve the transfer of $150,000 from the FY 2003 Contingency
Fund to the Marketing Operating Fund at Augusta Regional Airport. (Approved by
Finance Committee August 25, 2003)
15. Motion to approve the transfer of $50,000 from the FY 2003 Contingency
Fund to the Marketing Operating Fund at Augusta Regional Airport. (Approved by
Finance Committee August 25, 2003)
16. Motion to approve the proposal from Best Food Equipment for a new vent
and hood system in the amount of $14,643.00 for Augusta Regional Airport.
(Approved by Finance Committee August 25, 2003)
17. Motion to approve an adjustment of budgets in HND and General Funds to
correctly reflect funding for inspectors. (Approved by Finance Committee August
25, 2003)
18. Deleted from the consent agenda.
19. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Brush Chipper for the Public
Works Department – Trees & Landscape Division from Vermeer Southeast Sales
and Service, Inc. of McDonough, Georgia for $28,360.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-
111). (Approved by Finance Committee August 25, 2003)
20. Motion to approve the reallocation of $10,000 designated to Project Success
of recaptured UDAG funds to the Southside Outreach Community Program, Inc. in
the amount of $10,000 to continue operation of tutorial outreach program of 65
children. (Approved by Finance Committee August 25, 2003)
21. Deleted from the consent agenda.
22. Motion to approve the increase of 2003 budgeted rent for Housing &
Neighborhood using Urban Services Fund as a source of revenue. (Approved by
Finance Committee August 25, 2003)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
23. Deleted from the consent agenda.
24. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 164, Parcel 21,
which is owned by William Marion Rogers, Jr. for an easement on the Jamestown
Sanitary Sewer Project, Phases II and III, more particularly described as 760
square feet, more or less, of permanent utility and maintenance easement and 724
5
square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 25, 2003)
25. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 132, Parcel 153,
which is owned by Waylon A. Barefoot and Francis B. Barefoot for an easement in
connection with the Augusta Richmond County Drainage Improvements, Phase I
(Elliot Blvd.), more particularly described as 1043.18 square feet, more or less, of
permanent utility easement and 433.73 square feet, more or less, of temporary
easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 25, 2003)
26. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 25-3, Parcel 58,
which is owned by Robert M. McRae and Ann U. McRae for an easement in
connection with the Augusta Richmond County Drainage Improvements, Phase I
(Vassar Drive), more particularly described as 292.27 square feet, more or less, of
permanent drainage, utility and maintenance easement and 486.89 square feet,
more or less, of temporary easement. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee August 25, 2003)
27. Motion to approve the installation of the traffic light at the intersection of
West Wheeler Parkway and Wheeler Road. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee August 25, 2003)
27A. Motion to authorize the Attorney to proceed with obtaining surveys and
appraisals for the secondary access route from Columbia Nitrogen Road. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee August 25, 2003)
28. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 153, Parcel 117,
which is owned by Richard D. Holton, Jr. and Dorinda L. Holton, for an easement
on the Fairington Sanitary Sewer Project, more particularly described as 693.68
square feet, more or less, of permanent utility and maintenance easement.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 25, 2003)
29. Motion to award contract to the only bidder, Empire Tree and Turf, in the
amount of $66,700.00 to prune contract trees and remove contract trees in
downtown Augusta. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 25,
2003)
30. Motion to approve award of contract to lowest bidder, Augusta Stump Master,
in the amount of $26,000.00 to prune 209 trees subject to decline on Greene Street
between the 700 block and the 1500 block and remove 2 decayed trees. The Tree
Abatement Program is funded from the One Cent Sales Tax, (SPLOST) Phase IV,
account number 324062310201160011. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee August 25, 2003)
31. Motion to approve award of an engineering contract from Cranston, Robertson
and Whitehurst, P.C. to design the Spirit Creek Collection System Pump Station
and Force Main and inspect a problematic portion of the Spirit Creek Trunk Line
at a proposed price of $705,920. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
August 25, 2003)
32. Motion to approve naming new road to Public Works and Utilities after Mr.
Benson the first Public Works Director. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee August 25, 2003)
APPOINTMENT:
6
33. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Robert L. Smalley to the
Augusta-Richmond County Human Relations Commission due to the resignation of
Mr. Peter Shirley representing District 3.
33A. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Richard Isdell to the Daniel Field
Aviation Commission to replace Mr. Greg Hodges representing District 5.
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
34. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held August 19 and Special Called Meeting held August 25, 2003.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda, minus items 7, 18,
21 and 23. All in favor of the motion, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, before we vote, can I get some clarification, please? I
didn’t see the Main Street item on here that we talked about in committee and I was
wondering if it was on this.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t know which item you’re talking about.
The Clerk: [inaudible] alcohol?
Mr. Williams: Right, the alcohol.
The Clerk: It’s item 5.
Mr. Williams: Item 5?
Mr. Mayor: You want to pull that?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll pull item 5 for Mr. Williams. And we’ll continue voting
on the consent agenda. We’ve added item 5 to those that are pulled.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, could we got those that are pulled re-read?
Mr. Mayor: Yes. 5, 7, 18, 21, and 23. And we are voting now on the consent
agenda.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Colclough vote No on Sunday sales portion.
Motion carries 10-0. [Item 4]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-3, 6, 8-17, 19-20, 22, 24-34]
Mr. Colclough: Reflect on that I vote no on Sunday sales.
7
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: And the same for me, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, what I’d like to do now is take up item number 40, if
we may. We’ve got some firemen over here for that and they need to get back to the
firehouse.
The Clerk:
40. Discussion of Day Care facility owned by Mr. Robert L. Watkins. (Requested
by Commissioner Kuhlke)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, several weeks ago I had this particular item on the
agenda, and I met with Mr. Watkins concerning some problems he was having with the
Fire Marshal. And the only resolution that I could figure to this would be for Mr.
Watkins to come and present his case before this Commission. I notified Chief Gillespie
that this was going to happen. So I don’t have anything else to say or add to it, so if -- I
guess the Chief can go --
Mr. Mayor: If somebody can give us -- you’re Mr. Watkins?
Mr. Watkins: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Could you give us the background on this, what you need from the
Commission, what you’re asking us to do?
Mr. Watkins: Yes, sir. My complaints were that the Fire Marshal is not using the
codes and the same laws among all day cares and among all contractors.
Mr. Mayor: What are you asking for for your day care?
Mr. Watkins: What I’m saying is, what we -- he wrote me up, I mean the
inspector wrote me for a violation saying that I didn’t have a permit, and I wasn’t the one
that put the doors in. I was the one just standing there. The gentleman right here the one
that put the doors in. He wrote me up. And then the other issue I got is that the Fire
Marshal is using a different law wherever he stop at. He ain’t using the same codes and
the same -- what you call he ain’t using apples and apples.
Mr. Mayor: Well, you’re here for a specific purpose today, and we need you to
articulate to us what that purpose is. What are you asking this Commission to do? It’s
not, it’s not of our interest today what’s going on at some other day care. What do you
8
need to happen at your day care? What do you want the Commissioners to do for you
today?
Mr. Watkins: Treat me the same as they treating other, when they inspecting
other day cares. Treat me the same. Don’t use different laws when you get to me and
different regulation when you get to me. That’s what I’m saying. Make him do likewise.
If he don’t make this day care do something according to the law, don’t make me do it.
Don’t single me out with one law, single me out with the law and don’t make other day
care follow the law, too.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask the Chief, if I may. Chief, what’s your interpretation of
this?
Mr. Gillespie: I haven’t had a chance to meet with this gentleman. He has met
with members of my staff, members in the organization. I think his first concern is really
an issue for Mr. Sherman. Permitting is not from the Fire Department but the
building/construction side. Excuse me, the building code side. As far as a following the
code, [inaudible] for everyone, we certainly agree with that. If we’ve varied from that in
any way, shape or form, we’ll be happy to go out and make any other re-inspections for
businesses this gentleman can point out to us. We want to hold everybody to the same
code. We believe in the code. We believe in what it does for our businesses, for our
citizens that are being protected by the code, and for the jobs that are provided by the
businesses that operate under the code.
Mr. Mayor: Rob, can you add anything to that?
Mr. Sherman: I don’t know if I can, Mayor. We are enforcing the codes the way
that they are written. I think Mr. Watkins is saying that there are businesses out there,
day cares perhaps, that did not have to do the same thing that he’s having to do.
Whenever we have a construction project going on, the work has to be in compliance
with the codes. And that’s where we are. He’s got a project going on, he’s being
required to comply with the codes. It may be a building out there that didn’t have to do
what he’s doing, but more than likely it was constructed at some other time and the
requirement wasn’t there.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: Rob, what was the infraction he’s talking about?
Mr. Sherman: Well, the -- he had to put in a sprinkler system in the building. It’s
a day care. It changed occupancy. Let me go back. It was an office building. Been an
occupancy change. He had to put in a sprinkler system. He was going to do that and he
was going to have to put in the pull-downs, just the alarms at the exit doors. He started to
put those in and he decided not to put in a sprinkler system because it was too expensive.
His other option was to put in I think a door leading from the classrooms to the outside.
He did that. But the code does require you to put in a pull-down, an alarm system at each
9
door. He’s put the doors in. I think the next thing he has to do is provide a safe walkway
from the exterior door to a public place. The code, it leaves some interpretation, and
we’ve said well, if you [inaudible] but you have to be able to walk out the door and not
step down and possibly trip to get around the building to a safe area. We’re at the point
to where I think now all he has to do is go in and put in a little grading to get it so that
when you step out of the door, you’re not stepping down and possibly going to trip under
the [inaudible] requirement.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Kuhlke: Is that the way you understand what needs to be done, Mr. Watkins?
Mr. Watkins: Not -- on my project, that’s right. But what I was, what I was
relating to that, they made me spend a ton of money to get this project up to code and
where it’s unfair trade when you’ve got your competitor spending 1/10 of what you
spending to get up to code. I’m saying that the system should treat all contractors and all
people the same when they out there doing building. Because an inspector can break a
contractor if he start using different means of inspecting out there in the field.
Mr. Kuhlke: Let me ask you this. If I’m hearing Mr. Sherman correctly, you
have done everything you need to do with the exception of doing some grading on the
outside so that you’ve got easy access out of the outside doors to a safe area. Is that
correct?
Mr. Watkins: That’s pretty near correct.
Mr. Kuhlke: How many yards of dirt is it going to take for you to put out there
and grade it off?
Mr. Watkins: It ain’t going to take that many yards of dirt.
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, one thing that you need to understand is that, it appears to me
that you are pretty much where you want to be, with the exception of putting that dirt
there. And if you do that, then get your CO to go ahead and start operation. We can’t
compare a new facility to one that’s been existing and may be non-conforming. We can’t
necessarily go back on those people that got their permit or certificate of occupancy a
number of years ago. But I think, you know, but we also, we also have to uphold the
codes that we basically approved on this Commission. So if, if we tell you today that if
you go out, if the building inspector tells you, you go out, you put your dirt, you grade it
off, then you are going to get your CO, is that the way I understand it, Rob?
Mr. Sherman: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: And if it’s not going to take much dirt, then I make a motion that if
you comply with what he’s asking you to do that we give you a certificate of occupancy.
10
Mr. Watkins: But, sir, it goes a step further than that. What’s happening is when
certain contractors be on certain jobs, the inspector will hold us to the letter to make us --
see, when you go out and bid on a job, you get what -- you call the inspector out and tell
him to tell you everything you need to do before you bid on the job. After you bid on it,
and set a price, then the inspector change in the middle of the stream. I’ve got three
different, four different inspection letters that he made us do that runs deep in the hole.
See, what I’m saying is, if I’m a contractor and another contractor out there, he can bid
$5,000 or $10,000 less on every job because he can by the inspector where I can’t, and
that’s unfair trade practice. That’s something that --
Mr. Mayor: Wait a minute. I’m going to step you right here because I’m not
going to have you coming into this chamber and saying that our inspectors are treating
people differently without you telling us what inspector, what job. You turn that
information over to Mr. Kolb and we’ll investigate it.
Mr. Watkins: I sure will.
Mr. Mayor: But you’re not going to come into this chamber and besmirch or any
way impugn on the integrity of the Inspections Department and go unchallenged. I can
assure you of that. So if you have that specific information, you give that to Mr. Kolb,
and I assure you that we’ll take a look at it and everybody is being treated the same.
Mr. Watkins: I will give it to him. That’s all I have to say. Just treat me the
same as you treat other builders. And I turn that over to Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, right.
Mr. Watkins: Okay, I will take care of that.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Watkins: That’s all I need to say. I will take care of that.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move that we receive this as information.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Let me just ask the question while the chief is here. My concern is, I
know we dealt with the building side of it, but -- and I want to be consistent on where
I’ve been through three governments. Are we having to deal with any waiving in terms
11
of the fire side of any requirements that are in here? Cause I live with the motion in
terms of this satisfying what’s over in Rob’s side in terms of the building code. But are
we being asked in a facility housing children to deal with waiving any requirements? Are
you all safe with where we are going with this without having to waive anything?
Mr. Gillespie: Commissioner Mays, I appreciate your question. We are very
concerned about that, also, as I know the owner would be and we appreciate your
question. We are comfortable with what has been taken care of.
Mr. Mays: And I wasn’t trying to add anything else to your burden, but it’s a fact
I wanted to make sure from the fire side and that this motion was clear on that. And that
was my reason for asking the chief, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion on the floor. All in favor of
that motion to receive it as information, please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 5.
The Clerk:
5. Motion to approve an ordinance amending Augusta-Richmond County Code
Section 6-2-5 so as to regulate consumption of alcohol at parks, playgrounds, public
streets and public areas owned or operated by Augusta and waive second reading.
(Approved by Public Services Committee August 25, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked that this be pulled.
Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I did. We added a couple of different parks to
this list, and I wanted to add Savannah Place to the list, as well. It’s probably one of the
most used areas in that area and building a new facility. I know that it’s going be one of
those centers that we need to add that to that list. I have no problem, I did not do this in
committee, but thinking about it I want to add them to that list, as well.
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve with the addition mentioned by
Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: And is there unanimous consent to waive the second reading? Okay,
we have a motion for approval. It’s been seconded, with the addition of Savannah Place,
and waiving the second reading. Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, was I next?
12
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: I wanted to ask a place, dependent on the answer is whether I will
waive the second reading. In my book, you have a prohibition in these areas except in
accordance with subsection (b) and (c). Is mine not renumbered? I don’t have a (c). I
mean I --
Mr. Wall: A disadvantage of WORD. It always -- I apologize. Try to number it
on the computer and it will print it out wrong every time.
(Laughter)
Mr. Shepard: So what is (c)?
Mr. Wall: The paragraph “it shall be unlawful” is subparagraph (a); (a) is (b); (b)
is (c); (d), (e) and (f) are correct. My apologies. I didn’t catch that. I changed it and
every time I printed it out --
Mr. Shepard: I share your frustration with word processing.
(Laughter)
Mr. Shepard: But I kind of would like to know what I’m voting on, too. Could
you get a copy of it up here before the end of the meeting so we can see what --
Mr. Wall: Be happy to.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to table this?
Mr. Shepard: I’d like to just table it so we know what we’re voting on.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second to the motion to table this?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll second it.
Mr. Cheek: Can we conclude discussion pending the paper and let discussion be
handled now and then wait until we get it back for the vote?
Mr. Wall: Well, Savannah Place is already included. Savannah Place is included
in the ordinance and in the book.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to table. That’s non-debatable, isn’t it?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
13
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of tabling this item until Mr. Wall comes back with a
corrected version, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Mays: This will be handled today?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. He’s headed for his computer right now, Mr. Mays.
(Vote on motion to table)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: All the people who have come here for this item, just stay where you
are. As soon as Mr. Wall gets an accurate copy of this generated for us to look at, then
we’ll, I’m sure, pull the item off the table. All right, Madame Clerk, we’ll move to item
number now.
The Clerk:
7. Motion to approve the low bid from RCN, Inc. in the amount of $587,000 for
construction of a gymnasium at Savannah Place Park and to approve transferring
$50,000 from Chafee Park (SPLOST Phase III), $25,000 from Gordon Lakes
(SPLOST Phase III) eliminate $50,000 funding from the Augusta Canal
Improvements (SPLOST Phase III) and have the Administrator come back with a
source of funding for the remaining balance for the Savannah Place Park.
(Approved by Public Services Committee August 25, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, you asked for this one.
Mr. Kuhlke: I did. You said it was an addendum sheet that has been passed out
over here? That probably answers my question.
Mr. Mayor: Well, in the motion we’ll need to approve option A or option B or
option C, or if you want to do a combination of something else. Come back to you, Bill?
Mr. Kuhlke: No. That answers my question.
Mr. Mayor: While he’s looking at that, let’s go to Mr. Bridges. Ulmer has his
hand up.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Are we waiting on a motion, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Well, we need a motion on it, and any discussion.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. Tom, could you discuss the differences in A and B? I’m
particularly looking at the lock and dam. Is that not going to affect that project if we go
with option B? How would that affect the lock and dam project [inaudible]?
14
Mr. Beck: Everything in option B, all of these balances are actually from
SPLOST Phase III funds, and they’re actually funds that we have held in contingency for
each of those parks. The main and majority types of repairs and upgrades have already
done from SPLOST Phase III. Also some Phase IV monies were in those parks and we
have completed those. So these monies were actually being held in contingency for any
emergencies or things that might come up. But there really are no specific items for
those parks that we’ve got on tap right now.
Mr. Bridges: The Phase III fund balance, Jim. Which if these did we discuss in
committee? Was it strictly (A) that we discussed in the committee the other day?
Mr. Beck: I believe the option that you had in committee included Gordon Lakes,
Chaffee Park, and there was discussion about the Augusta Canal improvements that I
think was taken out.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Mayor, I just make a motion that we approve Option A.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Further discussion? All in favor of that
motion, then please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think Commissioner Hankerson had his hand up.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, I didn’t see your hand.
Mr. Hankerson: The motion is -- I may not need to say anything. The motion is
to approve Option A, Gordon Lakes and Chafee Park, Phase III? That’s okay.
Mr. Mayor: All right. All in favor --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Mays: Let me just ask this then. Since we’ve had a lot of discussion about
fund balance and I’m not going -- let me just say this. I’m going to vote for the motion
that’s on the floor. I’m tempted to make one just on Option B, to have two of them to go
on, and for this reason. We, last week we got greeted with a lot of things. We got
greeted with a shrinking tax digest, we got greeted with the possibilities of shortfall of
what we’re dealing with, and we’re going to have some serious issues to deal with in
terms of how we go into our fund balance. Now my question is, if the director has done a
diligent job in terms of going through on projects where there is a contingency and it’s
still contained within the described department, would it not be more prudent to stay
15
within the described department if he knows that he can work those projects in and be
able to do them, as opposed to now starting your first near-$100,000 raid on fund
balance? And I’m just posing that as a fundamental question in reference to how we start
dipping into fund balance. I think he’s given us a choice. Had a choice last week. We
realized that one might interfere with some project monies for matching, and so they kind
of back off of that one. They kept two and I think they feel safe with the two that they’ve
got. But they’ve got four to five others that’s out there and I’m definitely, and I’m going
-- if I make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, I’m thinking about voting for both of them.
But I just wanted to maybe hear that from Commissioners to a point that they know, do
they know where they are going with the $97,000 on fund balance, as opposed to going
within and staying within the same category and dealing with the recreation projects and
these are recreation projects, and you’re not going out of that. Is it better to deal there?
And I’m just throwing that out because I’ve heard a zillion questions about fund balance,
not wanting to do it, it was a no-no, and if we’re taking this now as the option, will this
then open the door for everything that you’re going to need money for? And I’m just
wondering if it’s not better to go with Option B? And I’d like to hear maybe from some
people, particularly on Finance Committee, because you all are going to get caught with
it first. Whether you want to deal with going to fund balance today on this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mays, this is SPLOST fund balance, which doesn’t
impact the General Fund fund balance or any other operating funds. It’s SPLOST fund
balance.
Mr. Mays: I read that without my 250’s. When I see fund balance, I look for
money. Period. And so therefore I’m going -- it doesn’t necessarily have SPLOST on
there, it’s just got fund balance there. I missed [inaudible]. I can live with that if we
figure we’ve got a consensus of six, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to stop while I’m ahead.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: But I wanted to throw that out there. But I just wanted to make sure
you knew where you were going if you were going to deal with that option.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays, for bringing that to our attention. Any further
discussion? We’ll go ahead and vote then. All in favor of the motion to approve Option
A --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Can I ask this question since they found that out of fund balance? It is
in the recreation category in Phase III recreation or buildings?
16
Mr. Kolb: Is David here?
Mr. Persaud: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kolb: It is? Is that a recreation or is it under general fund balance? General
Phase III SPLOST fund balance.
Mr. Mays: But I mean within the building category or the recreation category,
right? Jim, you know where I’m coming from on this. And I’m not arguing with it.
Mr. Persaud: We do not differentiate in the fund balance [inaudible] the total
project fund balance, the combination of [inaudible] expenditures.
Mr. Kolb: So it is out of -- your question is -- the answer to your question is, it’s
out of the total fund balance for SPLOST III.
Mr. Wall: And Mr. Mays’ point is correct. Following the resolution, it would
come out of the same category before it’s taken out of the overall [inaudible]. That’s the
way the resolution for Phase III is drafted.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, for the sake of debate, I’m going to make a substitute
motion to go with Option B. I think we need to hear a little bit about that.
Mr. Bridges: Second it.
Mr. Mayor: Well, wait a minute. We’ve already got six votes. The motion has
been approved.
Mr. Mays: But if we misuse some SPLOST money, I think you are going to want
to go back to Option B. And the Attorney is speaking to us, if we’ll listen, Mr. Mayor --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, if you’ll listen to me for half a second, I’m going to
ask if you’d make a motion to reconsider and then we can deal with the motion on
B.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Just trying to follow procedure, that’s all.
Mr. Mays: Okay, no problem, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. All in favor of reconsidering --
Madame Clerk, if you’d clear that, then we’ll take a vote to reconsider and then we’ll do
it like we should.
17
The Clerk: This is a motion to reconsider?
Mr. Mayor: This is a motion to reconsider. Okay.
(Vote on motion to reconsider)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, the item is [inaudible] for reconsideration. Mr. Mays, you
want to make a motion?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I just mainly, if I could yield first to the Attorney for the
clarification purpose of the motion. I just want to make sure that we are categorically
correct and that there is no differentiation about where we are going with sales tax
money, particularly with one on the horizon. I just want to make sure we’re clear on that.
That’s all.
Mr. Wall: Well, the order in which the money is to be moved is within the same
category as the first choice, and where the amount of the proceeds to pay the cost of a
project within a category -- let me start over. The use of the tax proceeds to pay costs of
projects within a category may be shifted between projects within that category as needs
dictate and as the board of Commissioners, and this is ’95, in its discretion shall
determine. If not all of the tax proceeds allocated to a particular category expended for
the completion of projects in that category, such surplus funds may be transferred for use
on projects in one or more of the other categories. And so the first shifting of the funds
should be within the categories and the different categories, obviously one of them was
recreation, one of them was public buildings, one of them was for roads, streets and
bridges. And so the first shifting of funds should be within that category. And Option B
accomplishes that purpose.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question would be on Option A, under the
third source of SPLOST III funds then, in that move in going there, would it have to be
defined further than where it is in terms of whether it’s an overall surplus in SPLOST III
or whether it’s an overall surplus in recreation and building Phase III. And if we’re on
legal ground to do it, I don’t have a problem with it, Mr. Mayor, but I just thought this
would be a good test to get it clear right now. Cause we don’t need to end up to a point --
it needs to be clear now. It doesn’t need to be a citizens’ challenge later on to a point
where we dipping somewhere and taking $97,000. And I just want the clarification on it.
I want the project done, but I want to make sure we are not going to come up two or three
weeks from now and say, well, we got to go into another category to get the money.
Mr. Wall: In my opinion, the proper way to do it is to choose Option B. The
$97,000 [inaudible] across all the different categories. Those monies have not been
allocated at this point. You’ve had a second tier of projects in the event there were
monies available, extra monies to go into the tier II projects. However, you’ve not
completed all of the Phase III projects at this point. And one of the tasks that we’ve been
18
assigned insofar as Public Works is concerned is to look at the overall fund, funding in
Phase I, II and III, and determine whether or not there is [inaudible]. And then it would
be possible to go back and reallocate funds at that point. But you’ve not made that
determination yet. Option B is the proper course at this point.
Mr. Mays:
Mr.Mayor, hearing that, like Chris Rock said, he doesn’t want to be
I make a
the oldest man in the nightclub, I don’t want to be the oldest man in jail.
motion that we go with Option B.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that?
Mr. Beard: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Further discussion? Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I’d like to know, Mr. Mayor -- I know that Option B is now
the option we’re considering, but in Option A, is that within the relevant category, the
reference to Phase III fund balance, is that within the relevant subcategories of SPLOST
or is it all the way across it?
Mr. Wall: It’s all the way across it. Mr. Persaud, correct me. It’s money in all
the different categories that have not been allocated.
Mr. Shepard: Well, shouldn’t we have a tab on that, in terms of what --
Mr. Wall: We should. And we’ve been directed -- we being the Administrator
and the Finance Department and myself -- have been directed to bring that back to a
committee, I guess it was Engineering Services Committee, bring that information back.
Mr. Shepard: Well, then if we are going to make sure where our fund balances
are by category, the Option B funding would take away from other projects. Are those
projects substantially complete or not? I mean were these monies left over, for example,
in a lock and dam Phase III and Sue Reynolds work has been done?
Mr. Beck: Yes, that’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: The work has been done and it’s under budget in those areas?
Mr. Beck: That’s correct. These monies we were holding in contingency for
emergencies.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: My question would be to the staff. How did we get Option A in front
of us today if we can’t legally do Option A? Why are we even having this discussion?
19
Mr. Persaud: The fund balance recommendation is based on the excess of
revenues. All the projects are fully funded at the authorized level. That’s [inaudible]
accumulated money over and above all the projects. [inaudible] that’s all it is. It’s not
money from no project savings.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I understand that, Dave, but you’ve heard what the Attorney
said.
Mr. Persaud: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: And so --
Mr. Persaud: I just wanted to explain to you.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor. Any further discussion? Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just want to say, in that information, it does come back
to Engineering Services and I’d like to have this adjustment made to where monies
available are only monies legally spent within the drainage category.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: I just wanted to ask a question. What happened with the idea of
the $50,000 coming from Augusta canal improvements? I notice, I notice that Bayvale
Park is on here and I have another project going on on Meadowbrook, and I just want to
know where the funds are, how would that affect the Meadowbrook project? Cause no
one has said anything to me prior to this new proposal here. I was ready to support the
one that’s been in the book.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, in answer to Commissioner
Hankerson’s question, at the Finance Committee meeting there was a concern as to taking
the monies from the Canal Authority due to the fact that they had a grant that they had
applied for where this money would be used to match it. Therefore, we were asked to
come back with a recommendation, which you have in front of you, that would eliminate
the appropriation from the Canal Authority. With respect to the park projects, as I
understand -- well, I don’t see Meadowvale on the list, and Bayvale, as I understand it,
from what Mr. Beck is saying, that project --
Mr. Speaker: Meadowbrook.
Mr. Kolb: Meadowbrook. Okay. Meadowbrook is not on the list. Bayvale is a
project that has been completed.
Mr. Hankerson: The reason I was asking, because yes, the project has been
completed, but if there were not enough funds or is there enough funds to do
20
Meadowbrook, if I had money was allocated there to Bayvale, be the same thing, be
transferred to complete that project; is that correct?
Mr. Kolb: We’re not prepared to answer that at this time. I don’t, I’m not aware
of any requests for additional funds from Meadowbrook, for Meadowbrook.
Mr. Hankerson: Is it normal procedure that -- and I’m asking this for information
-- is it normal procedure with this information that we’re receiving since it affects another
Commissioner’s District that you discuss it or a courtesy call and say this is what we’re
doing?
Mr. Beck: Any lack of communication I’ll take responsibility for. I was out of
town last week. So if any Commissioners were not responded to appropriately then I take
responsibility for that. But I was out of town last week.
Mr. Hankerson: I just wanted to make sure I won’t let $17,000 hold up the
project, cause I know I can get that, more than that from Mr. Williams later on.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: All right, anything further? All in favor of the motion, then, and this
is Option B, please vote in the affirmative.
(Vote on motion to approve Option B)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, a little clarification now. I appreciate those votes and
the efforts to go ahead and get Savannah Place started. But Tom, I would like to get with
you. We voting to approve the monies and the award, the bids. I’d like to see what, you
know, just where we are and just what our plans are for that before we start breaking
ground.
Mr. Beck: I’ll give you a call and we’ll get together and I’ll show you.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item 18, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
18. Motion to approve sale of surplus benches and tables to the Augusta Canal
Authority for $1.00 subject to no other city department needing them. (Approved by
Finance Committee August 25, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you asked this one be pulled.
21
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I think that the proposal that came to us from the
Canal Authority was a worthy proposal and I think it’s one that we still have equipment
that’s there that they can use. One of the things that came up during that time, and the
reason why [inaudible] city department was that we’ve got some of the Transit sheds that
are under contract and those that are covered. However, we do have a lot of them that
persons either stand or they sit on the ground, where there is no particular bench, and I
realize every one can’t be covered and lighted. But to a point that there are some in some
major thoroughfares. And that was why I suggested that maybe to a point that if they
could use some of them, and if it was within their budget, and if we could use in-house
labor or inmate labor to be able to repair them and get them to first class use, that we
might need to look that way. And I think that the persons from Transit are here in
reference to that particular item to maybe they and Recreation have had some dialog and
have gone over to look at that equipment. And that’s not to knock anything of going to
the Canal Authority, but I just thought to a point that if we’ve got an existing department
and we’ve got people -- and I use the classic example, I don’t mind a person sitting in
front of my building in the brick [inaudible] every day. They use it to catch the bus and
it’s good. But it’s not where the bus stops. But they have to use it, and then when they
leave the Health Department, and I realize we’ve got a $7 million investment right in that
particular building alone, where people may leave, they may have a small child, and you
know, on one side there is no bench there, on the other side I got a vacant lot that they
probably clean about you know, to the -- it’s up now to about 12’ or 15’ high. And I saw
a lady the other day -- the little brick molding that runs around the edge of the lot, you
can no longer sit on it because the grass has overtaken it. So right in the vicinity of where
we’ve expended $7 million, we’ve got buses stopping on both sides, and that’s just one
situation that’s not hypothetical, it’s real. And that was why I asked Transit to take a
look at this from the standpoint that it might be something that they could use and could
share with the Canal Authority in terms of doing this, particularly with the benches. And
I think they, they may have some input, Mr. Mayor, that’s better than mine in terms of
looking at it. But I just looked at that one glaring example.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb:
Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, at the direction of the
Finance Committee, we went back to the staff and asked if there were any other
departments that could use the benches, picnic tables, whatever that were being offered or
recommended for sale to the Authority. There has been at least been one response, and
that is from Transit, and they are requesting that they use several of the benches to be
used at the various bus stops around the, around Augusta. What -- and there may be
other departments that we just -- it’s only been a week and they are reviewing their
What I would recommend to the Commission is that we give first
particular needs.
order of refusal to the departments of Augusta and after that has been exhausted
and they have taken what they have, if there are any benches left, then we offer
those to the Canal Authority.
At this time, I think -- it looks as though Transit is going
to take the bulk of the equipment.
22
Mr. Mays: Unless Transit has something -- George, you’re speaking for the entire
--
Mr. Kolb: Yes.
Mr. Mays: That’s your proposal and through Transit in order to do it at this time?
I have no problem with that. As I say, I think it was [inaudible], I’m glad the Canal
Authority, in terms of bringing it up. And I do believe there will still be equipment for
them to use. But if no one has seen them, they are the historic benches that went on
Riverfront in the very beginning. They look good. They’ve got the [inaudible] has to be
repaired, but it’s got the original date of history of the city of Augusta that’s on those
benches, and I just think to a point if they can be used for citizens that we’ve already got
that are standing, then that’s a good idea. And then we still will work with the Canal
Authority once that’s been done. So I’m pleased with it, Mr. Mayor. I have no problem
with it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I did go by and look at those, those
benches and those tables. I don’t know whether or not we can use the tables because I
don’t know what area we may be able to use those in, but those benches, like Mr. Mays
described, Mr. Mayor, does have the dates on them. They are made out of steel, meaning
that the bottom frame and legs are steel, and they do have those wooden type railing for
the bottom and backs. But we got a number of areas around Augusta where our Transit
runs which have no place for people to, to sit. And you know, I’m all in favor of sharing
them with any other department, but I think if Transit either use inmate service or in-
house service or something of that magnitude, would be a great asset to Augusta. With
the historic type of structure on those benches and what they are made out of, they would
be there forever. I know people say well, they going to tear them up. Yeah, I don’t care
where they go, if they go up on the river, on the Canal Authority, they going [inaudible]
we ain’t going to know until they’re gone. But if they downtown, we at least can keep an
eye on what’s going on through our Transit, through our bus drivers and our local -- the
Sheriff’s Department and other department, Mr. Mayor, and that’s all. But I did take a
look at them and I think they’re quite unique. I think it’s part of our history that we want
to keep visible around Augusta. So I support it 100%.
Mr. Mayor: We need a motion.
Mr. Mays: I’ll so move the Administrator’s recommendation be approved.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor then please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
23
Mr. Mayor: We’ll take up item 21 next, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
21. Motion to approve $1,000 appropriation for Community Partnership
Children Week to cover the use of amphitheater and 8th Street Plaza in October
subject to the Administrator finding a funding source. (Approved by Finance
Committee August 25, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, you had some question about the source of the
funding.
Mr. Hankerson:would make a motion
I received my information I needed, so I
that we approve this.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Further discussion? All in favor then please
vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 23.
The Clerk:
23. Motion to approve the installation of additional street lights entering the
National Hills Subdivision with installation costs in the amount of $9,900 to be
funded from the Washington Road Sidewalks Project and the ongoing maintenance
and energy costs, currently $900 annually, to be funded by National Hills
Neighborhood Association. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August
25, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, you asked this be pulled.
Mr. Beard: Just for clarification, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Beard: I didn’t quite understand it and maybe someone can explain to me
how this is being done, because we can move from one fund to the other -- what are we
doing here? And maybe I just don’t understand it. But if someone can explain it to me,
what we’re doing here. Because I have no objection to this since it appears that what I’m
seeing here that they’re going to pay the annual cost of this, the neighborhood
association? George, you want to explain this to me, what we’re doing? I guess I’m
trying to get some ideas if this could be used in other areas, not this particular one, but I
24
think it’s a good, maybe it’s a good thing that we could shift funds around like this if it’s
a [inaudible] project or what-have-you. But if we’re going to do it here, I think we ought
to be able to do it in other areas. And I just want some clarification on what we’re doing
here.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, this particular item was
brought to our attention by Commissioner Boyles on behalf of the neighborhood
association to put some decorative lights in the median at this particular intersection and
entrance into the National Hills association neighborhood. Mr. Boyles proposed to take
the monies out of funds in SPLOST that were set aside for sidewalks on Washington
Road which cannot be used at this time. That would pay for the installation of the lights.
The annual cost was proposed to be taken out -- originally to be taken out of the general
street lighting fund but the Finance Committee directed that a special street lighting
district be set up in the National Hills Neighborhood Association and at the annual cost
for operation and maintenance of the lights be taken out of that service district.
Mr. Boyles: That was in Finance?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Kolb: Engineering Services, I’m sorry. Not Finance. Came out of
Engineering Services.
Mr. Boyles: Engineering Services [inaudible]. Lighting district. Engineering
Services.
Mr. Kolb: Did I say it right?
Mr. Cheek: The intent -- Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: The intent was -- the Commission, the committee felt that for this to
be charged back to the general fund when this was lighting over and above the lighting
that already exists, that it would be better served not to set a precedent with this, but to
allow it to be charged back if there was an existing National Hills lighting district for the
lights within the neighborhood, that it would be charged back to that account as part of
that neighborhood’s lighting.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, can I get some clarification from probably Georgia
Power, I guess, but I thought that the street lights -- and I’m in support but I just want to
get some clarification. But I thought the street lights was something that Georgia Power
would tax our taxpayer rather than the --
25
Mr. Kolb: You want me to explain?
Mr. Williams: Yeah.
Mr. Kolb: Georgia Power maintains, for the most part, our street lighting system,
and they charge us for it. So we pay for it out of city funds. Most of it -- well, there are
several ways that we raise monies to pay for it. One is through a general tax for those
street lights that are on major thoroughfares that the general public normally uses. The
other way is through street lighting districts that are set up in neighborhoods, for the most
part, and then put on as a special assessment against their property taxes. So no, Georgia
Power does not -- and I think I know where you’re going. If they charge either in the
electric bill that goes to consumers -- they don’t. that is charged directly to us as their
custom.
Mr. Williams: So the only thing we’re doing is setting up, and with this, the
National Hills situation, the only thing we’re doing, we’re setting up a decorative lighting
initiative to get started and once we --
Mr. Kolb: We’re paying for the initial installation of decorative street lights.
After that, the annual operation and maintenance costs will be charged back to the
neighborhood street lighting district.
Mr. Beard: I wasn’t that much interested in that part. The only part that I was
interested in, George, was that [inaudible] SPLOST [inaudible]?
Mr. Kolb: Correct.
Mr. Beard: That was my concern because if we can do it up there, I want to be
able to do it in certain other areas of the city. So we are able to shift these SPLOST funds
kind of wherever we want to as long as they’re in the same category? That was my point.
Mr. Kolb: That’s what happened in this case.
Mr. Mayor: Any other questions?
Mr. Beard: And we’re on legal grounds with that, I assume, Jim?
Mr. Kolb: I will say yes until the Attorney tells me different.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll take the Attorney’s silence as agreement. Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Shouldn’t it say that, shouldn’t it say that the energy costs are to be
funded by the district, not the association?
Mr. Kolb: Yes.
26
Mr. Shepard:
Our caption says association. I think there’s a difference between
I move to amend the caption so that it is -- the annual cost is charged to the
them.
National Hills Neighborhood Lighting District.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We don’t have a motion yet, do we?
Mr. Shepard: I just made it.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Shepard: That it be approved with that stipulation.
Mr. Mayor: And it’s been seconded. Any further discussion?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, just let me, let me take the opportunity to thank Ms.
Smith for her help and Eric’s help in working on this project. It’s been a long time and
they had to find a way to work it out and they did and I appreciate that.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, I need to point out to you that this street lighting district
does not exist. We will have to create it.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Kolb: And I guess the question is who goes in it?
Mr. Mayor: Don’t you have to get petitions in there? Procedure? You’re shaking
your head.
Mr. Wall: We can set them up, we can set them up without petitions. [inaudible]
public safety reasons and other things. I’m sure this is not necessarily a public safety
issue, although it may be. I’m not sure. But we do have the authority to set up service
districts.
Mr. Williams: So we won’t need, we won’t need a petition, is that what you’re
saying, Jim? Is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Wall: Do not need a petition.
Mr. Williams: Do not need, okay.
Mr. Wall: But you’re going to have to decide who all is included in it, it’s not an
already-existing district.
Mr. Mayor: Bring that back? Andy, can you shed some light on this?
27
Mr. Cheek: Well, I think the definition of National Hills should be defined, I
guess by their association and the reach of that association within that area. May need to
communicate with them. But also I was going to look at a time frame for when we could,
you know, have this stuff done. Months, days, years, or whatever. You know, I mean
just realistically where the Commissioner from that District will have a date where we
can go back and say by this day you will have lighting.
Mr. Kolb: We can come back to you with that information. I don’t think we can
give it to you now since you’re just initiating a project. I can’t tell you design, how long
it’s going to take for installation. However, I would ask if the Commission, you want to
consider, is that the moving forward of this petition would be contingent upon creating
such a street lighting district, cause we’re still going to have to go back to the
neighborhood association and determine who would be included in this district.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: I’d like to amend my motion to have the Administrator and
the Attorney, whoever needs to be, Public Works, to define the district that this is
going to be levied in.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to the amendment to the motion? None is
heard so the amendment will stand. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Clarification, Mr. Mayor. What, what are we -- I mean I’m not
even sure now the lighting, the decorative lighting that was mentioned, now we talking
about the association, now we talking about the district. Are we talking about decorative
lighting where? When? How many? Is it just going to be the entrance of what? Where
are we with this? I heard the word decorative lighting and then we talked about entrance.
Now we got to go back to the association, we got to go back to -- are we talking the entire
subdivision? What are we talking about?
Mr. Kolb: Let me read from the backup. This request involves adding four
additional street lights to an approximately 150’ section of the entrance to the National
Hills Subdivision off of Washington Road.
Mr. Williams: That’s going to [inaudible] to four?
Mr. Kolb: Four decorative street lights.
Mr. Williams: You answered my question, George.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Mays.
28
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me, let me, not to put any words in his mouth. He can
do that himself and eloquent with it. But let me, let me, let me help my colleague here to
my left a little bit. He came with an honest proposal to do something that would enhance
a part of his District that’s in there and I just want to make sure we’re not, we’re not
sending him back as the bearer of an albatross around his neck to a point that, you know,
it’s kind of like you describe it sometime you just started off with a simple, you know,
four-legged dog and it grew two more legs and we ought here with it now with six, seven,
th
and he’ll be the one going back into the 7 and deal with this. I’m just, I’m just
wondering what, you know, where is that going. I thought we kind of had this resolved I
thought in the committee from the standpoint that part of this was doable and the other
part needed to be amended and maybe we need to find out from him whether or not this is
something that’s, you know, what he kind of would like for us to do and at least have the
language to a point we don’t send him back to a point that looks as though he started off
with something good, then he comes back and has to take it back home and then, you
know, folk start throwing darts at him for trying to get something progressively done.
And then it ends up in a different fashion. That’s all, I just wanted to see us do. And I
guess what I need clarity on did I hear that in the first part of it that the funding shift
could not be done in terms of getting the actual ??
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: The first part’s okay?
Mr. Wall: The first part’s okay but the ongoing maintenance cost is the issue, and
this is worded -- [inaudible] contract between the association and the City where they
would pay the annual cost. Now we’re talking about a street light district, so then you’ve
got to adopt a resolution that defines who all is included in that district and so you can
figure out the pro rata cost. And how each taxpayer is going to be taxed.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Cause what I’m looking at is that if you, are you talking about
down in the District or the subdivision or, you know, are you talking about the also
commercial properties that surround it that benefit from the enhanced median-way that
goes down the center? And not just National Hills down in the subdivision. You know, I
don’t have a vote down in there but I got friends down in there and I’m just trying to find
out, you know, where that’s going. Are we putting it like we’re doing with the other
street light districts and so that they will know what they are actually getting and what
they’re not getting? Cause what I’ve seen recently with lighting districts is that we
proposed lights before and in some cases areas where I still think they needed lights
because of where they were. And it took them out of the darkness. But folk then didn’t
want to be in the light or at least paying for the light. And so that’s why I’m saying to a
point are you sending Tommy back as the bearer of that message to a point that it needs
to be clear and it’s something he can take back to the District. That’s all I’m looking at.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard.
29
Mr. Beard: I didn’t mean to get into all of this. I simply opened this up to get it
on the record that this could be done, it’s a legal way of doing it, and because I have
some ideas about using it somewhere else. That was the whole point of doing this.
Mr. Boyles: That’s your dog with seven legs, Mr. Beard.
(Laughter)
Mr. Beard: And, but, you know, we’re talking about four things here, the lighting
[inaudible]. And I really didn’t have a problem with it, but I just wanted to make sure
that it could be used again, and when it came up again we wouldn’t have a problem with
it. Moving SPLOST funds from one project and going into another place, if a person
wanted to do that. That’s
all.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, at the entrance of National Hills, up between National
Hills Baptist Church and the Amoco station and the Dillard’s department store, there are
two gooseneck lights, overhanging lights there now. The simple thought process was that
those lights be replaced and put in four decorative lights which would serve the same
purpose because there is a tremendous amount of lighting there. So that was what the
folks from National Hills asked me last February to try to get to this point. I apologize
for being on vacation last week and missing this meeting when it came up, but I had the
letter from Ms. Smith that’s in our book here, and then when I got back home Sunday I
looked in my book from the committee report, and the committee report said lighting
district in the agenda. So I thought everything was fine right there. Then on the caption
for item 23 that’s in our agenda, it says National Hills Neighborhood Association.
Maybe it was just too complicated. I don’t know where to take it from here, but it was
trying to replace those two overhanging lights as they exist now, and realizing that some
money had been moved before when I had some of the National Hills sidewalk money
was moved to -- the Washington Road sidewalk money was moved to Glenn Hills Drive
so that Commissioner Hankerson could finish those sidewalks out there, and I thought
we’d be able to kind of move [inaudible] or whatever that amount is around. So
somebody tell me where to go from here with it. I’ve been dealing with it since last
February.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we have a motion on the floor that will accomplish what you
just said. Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, not entirely, and absent the discussion on this in its
entirety, just like we’ve just gotten from Commissioner Boyles in our Engineering
Services Committee, we operated on I guess partial information the news about removing
the two lights and then using the others to replace them from a life safety standpoint and
so forth makes sense. Those lights that are already in place, are they from the general
fund lighting district for that entire area? Do we know that information?
30
Mr. Kolb: [inaudible]
Mr. Boyles: They light Washington Road.
Mr. Cheek: Right.
Mr. Boyles: I mean it’s part of the Washington Road lighting district.
Mr. Cheek: While we’re finding that out, I guess the concern was that if we were,
if we were going to put additional lights in addition to those already existing that were on
the general fund in there for aesthetic purposes, then there are a thousand neighborhoods
that would like to do the same thing, and that would have been substantial additional cost
at say $900 annually per neighborhood. But if we’re going to replace those lights -- sir?
Mr. Kolb: We didn’t know anything about it.
Mr. Cheek: I know. And this is, you know, committees, you get the debate out
and try to find out all this stuff, but -- I’ve got a substitute motion in mind that may solve
this if in fact those lights that are up there do come from the general fund and are part of
the Washington Road, and I’m sure the annual operating cost is somewhere similar to
$900 or thereabouts. Can you shine some light on this issue, Ms. Smith?
Ms. Smith: The light -- well, a couple of points of clarification. The $9,000 that
is proposed will cover installation of four to six lights. Mr. Thompson has indicated that
it may indeed require four lights to go in that area. The lights that are being installed
were not intended to replace those two gooseneck-type lights because the amount of
illumination from the two overhead lights far surpasses what would be provided by the
decorative lights, so there is no cost included for removing those other two lights, nor do
we recommend it for safety reasons. I’m not sure what the other concerns are about
those.
Mr. Cheek: I can’t do what I was hoping to do, anyway. So.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? We have a motion on the floor.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. The Chair will rule there has been
adequate debate on this. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize Mr. Shepard for the purpose of a motion.
31
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would move that we take off the
table and begin discussion of Item #5, the ordinance within Code section 625 so as to
regulate consumption of alcohol at parks, playgrounds, public streets, public areas,
owned or operated by Augusta and waive second reading.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, would you read back the motion that is on the table
for this so that everybody has the benefit of that before we start discussion again?
The Clerk: The motion was to approve it and with the addition of Savannah
Place, but the Attorney advised us Savannah Place was already included in the ordinance.
Mr. Mayor: So we have a motion on the floor. We’ll begin discussion on it. Mr.
Beard.
Mr. Beard: I would just like to know from the Attorney as we add new venues in
this, would that -- is this including all of those, because I just don’t see the point of
coming back every time we add a new venue, that we’ve got to add it to this or whatever.
Does this cover all the facilities, the venues that we have?
Mr. Wall: This was sent to the Recreation Department and included all of the
facilities that they gave me to be included, and I would suggest, even though there is
some general language in the ordinance about Recreation properties that are owned or
operated by the City, they would be covered as you add different community centers and
things of that nature.
Mr. Beard: Right.
Mr. Wall: However, you may want to take them on a case-by-case basis because
maybe not every Recreation spot do you want to have alcohol.
Mr. Beard: Well, they could have the option of having it.
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Beard: I just don’t see going back every, on each issue that comes up and
debating every venue that we have.
Mr. Mayor: We have some people in the chambers who I assume are here to
speak with respect to paragraph (F), which is the open container provision on this. Chris,
did you want to speak on behalf of Main Street?
Mr. Naylor: Mr. Mayor and Commission, I really have nothing else to say. We
talked about it at the committee meeting. What I’ll do, I would like to remind you that
this ordinance was brought to you by the Downtown Advisory Panel, the panel that the
Commission approved as a resolution to bring stakeholders together in the downtown
area within a certain district, and Main Street has a small part to play, but it was not Main
32
Street’s, in Main Street’s capacity to bring this ordinance. It was the Downtown
Advisory Panel’s. I do have with me today one member, Rev. Mark Harris, who is here.
Others have to work. But they all were in agreement in bringing this ordinance and this
recommendation to this Commission in prohibiting the consumption of alcohol in open
containers on sidewalks, parks, alleys. We have worked with the City Attorney in
making this a usable ordinance, and this is what they felt needed to be done in the
downtown district that was established by resolution.
Mr. Mayor: Are there some others here who wanted to speak in favor of this?
Mr. Beard: I move for approval, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we already have a motion to approve it. I’m going to ask if
there are people here to speak in opposition to it? Brad, if you’d give us your name and
address for the record, please.
th
Mr. Owens: Brad Owens, 1562 Goshen Road, but I do own at store at 221 8
Street in this downtown district. I’m here to speak against it for a couple of reasons, one
of which is I’ve seen a continual deterioration of what had become an economic engine
for recovery downtown and that was First Friday. Starting about July, 2002 Main Street
Augusta and other members downtown has started a push to get alcohol off the streets,
basically referring to it, which it had never been in my opinion in all the years I’ve been
going to First Friday, as a drunken street party. After that, the very element they claimed
they wanted to keep out and prevent came down. And I say that the incidents that
happened in October happened not because there was alcohol on the street, but because
there were four deputies on duty to police 10,000 people. So what I’d like to say is this.
This is about business. Now I don’t care what the original intention of First Friday was.
I’d like to know how many regular citizens are on that committee that brought this
ordinance. Is there any regular citizens on that, people who just live downtown, who
walk downtown, who shop downtown? Who is on the committee and how many people
are on it?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead with your argument.
Mr. Owens: I’d just like to know cause that’s part of it.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll get you a list of names.
Mr. Owens: This is business, and the question is why do we do these things, you
know? I’m against this ordinance for several reasons. One is, the main one, is that laws
already exist on the book to prevent everything that they think they’re trying to stop.
One, there’s public drunkenness ordinance. Two, there’s open container in cars against
the law. Disorderly conduct. Destruction of property. Fighting. Loitering. You name
it. There’s already a law on the books that will prevent every type of behavior that they
33
think this is going to prevent, which it will not, by the way. So therefore, I say, why are
you passing a law that, one, will be difficult to enforce, two, won’t help solve whatever
problem that people perceive were happening, which were not. And the third is what’s
wrong with law-abiding citizens walking down the street in Augusta, Georgia and having
a beer if you want? We sit out in front of my shop all the time, late into the evening,
drinking beer and talking, kind of like the old Southside Mafia [inaudible]. We like to
have fun. And the point is I can’t sit in front of my own business now if you pass this
ordinance and have a beer because I’d be breaking the law. I’m a law abiding citizen. I
don’t get drunk and disorderly. I don’t cause fights. I don’t hurt other people. And I
don’t damage property. Now I’m saying this [inaudible] will not do what they’re
claiming it will do. Also, not on the fact that it would only punish law abiding citizens,
your job as Commissioners is not to pass useless laws. Okay? Your job up here is to try
to help us businessmen grow downtown. First Friday was chugging along fine. I don’t
think there is anyone in the room who will disagree that First Friday helped bring
downtown back. And they were pushing it. And it was going good. It was only when
attempted regulation came into play did we start to have the problems. The only thing we
needed was more police officers. That’s it. We didn’t need regulations, we didn’t need
to have electric bands off of the streets -- that’s another argument. We didn’t need all
these ordinances that have been passed. What we needed was a little more protection to
make sure that the existing laws were enforced. You know, also, I think something else
is at work here. Something a little -- and I will say that I think none of you distinguished
gentlemen here would support, even inadvertently support, racism or bigotry or
oppression or repression. But I think by passing this ordinance that in fact that’s what we
are going to do. I’ll tell you the “bad element” -- in quotations -- that many
commentators in town have been discussing that’s been coming downtown late just
happens to be young black folks. And you know what? I like them. They come down,
they spend money in my store, and I’m not afraid or intimidated by black folks. This
ordinance, just because they choose not -- no wonder -- I’m sure the bar owners support
it. I’m sure. Because that would mean you would have to go in their bar to drink. And
there’s nothing wrong with that. However, you shouldn’t force people if they want to
have a drink -- and I understand the moral arguments. Sir, I understand. Y’all are against
all alcohol in town and that’s good. But right now there’s people who like to come
downtown and drink. I’m one of them. And I’m a law abiding citizen. This law will
make me a non law abiding citizens cause I’m going to drink out in front of my shop
whether they like it or not. However, I will say this. This undercurrent, which you don’t
understand, which what you’re inadvertently going to do, you’re going to discourage
people from coming downtown. A lot of young African Americans have been coming
downtown and enjoying it. And I’m glad. I’m happy about that. The bar owners want
them to come in the bars and drink, they don’t want them to bring their own booze with
them, and I understand that. But it’s not about, that’s not freedom. It’s a personal
freedom issue, too. I understand why the people who don’t cater to the type of people
that would come down and shop late at night or drink, I understand why they’re against
it. I see Mr. Finley, I understand, there’s people downtown who are afraid about their
property being damaged. However, there’s laws already to deal with that. They’ve
covered that. So I say that you cannot legislate someone’s intentions. If someone intends
to come downtown drunk and get disorderly, they’re going to come downtown regardless
34
of what the laws are; right? That’s why they’re called law breakers. So I say that this is
going to inadvertently repress and suppress young African Americans from coming
downtown. I’ve been glad to see them come downtown. Two, I think it’s a personal
freedom issue. I ought to be able to walk down the street, on public land that my tax
money pays to maintain, and drink a beer if I want to.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Brad, you need to start wrapping up. You’re getting
redundant.
Mr. Owens: Okay. I’m sorry. And three, the laws already exist to control the
behavior. And I do have a question. Is there any just normal citizens, not bar owners, not
clergymen, not business owners, is there any just plain old citizens, who’d come to my
place and come and drink, on that committee?
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any further discussion? Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Brad, I agree with a lot you saying. In fact, I
had a lunch with Chris last week. We sat down and talked about some of those same
issues. My issue is that it was proposed that we take First Friday and have the businesses
close down at a certain time, at ten o’clock. I disagree with that to the fact that we are
trying to get people to come downtown. We trying to generate more tax dollars. And if
you limit them to a certain time, and especially ten o’clock, there are going to be certain
groups and there are going to be people that’s going to be dis-encouraged and not come
because of the hour. I don’t think it ought to last all night long. I’m not agreeing with
that, either. But I think First Friday have grown into a great attraction for our city of
Augusta and it’s not limited to Augusta, I think. People in Savannah and Atlanta and
other places as well beginning to hear about how things are going. So I did have some
concern and I addressed those with Chris at lunch, telling him I wasn’t against his
proposal. I been trying to make this city a viable entity that anybody from anywhere
would want to live. When it comes to alcohol, I never drink, I’m wild as it is, so I can
imagine how it would be alcohol. But I just don’t, I just don’t understand how people
can’t, can’t seem to know when a city grows you going to get good and bad. I mean it be
a perfect world if we can just get just the good. That’s not how a city’s going do. And if
we just focus on the people who going to obey these laws [inaudible] then only the good
people be paying the taxes, and the good people going to have the burdens. I’m hoping
that we can come back, if necessary, and as long as I’m here if I have to I will put this
back if there is a problem. But I don’t think that we ought to be trying to legislate
morality in people. We can’t do that. I mean if we could, Rev. Harris and Rev.
Hankerson and plus myself job would be even more burdensome than it is, to try to
change the minds and hearts. But if you do your job, we got law enforcement. I talked
with Chris about how downtown or Main Street have to be pay law enforcement. I don’t
think that right. When the City puts something on, we got enough law officers. Our
Sheriff’s Department is run on half of what we run the city on. There ought to be enough
officers there to take care of the citizens, those that are doing right, to make sure. So I
got a serious problem. We have to collect money from vendors to pay for law
35
enforcement that we are already paying for and not have to turn around and pay them
twice.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Williams, can I [inaudible]?
Mr. Mayor: He’s got the floor.
Mr. Williams: I’m going to be through, Mr. Mayor. All I want to say is that
we’ve got a chance to make Augusta a great city. We got to stop thinking inside of a
box, we got to stop trying to make people do just what we like doing or we don’t like
doing. We’ve got to open our city up and be fair with people. And if you break the law
in Augusta, you ought to go to jail. Now we talking about building more jail pods. And
we probably going to have to put some folks in there. But I think if you put some folks in
there and let them know that you’re not playing, that one incident -- they put marshals,
they put state patrol, they put law enforcement on every corner, and to me that was really
embarrassing for First Friday, when those kids acted up. Instead of parking a bus down
there and locking everyone in a bus till it got filled and then backing it up to the jail and
unloading it and come back for another load if necessary. Because it’s about
accountability. It’s about holding people responsible and doing what’s right. So, Mr.
Mayor, I agree with a lot Brad said. I’m going to vote for this ordinance cause hopefully
if there is a problem we can come back. I don’t think we ought to try to tell people to
come down at a certain time and then at a certain time you’ve got to go home. If there
was other things to do, amusement parks [inaudible] in Augusta, I probably could agree.
But there is nothing to do in Augusta after ten o’clock. If you want something to eat, if
you don’t go to Waffle House, you won’t even eat in Augusta. So that’s my two cents,
Mr. Mayor, and I wanted to put that in.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Carter, you wanted to -- all right. Jimmy, give us your name and
address for the record, please.
Mr. Carter: My name is Jimmy Carter. I’m a freelance photographer in Augusta.
I want to address Mr. Owens here. I have what you call an unusual --
Mr. Mayor: Jimmy, under the rules of the Commission, you address your
comments to the Chair.
Mr. Carter: Okay, I can address up there.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Carter: I have an unusual job where sometimes I’m up till three o’clock in
the morning down on Broad Street because my office is there. You talking about African
Americans coming downtown. Sometimes I don’t get there until 11 o’clock at night.
Plenty of African Americans are downtown enjoying facilities, what’s going on down
there. So if it’s about African Americans not coming downtown, it’s hogwash. I get in
sometimes at eight o’clock at night. People are downtown enjoying themselves. This is
36
like, not First Friday. Plenty of people are downtown cause sometimes I’m wondering
what is going on, where is all the people coming from. And it’s not just this segment or
that segment. It’s every segment. The incident that got First Friday going was a father
sitting in front of Chow with his two kids and his wife, a young man bumped into him
and spilled two beers on him. We call them double-cuppers when they walk down the
street with two cups. This gentleman jumped up to protect his family and he had to be
restrained. The [inaudible] poured a beer on him and took off running down the street.
Well, what we call the third balcony up top is the eye in the sky. They be up there having
a party on First Friday and they told the police where they were. Now why the police
were late getting there? Traffic. People. Congestion. They were trying to get there. But
they couldn’t make it through all of that. So that Monday, Chris called us to talk,
something got to be done. That’s the reason, for us to make it for families to come down,
[inaudible] say, not for the young people. About -- the crowd changed from about 5:30 to
8, 8 to 11. It’s a constant change-over. The families leave early. Around about the first
time First Friday’s closing up. I’m down there sometimes till one o’clock in the morning.
Here come a whole different group of people coming from Ellis Street, coming from
thth
Reynolds Street, they migrating down 10, they migrating down 11, all coming around
on to Broad. Now you keep saying First Friday, First Friday. It’s not the First Friday
crowd. But that late-night crowd that comes in at 11 o’clock -- a car pulled up right in
front of where my office is, where the columns is, three ladies got out with a cup saying
we came down to party. These were older, mature females. These were not young kids.
They came bringing their own. Now something has to be done for families. It’s fine for
young people, yes. But we are looking at the families that want to come down and enjoy
it with their kids. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Rev. Harris.
Mr. Harris: Mark Harris. Curtis Baptist Church. 1326 Broad Street, Augusta,
Georgia. Mr. Mayor and Commission, I just want to stand today somewhat in answer to
the question that was asked, because I do have the opportunity of serving on the
Downtown Advisory Panel that you as a Commission set up. And this Commission, or
this, I’m sorry, this panel is simply made up of Joe Smith, who represents retail in our
city of the Brass Ring, of myself, who is just a regular citizen and Curtis Baptist Church,
Bryan Mitchell, who is a restaurant owner of the Cotton Patch, Michael Sheppis of
Modjeska who represents the entertainment part, Robert Raburn, who is a resident, and
simply is a homeowner downtown, John Mann, who represents the professional --
WAGT, he’s general manager of WAGT downtown, Sanford Lloyd. I don’t know if I’ve
seen Sanford in here today, but he’s Downtown Development Authority. And Melissa
Copenhaver, who is a commercial property owner downtown. To be real honest with
you, I have been fascinated by the work that this group has been able to come together
and do. Whenever you get myself as a clergy and Bryan Mitchell of the Cotton Patch on
the same team and we find ourselves sitting down and being able to talk together and
being able to understand that we have a heart and a vision and that is that Augusta,
Georgia be the absolutely best it can be, and that downtown be able to be revived and be
able to come back and be family-friendly, and at the same time continue to progress, then
I’m extremely excited at the potential of that and this is sort of the first test, if you will, of
37
a recommendation coming back from the Downtown Advisory Panel that you all put in
place. There’s no question, there are some serious issues that have been raised around
First Friday, but this is something that was much different than just First Friday. We
studied recommendations and we studied different provisions that other cities, great
cities, had made. From looking at Asheville, North Carolina. I think we looked at
Greenville, South Carolina. We looked at Atlanta, Georgia. Every area has an alcohol
ordinance in place. And so we took a long look at what those ordinances were. We
looked at the things that had already been established here in downtown and the reason
for all of the exceptions, not downtown but the whole Augusta Richmond County and
that’s the reason for all the exceptions that you see in there, because there had to be some
system of control that was able to protect all of the citizens, and again from my interest,
of course, I want downtown to be a place that folks aren’t afraid to bring their families,
where they see downtown as a place that’s been revised, they see it as a place that’s safe,
that they see it as a place where they can enjoy, and from my standpoint a place where
they don’t mind leaving all the counties around to come to church downtown and know
that this is the face that downtown Augusta, Georgia and Richmond County wants to put
on. So I’m just standing in support of this today, as one of the representatives from the
Downtown Advisory Panel, just to let you know that we put a lot of thought in this, a lot
of compromise, a lot of talk, a lot of trying to understand each other’s perspective, and
we believe that this is something that all of us are proud of and thankful for, and we
appreciate your consideration of it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to speak just for a moment to how we got
where we are today. This has been a process this Commission --
(End of tape 1)
(Beginning of tape 2)
Mr. Cheek: -- glean from other cities things that worked. Certainly we discussed
on many occasions in this Commission the need for additional police protection
downtown before it existed. But we went out and developed a mechanism that would
allow us to have a board composed, for the first time in history, of representative people
from all walks of life in downtown Augusta. We are working to improve the way we
conduct business downtown, to make it family-friendly and create the type of reputation
not only in Augusta but in the Southeast that people would want to come and participate
in. Certainly as Commissioner Williams said, I hope at some point if I see something that
needs improving or I feel needs changing we can bring it to the floor for debate and
discussion. What we’ve got today is a result of us waiting a year, not allowing this type
of ordinance to be put in place nearly a year, to try to see if we could find other ways to
resolve the issues. The people that are in the trenches are coming back to us and saying
now, we need this ordinance to preserve and protect the progress that we’ve made. While
I agree with a lot of things Mr. Owens has brought to us today, I still have to look back at
the people we chose to represent us on this board and support them in this effort. This
has been a well thought out process. It does involve as many segments of downtown
38
Augusta in making decisions that affect that area as possible as ever before in history, and
I just urge support for it and to waive the second reading, that we move forward with this
for this First Friday, to make it the best ever.
Mr. Mayor: We had someone down here that wanted to be heard. Give us your
name and address for the record, please.
Mr. Gay: My name is Carless Gay. I’m the owner of Cloud Nine at 1036 Broad
Street. I really can’t say it any better than Mr. Cheek just did. That was very well said,
very eloquent. I just want to point out that if you guys fail to pass this ordinance then
there is no law in Augusta to keep anyone of drinking age at 11 o’clock in the morning
from standing on the sidewalk in front of my store and drinking out of a beer bottle and
walking up and down the street with open containers. This is not Beale Street and this is
not Bourbon Street. This is a street where businessmen and women are trying to feed our
families and make our livelihood. We’ve been trying for very long to get Broad Street
and the downtown area to be known as a place that was safe to come down to, and failure
to pass this ordinance will pretty much wipe out all those efforts. Thank you for
listening.
Mr. Mayor: All right, anyone else? Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Steve [inaudible] first.
Mr. Shepard: And I will take the opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Mays. I’m trying
to understand how this proposed ordinance would work with reference to certain business
establishments that are operating sidewalk cafes. Several come to mind. I believe the
thth
tapas bar -- that’s T-A-P-A-S, Mr. Williams -- tapas bar on 7 Street, I’m sorry, on 10
Street, the tables out in front of the restaurant known as Chow which Mr. Carter
th
mentioned, and there’s another one that’s at the corner of 10 and Broad. I see some
language here in (F) that says or otherwise provided by the county code or Georgia law.
How are we accommodating these establishments that maintain a café-like atmosphere on
Broad Street in this ordinance? I’m not seeing it.
Mr. Wall: Well, that issue came up in the committee meeting concerning
restaurants, and there is nothing that is a part of this ordinance to prohibit those bars and
restaurants and cafes, whatever, from operating as they have in the past. And that’s the
intent of the ordinance. And that’s the reason that this is written the way it is.
Mr. Shepard: Well, what, what is your text there, Mr. Wall, what I just -- what
allows those establishments to continue the café operations?
Mr. Wall: The otherwise provided by the Augusta Richmond County code. I
mean if they are a licensed business, then they have the right to serve their alcohol within
the confines of their premises. And License & Inspection has apparently allowed that to
be extended to the tables that are set up on the sidewalk immediately adjoining those
businesses.
39
Mr. Mayor: I think I can answer that, because we went through this when we did
the sign ordinance, that the people with the tables and chairs had to get an encroachment
easement from us to be able to have their tables and chairs out, so that’s actually an
extension of their business out onto that part of the right-of-way, Steve. [inaudible] all
have that encroachment agreement.
Mr. Shepard: Is Rob Sherman here? I mean I’m kind of getting like some others.
I mean if there is no textual protection, what’s keeping them from being criminalized by
this ordinance? I mean that seems to be working, we’re not trying to prevent sidewalk
café operations here, are we, Jim?
Mr. Wall: No, sir.
Mr. Shepard: But I don’t see the -- I mean I heard what you said, Jim, but I don’t
see the writing that that’s going to protect somebody like that. I mean, otherwise
provided by the code of Georgia, I mean I certainly don’t have the Code of Georgia at
total recall in my head, Jim, and don’t expect you to.
Mr. Wall: Thank you.
(Laughter)
Mr. Shepard: Maybe one of my other colleagues would expect that, I don’t know.
But what, what saves those? I mean it seems like to me that they’re -- if they’re on public
right-of-way, they can’t be on their premises. If they’re right in front of their business, I
mean it’s a common sensical thing, I think, but I just don’t think we’ve written those
protections in this particular ordinance, or we hadn’t referred to the section where those
protections are written.
Mr. Wall: Well, Commissioner Shepard, I mean right now if you have a
restaurant and there are tables that are sitting that are out on the sidewalk, License &
Inspection is apparently now allowing those to exist there. The debate came up in
committee meeting about having them roped off, which is technically I think the way that
it should be done, but that’s not the way License & Inspection is enforcing it. In most
communities I think you will see where they are in fact roped off so that you do not have
people mingling in and out among the tables, and separating the patrons of the restaurant
from the general public that are traveling up and down the sidewalk. But rather than
getting into defining all of those rules and creating a whole another debate, otherwise
provided by Augusta Richmond County Code and Georgia law means that as License &
Inspection is currently interpreting the law and applying the law, as the Sheriff’s
Department is currently applying the law, that is the way things are going to continue and
there is no effort on the part of this ordinance to interfere with or to stop what they have
been doing.
40
Mr. Shepard: Well, I think I’d feel better if we had some connection between this
ordinance and those establishments, because I think that’s the kind of atmosphere we
want to create, is the sidewalk café type of atmosphere, and I think we are -- I mean
we’re close here and I mean I certainly am a supporter of the events downtown, on the
Common and on First Friday. But I’m, I’m not quite satisfied here, Mr. Wall. That’s all
I have, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Well, do you want to amend the motion and instruct the Attorney to
write in such language that would protect those?
Mr. Shepard: Well, here again --
Mr. Mayor: Or you want to bring it back for a second reading or what?
Mr. Shepard: If he would write it in there, but I kind of like to know what we’re
voting on. I mean I’m not trying to belabor this. I mean we have subsection (C) not
before us. I think some fine tuning yet needs to be done. That may be the best thing to
do, is just not say pass it and have it amended and get it amended. I mean get it right the
first time. I mean it won’t be, it won’t be effective for this First Friday. I think I’ll just
withdraw my consent to have it, to have the second reading waived, and ask Mr. Wall to
work on the definition here in number 5, to coordinate it with, with legitimate, with the
restaurants and cafes that are there.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, let me, let me say this first. And I’m going to
support the ordinance today that’s on the floor and I can remember a few weeks ago
when this was tossed around to a point that it didn’t have an official home to land in to be
discussed, and I welcomed it over to Public Services and said, you know, let’s have some
discussion there. And my reason for doing that was I felt that there needed to be some
guidelines, and some guidelines in anything that you do. What I think may be a little bit
missing and probably there is some maybe a little dissention in the room, but it’s, it’s not
really resting, I don’t think, per se with the ordinance. I think people have worked long
and hard to try and get something together. Some parts, if they don’t work, they are
going to have to be amended. Now I addressed Commissioner Shepard in committee last
week and we had a good, lively discussion in reference to it. Some of those same issues
that you talked about, particularly with the sidewalk cafes and recalling the uproar that
we had when we had License & Inspection that went out and actually cited businesses to
a point when we first started doing it, and we had to correct that measure. So we’ve been
there, kind of done that. I think that it probably would be better if that language is added
in there. I’m prepared to still go ahead and vote. It does take unanimous consent in order
to do that, so I think that gives it time to be added. But the missing element I don’t really
think is with the pros and cons on [inaudible] is. And this is not a knock. But I think that
obviously the committee has had some discussion with law enforcement about how some
things are to be done. But I think to a point that there needs to be some conversation, and
I hope this is ongoing, Chris, that there is a question of, quite frankly, I think [inaudible]
41
long way to [inaudible] solving what may be in the fears of everybody’s minds in terms
of wanting things to work, and that is the sensitivity question of how some things are
going to be looked at and how they are going to be enforced. Steve, you brought up
about the sidewalk cafes that are in existence. Suppose a legitimate owner from the
standpoint -- and I hope if it’s written in, that it’s not written in to deal with
grandfathering, because there may be a business of equal importance that wants to come
to Broad Street or to a side element of Broad Street on one of the north-south corridors
that has sidewalk cafes. So if it’s written in, I hope it’s not limited to those that are
already in business. If we can find ten more to come and they can survive, that’s better.
That’s economic development and that’s putting people there. But I think there has to be
some question of dealing with law enforcement from the standpoint that an element that
is uncontrollable should be dealt with, no matter what section of town folk come from,
whether they from Georgia, from Carolina, visiting, living here, you know, black, white,
Asian. It doesn’t make any difference about who they are. But the point is I think there
has to be some sensitivity about enforcement and how you deal with it. There should be
order, but it not -- it should not be to a point as though it’s, it’s so surrounded that you’re
like you’re in a fortress. And I think somewhere there has to be a median met and that’s
something you can’t write in an ordinance. That’s something that has to be talked about,
it’s something that you have to have some judgment about. I don’t think you can say to
everybody there to do that particular job. Because you’ve got people who to a point
should be able to deal with crowd control and those should be the people that are placed
there in order to do that. So I think there are some things that may be a little bit outside
the ordinance that we still need to work with. And I think that will be the thing that can
help the ordinance to work. And if you need to fine tune it, then there is the opportunity
to get that done. What does bother me a little bit is the fact that if we operate without any
rules per se, and I’ve said this, Brad, in reference to the ten o’clock hour, and I was
talking about the fact that, you know, something that hadn’t been said is the fact that
people can -- just like Jimmy expressed, people can still come to Broad Street and areas
downtown really any time they want to come. You know, one of the worst laws in the
world that I know the old city used to have was late hours. [inaudible] fill up the jail with
folk with late hours. You know, late hours. You got an adult out walking, didn’t have no
car, get arrested for late hours. So you -- and it was archaic. But the point being that
there had to be judgment and sensitivity about what you’re doing. It just means that if the
official arm of First Friday shuts down at a certain time, I wanted to make sure, Brad, to a
point that if the gentleman who’s selling jambalaya or selling sausages and hot dogs, if he
had his vending operation going, that to a point if he wasn’t shut down and gone by
10:20, he wouldn’t be cited and on his way somewhere. I think there is an element that,
Chris, that some people maybe didn’t understand in that to a point that the official arm
ends at a certain time. But independent people who still want to be there are still
welcome to be there. And I think that’s the point that needs to be conveyed, Steve, in law
enforcement to a point that everybody understands what’s going on and that they know
what’s going on and that enough people are down there to make it safe, and even to a
point that people who want to walk and stroll on the river, leaving First Friday, should be
[inaudible] to do that. I’ve heard conventioneers say it’s one of the most safest
waterfronts to walk on. You need people. You need them in the whole downtown area.
And I’ve been a little bit -- and I’m glad the committee is here. Y’all have done a good
42
job. But we’ve talk about a lot of law enforcement in the last few weeks of where law
enforcement has not necessarily had a verbal saying in this, and that’s why I’m saying I
think that the committee, along with us, Mr. Mayor, needs to have some dialog to a point
of making sure that it’s safe, it’s wholesome, we understand what we are doing, but we
don’t venture into the passage of overkill, either. And I think there is enough area in
between to get that done and to make it one of the best First Fridays we can have
anywhere. This committee has done a good job. They probably will not cover
everything they suggest to us, but I think with what they’ve done, the time frame they
spent on it, they’ve done a good job, and I say this last on a personal note. I would, I
would be one of the last people I think [inaudible] that would see here and if I thought to
create an element of discrimination, would I vote to do this. But I think at the same time
we have to measure it by what results that we get. And we have to work with it, and I
think that’s all that the committee has done, and it put together something for us to do.
So if we’re going to not do the second reading and we’re going to add to the language of
it as far as to further protection of the, of the people there [inaudible] sidewalk cafes, I
hope then that that will not be just for people who are in business so that to a point if folk
who are there who are not in business or new people want to open up something, then
that’s free to do that with a legitimate business, if that’s where the delay is going to be.
But I’m prepared to go ahead and vote.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to approve this on first reading. Yes,
Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard:
Mr. Mayor, I mean I’m not trying to have an obstructionist view
towards these businesses, nor to unnecessarily cause problems at First Friday or any
event downtown. But I am concerned that we have some details that need to be attended
so. So what I would suggest, we’re looking at First Friday this Friday night, and when
we were looking at it before, we went ahead and acted so that you would have rules and
regulations in place, and that makes sense to me. But I’m concerned about these
And I will withdraw my objection, withdraw my insistence on a
legitimate vendors.
second reading, but I’d like to have it as part of the motion that we put it on the next
Commission meeting so that we could have some assurance that the legitimate
vendors are protected, and I certainly don’t want to criminalize other businessmen
like Mr. Owens. And I just, I’m thinking we need a little fine tuning. But you also
need some rules for Friday night. And that’s one time, we did this once before. And
so I would suggest if the body would agree that we pass these for this First Friday
only and have it back on our Commission agenda for the next meeting in
September, which will be before the First Friday in October
. If you look at a
calendar, we may even have another Commission meeting before the First Friday in
October. I haven’t looked that far down the calendar, but I want to see some coordination
with lawful uses of the sidewalk which are occurring.
Mr. Naylor: We understand that completely, yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: So the effect today would be that if this, if this passed then the open
container prohibition would be in effect immediately. Yes, Mr. Cheek.
43
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I don’t want to prolong the discussion, but this is the
second time the discussion on the sidewalk café environment not be molested by those
that have missed the point here. I just want to make it clear that the word needs to go out
to staff and law enforcement that we, that with the passage of this for this First Friday,
that since there is not black and white language in this ordinance change, that we not go
down there and do like we did with the sign ordinance and molest those businesses apart
from the intent the Commission has set forth today, that they be left alone to conduct
their business until we re-write the section that we need to re-write.
Mr. Mayor: And it would probably be prudent to remind the license holders that
those are on-premise consumption licenses that they have and they don’t need to be
passing out “to go” cups, either. Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: I think we have talked this to death today. But my only, the only
thing I would have to say, I am in support of this, I’ve been supportive, I’m one of those
who wrote to Athens and San Diego and others to get some input into this, so we started
this together a long time ago, a year ago, and I think the committee has done a wonderful
job. I’m just a little concerned about what we are going to, what we are going to do on
the next committee meeting, the next council meeting. If we’re going to pass this today, I
would hate to have to spend two hours at the next council meeting, you know, listening
and going over the same thing. I think if we going, if we going to, we ought to get a
report at the next Commission meeting as to how this went, but also I think that
[inaudible] today should be passed thoroughly and only that section that Commissioner
Shepard is concerned about, we can discuss that and bring it back at that particular time,
but I just hate to keep going over this, over and over again. And as far as our public
safety people are concerned, I think they have enough knowledge, those people who are
working these events, not to go down there and just arrest everybody they find and put
them in jail. I observed on Sunday night that the officers were very polite, people who
had the [inaudible] cups [inaudible] I hope we have a police that will act sensible to this.
And I think we’ve [inaudible] over and over again, so I just hate to see us come back to
next week’s meeting and go over, rehash the same thing over and over again. We need
and I’m going to make an
the law and I hope that we can pass this so that --
amendment -
I don’t know whether Steve will accept it, but Steve didn’t make the
motion, did he? Who made the motion, Ms. Clerk? I hope Mr. Cheek will accept thisin
that we discuss only what is relevant to what Mr. Shepard had in mind at the next
meeting
.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to including that language in the motion?
None is heard. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I object.
Mr. Mayor: You have an objection? All right. Then we’ll vote on the
amendment as proposed by Mr. Beard. All in favor of amending the motion to include
the language as expressed by Mr. Beard, please vote aye.
44
Mr. Shepard: Question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: Are you going to get a report on this, was that part of your
amendment as well?
Mr. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Vote in the affirmative, please. We’re amending the motion is what
we’re doing. We’re not voting on the motion.
(Vote on amendment proposed by Mr. Beard)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: It’s unanimous. I don’t know what happened. So the motion stands
as amended.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Shepard asked some questions that cleared some things up,
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right, Madame Clerk, if you’d clear the board. Mr.
Colclough, you want to be recognize?
Mr. Colclough: I want to call the question.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Colclough has called the question. The Chair will rule
there has been adequate debate. All in favor of the motion as amended, please vote aye.
(Vote on motion with amendment)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right. And we will declare a five minute break and then we will
continue.
(Recess)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, I believe number 35 is the next item.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
35. Adopt Budget Resolutions for the General Fund, Law Enforcement Fund,
Fire Protection Fund, Capital Outlay Fund and Urban Services District Fund for
45
budget amendments. (No recommendation from Finance Committee August 25,
2003)
Mr. Mayor: Whose item is this? George? David?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, you have in your packets our
recommendation for a series of resolutions which we believe you should adopt in
amending the 2003 annual budget. As you recall, at your special meeting last week, we
had a decrease in the property tax digest which translated into a reduction of about $1.5
million in all of the various funds that levy millage against that digest. Instead of doing a
wholesale cut of $1.5 million which we think would be more damaging than productive,
we recommended a combination of use of fund balance and cuts where we could in order
to effect a coverage of the $1.5 million that you would be seeing in a reduction of taxes.
Of course, you could go through the exercise of trying to find $1.5 million, or you could
raise property taxes. However, the Commission has already adopted the millage so I
think that option is probably remote. Anyway, I present those resolutions to you for --
and recommend that you adopt them.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s go to the Finance Chairman first. Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mayor, referring to the minutes of the called meeting, we
adopted the millage rate as proposed, and then I amended that motion in two ways so that
we got -- will get quarterly reviews by the senior assessor staff so that we’ll have some
foreknowledge or warning, is a better word, that we’re having the digest shrink, because
most everybody that I talked to had their appraisal raised, and I’m sure that if you have
your appraisal reduced, you just thank your lucky stars and don’t say anything about it.
And so there was obviously a lack of growth in the digest which could have been caused
by a bunch of factors, which could be a re-appraisal downward in value or the shifting of
some property to the exempt category. But then the second part of that amendment was
that we direct the administration to look at the alternatives we have left in light of setting
the millage where we set it, and those two alternatives are budget cutting and fund
balance use. And I think the problem that the Finance Committee had last week was
there was too much use of fund balance and very little in budget cutting. And I don’t
mean to speak for my other three colleagues on the Finance Committee, but I think that
we could make some adjustments. We carefully, in the Finance Committee, for example
looked at the various expenditures that came before us last week. I think we looked at a
chipper/spreader and we determined that it was going to come out of SPLOST funds. So
to hold up that expenditure really would not help us in the funds that are in question. I
don’t know what’s in the pipe line but surely there are other, there are other
recommendations from the department heads in the pipe line, just like that shredder. And
I think that we should have the administration follow through and the department heads
and others with some cuts. I just don’t think we can just go mostly out of fund balance. I
think it sends the wrong message out that we are not going to try to -- just like every
other government apparently has had to do, from the states through municipalities all
across this country -- they’ve had to come up with some cuts. So you know, certainly
these resolutions are one that would address the problem, but largely through fund
46
balance use. And I would ask that we have a little, we have some serious attempts at
reducing the budget before the end of the year. I can’t support these particular set of
resolutions until we get more cuts.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. --
Mr. Mayor: You want to respond?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, I do. We have spent several weeks looking at this, and as the
Commission may be aware, or is aware, you started out the year with a $2.5 million
deficit in your budget and asked us to manage manpower to that $2.5 million. I think we
have done that. So we were not even at zero with respect to our budget for this year.
Now we have been compounded by an additional, at least in the general fund, over
th
$700,000. This is the 9 month of the fiscal year. You’ve got three months left. And to
come up with that kind of money would require you to do some very serious and deep
cuts in your budget, especially in the area of law enforcement. And so if you notice, that
we did cut about $75,000 in the law enforcement budget in order to add to the fund
balance increase that we’re recommending. There was one other point I was going to
make, and I’ve lost it, so I’ll have to come back to you on that.
Mr. Mayor: Come back. Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I, I’m still not comfortable with the reduction in the
digest. And I know Sonny gave us some explanation, but I would very much like, myself
anyway, to have a report from the Assessor on not just the small items, but the large
items that happened to come off of the digest from last year to this year, and why.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: I agree with Mr. Kuhlke, also. I hope we have something from
the Assessor’s office in writing. I’d like to see that, those figures in time to look at them,
and I was sort of looking at the two alternatives that we gave the Administrator also as
my Finance Chairman have stated, looking at the suggestions of the departments and so
forth. I thought we would probably have that before us so we could work with the budget
cutting and the fund balance use.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, it’s come to you?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, it has. I’m sorry. The fund balance that we’re proposing to use
in the general fund is not the fund balance that you started the year 2002 with. In fact, at
the end of 2002, we added to the fund balance, and what we’re recommending is that we
47
take the fund balance for balancing this budget out of those excess revenues, reduction of
expenses that we, that we had in 2002.
Mr. Mayor: If you take this out of the fund balance, then how much in the hole
do you start your 2004 budget? How much of this is carryover, how much of this is one-
time expenditure, George?
Mr. Kolb: I’m not, I’m not sure I understand your question. Let me see if I can.
We -- your 2004 budget we’ll put together, and there’s no question we’ll have to use
some fund balance. We probably won’t use the fund balance to the extent that you’ll
drop below the 25% or 90-day cash flow basis. But that’s the only thing I understand of
your question.
Mr. Mayor: You understood the question.
Mr. Kolb: Because that’s what you wanted to know? Okay. You’ll still, we
believe, or at least we’ll attempt to not go below the 25% of your annual expenses out of
your fund balance.
Mr. Mayor: But we will be going back to the well next year, too, to balance the
budget?
Mr. Kolb: Unless you -- and the year after that and the year after that until we
start going below it, until we find another source of revenue.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll start at the end, Mr. Bridges, and then work our way
back.
Mr. Bridges: This may be a question to David, but
Mr. Bridges: This may a question to David Persaud. David, my understanding is
that you gave a report, I think to the Finance Committee a couple of meetings ago in
regards to the fund balance. Maybe it hasn’t been that long ago. My understanding is
that from 2001 to 2002, our total fund balance increased by about, by approximately $2
million.
Mr. Persaud: $2.1 million.
Mr. Bridges: $2.1 million?
Mr. Persaud: Yes.
Mr. Bridges: So we’ve added that much to fund balance and we didn’t, we were
not expecting to do that this time last year. I mean we really didn’t know how much it
was going to add.
48
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. So --
Mr. Kolb: You never know.
Mr. Bridges: And I understand. And what bothers me is we’re always one year
behind on what we know fund balance to be, and that causes a little bit of problems when
it comes to budget time, but I’m --
Mr. Kolb: Well --
Mr. Bridges: Go ahead.
Mr. Kolb: That’s really hard for me to understand as a concept because you really
don’t deal with fund balance until after the end of the fiscal year --
Mr. Bridges: I understand.
Mr. Kolb: -- and you know how much revenue you had, how many expenses.
And if your revenue exceeds expenses, you add the fund balance. At that point, if
expenses are above revenues, that’s when you actually go to fund balance. And you
never know during the year. This is only a projection or a prediction of what you may
have to use at the end of the fiscal year.
Mr. Bridges: And the fact that it [inaudible] makes us all feel a little bit better, I
think, particularly when you increase more in fund balance than we’re talking about using
to, you know, make the budget balance. But I’m also like Commissioner Kuhlke, that we
do need an explanation of the decline in the digest and hopefully we can find something,
something there.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My Finance Chairman, Mr. Shepard, has
been a fearless leader in finance and I was thinking here, at one time I thought we had a
surplus and things was going get, the budget was going get brought to us earlier, and now
I’m hearing something a little bit different, and I’m a little at a loss, I guess is a good
word. I lean to my financial chairman to not only be my financial attorney, but my
attorney when times are needed. And he had been adamant about trying to do this early
and bring this to the table and talk about it so we can find out where, where we need to be
going and what direction we be going in. So I’m a little bit surprised. I don’t see how in
the world we can do that unless we make some real serious cuts somewhere, probably
going to be in some personnel, you know, if we have to do it. But I just thought we was a
little more on track from what I was, what I heard earlier compared to what I’m hearing
now. So that’s my comment, Mr. Mayor.
49
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I read something the other day that was true
in the daily about the, Augusta’s pie getting smaller, and by all indicators that seems to be
true. One of the things I’d like to see us do after this bleak news is to go back with staff
and perhaps have a work session, and this is something that hasn’t happened since I’ve
been here. So I don’t know if it’s been done before in the past, but identify those types of
resources, those fund generators that we can easily target, and then also with that target
some legislation to help us attract and grow certain segments of our tax base. This is
something I think we’ve left to the Chamber of Commerce and other people to do, but I
think it’s time that this Commission sit down and focus on certain areas where we can
perhaps easily find some room for growth by attracting more industry or business or
residents. Certain things we can do to our laws, to change and make it more attractive to
attract people, but there’s got to be some things we can do to enable us to better compete
to attract more revenue-producing people or entities to this community, and I’d really like
to see us, perhaps before the first of the year, look at coming up with a plan to target
those particular areas and then try to maybe enhance legislation or whatever means
possible to attract people and grow our tax base. We have been stagnant for too long in
this city, in fact instead of being stagnant or barely moving forward, it appears we are
moving backwards in some way, and I just think that it’s time for this Commission to
take the bull by the horns, if you will, and see what we can do to work our way out of
this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, did you want to say anything? I’m just going around the
table here. Mr. Colclough? Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, what I was going to probably say has already been picked
up by a couple of Commissioners. The only thing I would add to it, both Commissioner
Shepard and Williams, if we are looking at two sources of debate and challenge, dealing
with what may come out of fund balance and what may have to be dealt with in terms of
cutbacks, what I’m, what concerns me a little bit is that -- and this may be a little bit
ahead of the game, but early on, the Finance Chairman in terms of making a suggestion in
Finance Committee, I think it probably came out of there unanimous and came on this
floor unanimous in terms of supporting our Chairman to move forward and to stay with
our budget calendar and of working with that. While, while, I’m all, I’m all for change
that’s positive, and if we can make some things, streamline something to get to a point
that’s all well and good. But it seems to me there is still going to still have to be some
line of discussion, and the earlier the better. The more of it, probably, the better. If there
being no new revenues and to a point like Bill just brought up in reference to the digest, if
we get the explanation, everything’s on the up-and-up, it’s legit that it has slumped, then
that adds to the equation. So I guess what I’m looking at in terms of where this line is
going, are we going to, are we going to get to dealing with the Commission moving back
to dealing with that calendar and of having some discussion? Because we cannot just go,
I don’t think, Mr. Mayor, at random type discussion of just saying well, this looks
[inaudible] cut here. I think obviously the staff, the Administrator down, they’ve got
suggestions of what they can live with, what they can live without. But to a point it still
50
always boils back to the same thing. At the end of the year there are no new revenue
sources. It’s got to be discussed. And I’m wondering if we’re going to be on that time
table or has the time table flown out of the window? I think we need to be supportive of
the Finance Chairman to a point just as we were early on when this was discussed,
because what it seems like to me, the train’s kind of moving to a point that we’re faced
with some options that are not as simple as either/or. They’ve got to be discussed,
because you’ve got to legitimately know what will keep the government running, what
will deeply affect it, and then you’re back making amendments to budgets. And the
second thing that I was saying is that the, the committee of business persons that looked
originally sometime ago, maybe two years ago, of looking at our legitimate revenues, of
going through with a fine tooth comb, of trying to see where the so-called fat was in what
we have. I think that’s going to have to be revived, Mr. Mayor. If it’s a committee that’s
not going to make a report, then maybe get it with some folk that will make a report, but I
think some honest answers need to be given to the general public about what we take in,
what it requires this government to do, and to a point how we rank in terms of service
delivery, what’s asked of us to provide in terms of money, and how we stack up against
major cities and major counties in Georgia. Because I don’t think really the general
public to a point knows specifically where Augusta, Georgia ranks in terms of what it
takes in, how it really spends its money, and that’s not to say we shouldn’t do it more
prudently than it’s being done. But I think people need to know that and then they can be
more respective if you’ve got to deal with something different. So I, I just think those
two things. Get it back on the calendar track of where that is for the Commission to do
something and I think a new look in terms of revenue of saying what’s there, what it
really takes to do it, and whether or not these departments are operated effectively and to
a point of using and making the best of what they have to do. There are some numbers
that were there. I think it’s very unfortunate that that was not played up more by all of us
in terms of where our revenues rank versus expenditures and what was expected of
delivery of city services. And I think that’s something we need to get back. But on a
more immediate basis, I think we’ve got to look back now at whether the calendar is on
track, whether it’s dead, I mean, you know, just on where we standing because we are not
going to be able to come in here just one day and just all of sudden say we’re going to
pull it from here or we going to cut it from there. It’s never worked that way, nothing’s
magical about 2003 that it’s going to be different, and so I’m agreeing to get back -- my
Finance Chairman did it with a lot of finesse and class when he put it on, but you know,
I’m going to support him to a point that if he needs to get that re-emphasized in terms of
where we’re going with that, then we got to return to that. And I think we got to return
sooner than later.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles, you want to say anything?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Since you’re passing around, I thought I
might just say one or two things. I’d like to see us take some sort of action, I suppose, on
Mr. Kuhlke’s request, because I don’t have the financial mind, but I don’t understand the
depreciation in all of this. It may factor into a tax digest, but when I think about the little
pieces of property I own and all of those pieces of property went up, and when you ride
out on the south side and you see what’s going on out there on the Highway 25 corridor
51
and the Wrightsboro Road corridor and you see what’s happening downtown and I’ve
seen no decrease in anything down in east Augusta, I just have to wonder, you know,
why did the digest flatten out like it did? What has caused that? I realize, and Mr. Mays
can certainly verify this, that I know. In fact, many years ago we offered to [inaudible]
water works money and [inaudible] city’s cash cow. Now I realize you can’t do that any
more because it’s put into the system. So that money’s lost. I just, I just have a lot of, I
guess, questions. I don’t know exactly how to ask, but you know, how did we flatten out
like this? I mean we were thinking, I was thinking, anyway, for eight months, seven
months, that this year was rocking along good, we were going to be in good shape, we
were going to be able to go back, do things for our employees, look at reclassifications
that’s been asked for. And now we’re at a point now where we’re talking about doing
some things that we don’t want to do. So I just would like to see us follow up on Bill’s
request that we get some sort of report back that makes sense to all of us, that tells us
what happened with the digest when it just went up last year and now it’s flattened back
out. I personally don’t understand that. As far as Mr. Kuhlke’s request, I don’t know
where we take it from here.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to respond directly to him, or [inaudible] go to Mr.
Hankerson?
Mr. Shepard: Please go to Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: No, I don’t.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, gave everybody a chance. Now we’ll come back to you.
Mr. Shepard: Well, as part of the motion I think I need to make as the
Finance Chairman is to move that we have at the next Finance Committee a report
from the Assessor about the changes in the digest, the increases, the revaluations
downward, the changes to exempt properties. I think we should have the data that
Mr. Kuhlke requests, and that’s the first part of my motion, and that we convey that
to the assessors.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] couple of other parts.
Mr. Shepard:
Okay, that’s the first part. And then I think that the administration
I ask that that be, that that action be postponed on
has put forth a set of resolutions.
these resolutions today and that the administration and the officials be, the elected
officials be requested to send some actual cuts in to this body. I think they could do
that, and if they don’t I know that some of us can put together a budget and cut
from the top if we have to. But I really want to work with the administration and to
work with our elected officials in coming up with some cuts that just don’t become
52
[inaudible] from this Commission. We need some targeted cuts. I’ve said that in
the resolution that we passed the millage. Maybe they didn’t hear me, but that’s
what I would like done. It’s in the verbatim minutes that are in our books and I’d
like that to be back also before our Finance Committee.
That requires some work, but
I don’t think it’s a matter of -- it’s not a matter of crisis, but we’re looking at fourth
quarter revenues. We are not yet in the fourth quarter, so I don’t guess that makes our
backs quite against the wall yet, but we are forecast, we are forecast to have a revenue
source in the fourth quarter which is less than we anticipated, and that is a problem, and
we should deal with it prospectively and that’s why we’re here today trying to adopt
some way to negotiate the problem. And here again, it’s spread across all the funds so
that, that depend on general levies on the digest. Excuse me, depend on levies on the
digest in the various funds. I think we have to have something to look at more than just
And so I again put that in the form of a resolution,
largely use of fund balance.
excuse me, a motion.
And I hope somebody will second it.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Williams. And if anybody has any friendly
amendments, I’ll consider those.
Mr. Mayor: Let me just comment because I don’t -- if you look at the digest and
the digest is down, I don’t want people to think that there is no activity in Augusta.
Because the value of new construction in this city, people are adding on to homes,
building new businesses and all of that, is over $120 million last year and that was up I
believe well over 100% from the year before. So there is some solid economic activity in
this community, but for some reason we’re not reaping the benefits of it. And I think Mr.
Kuhlke’s request for a detailed report on why the digest is down is certainly appropriate.
Are there any other comments or questions or anything before we move on to the
motion? Okay, all in favor of the motion, please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 36.
The Clerk:
36. Approve request from Laney-Walker Development Corporation for waiver
of liens on property located at 1230 Tenth Street. (No recommendation from
Finance Committee August 25, 2003)
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
53
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, if I remember right, we never could get an answer on
whether we were creating a precedent here or if this had been done before. Jim, I never
did feel comfortable with -- well, [inaudible] committee, but I think we actually did it out
here.
Mr. Wall: We have done this in the Land Bank Authority. We have not done it,
to my knowledge or recollection, in the Commission as a whole. And I also pointed out
that insofar as the Land Bank Authority is concerned, we are now attempting to collect
any prior liens or taxes as a part of the transfer of the property. We’re not going to be
able to do that in all cases, but that’s the direction that the Land Bank Authority has taken
over the last nine months to a year.
Mr. Bridges: What’s the Administrator’s recommendation on this? Do you have
one?
Mr. Kolb: Yes. I would not do it, for the mere fact that I believe it sets a
precedence for others to come to you. Although I understand that they’re attempting to
spur development, to encourage development, which we’re all in favor of. We still have
our expenses, our costs that we must cover in order to help make that happen. Better yet,
what the Land Bank Authority has done is to say let’s look at the appraised value of the
property and use that as the sales price or the liens or outstanding taxes, whichever is less.
At least get something out of the property. We don’t even own this property. And it’s
really just a gift to the former property owner for just letting the property sit there.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We discussed this at some length in
committee meeting and the issue was brought up that they are trying to build two new
structures on this property. This is one of hundreds, and I would like to try to say
thousands, of properties around this city that we are not collecting money on, that just
sitting there. I don’t agree with not collecting when we can, but this is a piece of property
that’s not doing any, you know, anybody any good. Nobody’s coming forth. We got a
developer who’s coming together to try to build two new properties which I think they
said around $65,000 for each piece of property, which going go on our tax book, which
going bring tax base in. But now we are losing money to try to keep the property clean,
to keep from being overgrown, to keep from being rodent [inaudible] that neighborhood
to further fester and to get larger. Sometimes when you got somebody that’s coming to
the table and trying to do something, look like we try to find a way not to help rather than
find a way to help. We got properties setting around here that if we wanted to get
aggressive and done the same thing the Administrator just, just mentioned, I’ve got no
problem with, but I can show, show the tax assessors or anybody that’s interested in it,
hundreds of these type properties just sitting abandoned and nobody’s coming forth to do
anything with. But here is a piece of property that we’ve got somebody who, who’s
trying to do something with. And we not talking about a lot of money. I mean $5, $1 a
54
lot of money to some people. But I just think we need to get proactive in trying to do
something that going bring some more revenue in. We just got through talking about our
budget and how a shortfall is coming. Commissioner Cheek mentioned to me what are
we doing wrong, why are we not bringing monies in, what kind of economic
development have we done? This is one here. This is one that we can do. This is one
that’s doable for the city and doable for the developer. So I make that motion and I’m
going to hold it, I’m going to support the motion, I hope my colleagues will understand
that this is not a list, this is not four or five we doing. This is, this is this piece of
property that come to us that people are ready to build and do something with. We need
to waive this little lien and go ahead and allow the developer to go ahead and get started.
The quicker they finish, the quicker we get some revenue on the taxes.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any other comment or any other discussion? So we’ll vote
on the motion. All in favor of the motion to approve then please vote aye.
Mr. Shepard abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Shepard: And Madame Clerk, I’ll put on the record again that I abstain
because one of my law partners was involved in the handling of that estate or certifying
the title.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Next item is number 37.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENTS:
37. Consider the reappointment of the following members of the Richmond
County Development Authority for a four-year term. (Requested by Commissioner
Ulmer Bridges)
??
Mr. Ron Brown - Mr. Robert Osborne
??
Ms. Charlene Sizemore - Mr. Loren Perry
Mr. Shepard: I move approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to reappoint this slate. It’s been seconded. Any
other motions? All in favor of the motion please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 38.
55
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS:
38. Review/discuss the Ordinance relative to the Commission’s contact with
department directors. (Requested by Commissioner Hankerson)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had this put on the agenda because
I’ve had a delay in getting information on some sense of fear of employees giving me
information that I asked for. And I think that it really, that employees need to be clear on
their contact with the Commission, so I asked Jim to give me a copy of the ordinance so
that we could be clear and define the difference from micromanaging and then just
requiring information or responding to our constituents as they make requests. And
according to the ordinance, and if I’m incorrect, it says that a Commissioner can inquire,
investigate, discuss constituents’ concerns, complaints and their requests. And I can’t see
why someone have been informed or told not to talk to Commissioners and not to give
information unless it goes through certain people and go through the Administrator or
department head. And the ordinance does not read that. Am I correct?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: So I just wanted to make that clear so when, when I do approach
a department, an employee about information, I’m not giving them any instructions but
trying to prepare myself for meetings and getting information in a timely manner so that
we won’t spend so much time just asking questions that we should already know. So
that’s my purpose and I think it need to be clear. Employees need to know that
Commissioners can contact them and inquire of them for information that they need.
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Hankerson. Let’s move on to the next item,
Madame Clerk.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: That one been a long time coming, to be talked about. I’m just
wondering if there is any response. Maybe the other Commissioners or the Administrator
in bringing it up. And I’m going to be silent on it cause I had enough to say about it
when the majority of the Commission voted on that ordinance cause I, that’s one of those
days Superman got handed a lot of kryptonite, I got whipped on that one. Cause I’m not
one that gets into the business of doing that anyway. But I thought that to a point,
particularly when an ordinance was passed, and I’m going to take up for Jim on it. Jim
passed what we told him to, what y’all told him to put in writing and put it together, and
we voted on it. [inaudible] we pay lawyers, we don’t always do what the lawyers advise
56
them to do. But this particular case, I think there needs to be some feedback and clarity
to it. The Commissioner, he’s no longer a freshman, he’s one of the newest in terms of
seniority here, along with Commissioner Boyles, but asking I think a very legitimate
question to a point that if the situation either exists or it doesn’t exist and I think quite
frankly, he doesn’t just need to bring it up just to hear himself be a part of the minutes.
Now there needs to be some -- whether or not that situation exists or not to a point of that
becoming a problem. Because number one, first of all, Freedom of Information Act and
public information is something that any member of the press corps can get, and I support
that. But I think it’s a problem though that if a policymaker of this board asks for certain
information that maybe they can’t get and then they can read about it or hear about it, so
I’m going to expand that conversation just a little bit. Now we can be silent about it as
Commissioners or the Administrator may not want to respond in here with that, but I’m
going, I’m going, I’m going, I’m going to second his emotion on that to a point that it
needs to be, be talked about to a point because it’s already being talked about, you know,
but it’s just not being talked about to a point by us. And so I mean I think that needs to
have some discussion on it.
Mr. Mayor: If you want to talk about it, go ahead.
Mr. Beard: I wanted --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Yes, I want to talk about it. I think that we know that this is being
done. It’s no secret. I think all of us or most of us have gone to department heads and
they have refused to give us information or either they’ve had to call the Administrator in
order to talk to us. Now just to accept this as information, and I do agree with
Commissioner Mays that just to accept this as information is not enough, not when we
know it’s being done. And I think that at this point, something need to be -- since we
have the ordinance, the Attorney has agreed that the ordinance exists and it’s in the
backup material and it is, because I read it. I think we need more than this. I think we
need a letter to the, to the Administrator stating that this ordinance is in effect and I think
that also it should be related to the department heads that they do have this. Because they
haven’t seen the ordinance, the only going by what they been told by the Administrator.
So what we have here is that it need to be known that they can give us this information,
because if we don’t make it clear today, then tomorrow when Commissioner Hankerson
goes down wherever he’s going to get this information, he’s not going to get it, because
that department head has been instructed not to give it to you. So it’s incumbent upon us
and the Mayor to make sure that our department heads know that they can talk to
Commissioners. And I make --
Mr. Mayor: If there are department heads who have been told not to talk to
Commissioners, I’d sure like to know who they are. If we’re going to talk about it, let’s
put it out here. Who are we talking about?
Mr. Kolb: I would, too.
57
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I can give you some names. In fact --
well, if they won’t to know some names, now wait now. Hold it. Let’s talk about it
cause that’s what they said. Now I’ve been accused, I have not stopped talking to
department heads, I have not got all the information.
Mr. Mays: I just wanted to get your [inaudible] that’s all.
Mr. Williams: I have not got all the information that I requested but I have not
stopped talking to department heads because when a constituent, when a person needs an
answer and I try to get one, I’ve got to go to the source to get it. But I been refused
several times information. In fact, I had one, maybe two conversations with the
Administrator and asked him point blank did he instruct these department heads. He
answered me no. Department heads say they did, and I didn’t want to get them in a bind,
but my point was, and I explained to him, as an elected official I have the right to talk to
department head. And I been accused -- Commissioner Cheek, you need to stand close
cause you been accused as well -- of micromanaging. I never gave any instruction. But I
ask a lot of questions. I asked for information that I did not get. And I remember right
here in this chamber, Mr. Mayor, when I asked for some information that could have
came on a two page printout, that I’ve got a stack of pages this high from the
Administrator, which was another way of circumventing what I was trying to get at. So
[inaudible] serious event here is something we need to talk about. And department heads
need to know that as elected official, Mr. Mayor, you and any of these other elected
officials have the right to talk to them, not to direct them, but to talk to them to get
information. And we have not been able to do that. And I been addressing it.
[inaudible] we know about it, anybody that’s elected that’s paying attention ought to be
able to see it. And if you ask [inaudible] department heads and have not gotten it you
need to let me know cause I’ve asked for plenty of information from department heads
and I could not get it cause I need to go through the Administrator. The Administrator
explained to me that I need to give, need to tell him what I wanted and he could get it for
me. And I told him I don’t trust you cause you circumvent the things that I tell you. You
go around and try to change it. So I had not went to him. In a lot of cases I did at first.
But not getting the proper information, but not having the relationship to work with him,
I stopped asking him. And I will go -- Commissioner Cheek and I was accused of
micromanaging when we went up on Highland Avenue and Wrightsboro Road. We just
stopped in. I made that same trip last week when I looked at those [inaudible], Mr. Mays.
I mean I don’t make much money on this job but I try to do the best I can with the money
We do need a
given me. So to make a long story short, there is a very serious issue.
letter to go out to department heads, to go out to the Administrator to let them know
that he is their immediate supervisor but we are elected officials, we have the right
to discuss and any question we have and need at that time.
Not to give any
instructions. And I agree with that 100%. And if y’all need some names, Mr. Mayor, I
can give you some names, too. Mr. Mays didn’t want me to give them.
58
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to put that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Bridges: What’s the motion?
The Clerk: A letter.
Mr. Hankerson: A letter to department heads.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: If I may, looking at this ordinance, I see that it’s dated March of
2001 and April of 2001. Well, I didn’t come on the Commission until January of 2002.
So I didn’t know this ordinance existed. Now I do recall very favorably when
Commissioner Hankerson came on that Ms. Bonner set up all the different meetings with
all the different department heads for us, for them to bring us up-to-date and familiarize
us with what they were doing, and I thought that was very good. And that may not tie in
to this, but if I violated this, I certainly didn’t know I was doing it. Again, maybe there
should be some -- I don’t know how you go about doing it, but new Commissioners
coming on -- ordinances like this, maybe it should be passed on to them.
Mr. Mayor: Well, you might -- Ms. Bonner, you might include this, or Jim, I
don’t know who did the Commission rules, the Commission rule book, the rules of
procedure. You might just stick a copy of this ordinance in there with it, because every
new Commissioner gets that.
Mr. Boyles: We did get that, but it’s kind of smaller version, if I remember my --
The Clerk: You’re saying include this ordinance in the book?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, in the book, just stick it in there.
The Clerk: Yes.
59
Mr. Mayor: Stick the ordinance in the book.
Mr. Boyles: It may should be [inaudible] orientation for new Commissioners. I
think what you did was excellent and it was a big help, I know to me, and I think to
Bobby. That may have been the first time that was done. I understand -- again, maybe
we should just have a good orientation program for new Commissioners.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further?
Mr. Speaker: Call the question.
Mr. Mays: What’s the motion?
The Clerk: That a letter be written from the Attorney to the department directors
and the Administrator outlining the ordinance.
Mr. Hankerson: And I think Mr. Beard also said send a copy of the ordinance.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Hankerson: That was in the [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Include a copy of the ordinance.
Mr. Mays:
Will they accept a friendly amendment? That somewhere in there it
be a one-liner that -- and what I have a problem with in here is the fact that that ordinance
and [inaudible] but this ordinance also has an incomplete part of it to where it was passed
and it makes it a violation, but it’s punishable by [inaudible] and subjects unknown,
which it could lead to anything that the Commission basically deems. And I think that
that’s my reason why I still have problems with it. Now I said publicly I don’t go out and
seek information, but under that book when I retire, ain’t no courthouse secrets, it can
come to you [inaudible]. Or in the outlying buildings that we rent or occupy. But what I
think needs to be in there, if you’re going to do that, there needs to be something to
protect those persons who give information to a point that it’s information and that’s what
it should be, but at the same time there should be something in there to protect them to
make sure that they feel safe in doing that. And how you put that in that letter, I don’t
think it has to be over eight or ten words, that was my only [inaudible] for saying what I
said in reference to people in terms of their names. Because sometimes people bring
things totally in confidence but also in fear. And that’s the part that we’re not talking
about, either. And that’s not on [inaudible], that’s just on the fact of saying two and two
equals four. And [inaudible] if you give it to some Commissioners, it’s fine, if you give
it to others then it’s going to be a problem. Now something needs to be in there to protect
those folks, particularly the [inaudible] subcommittee that voted unanimously to
recommend something to Mr. Beard’s committee and this is not changing the subject, Mr.
Mayor, but right now we do not have a specific independent EEO person in charge of this
60
city. And I think there is a void to a point. We going to get to that, we going to get it
done, we going to get it passed and we going to get it done real soon. But I think there
are some people to a point that need to know they can at least, if the phone rings, they can
have a conversation. And they don’t have to worry about the fact that they going to get
dogged out by any to a point just because they’ve given information. And I think there
And that’s my friendly amendment, Mr.
needs to be somewhere in the letter.
Hankerson, that if they going to get that, they have the right to know that they also
know to a point that they not going to get retaliated against by simply giving
information that any member with a press card can go and get.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke:
Yes, Mr. Mayor, I hear what Mr. Mays is saying, but if I read the
ordinance correctly, it gives the Commissioners the authority to go and talk to any
employee specifically for an inquiry or an investigation into a certain matter. I hate to
see it turn around where every employee, which they do, have the right to call a
Commissioner, but implying that we, if you’ve got a problem with your director or
whatever that you call him up, the Commissioner up, the Commissioner gets involved in
it, and then we spend all our time trying to solve personnel problems. So I’ve got a little
Another friend amendment would be, Mr. Hankerson, if a
problem with that.
Commissioner contacts an employee or department head that they be required to
return that telephone call.
That’s a problem.
Mr. Hankerson: I accept that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Did he accept the amendment? Mr. Hankerson, did you accept that
amendment?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: Okay. No need to say anything.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I think the letter, the letter and a copy of this ordinance
going out to department heads to be posted on bulletin boards or whatever will satisfy the
question as to whether we have the ability to have contact with employees. I think that’s
very clearly stated in this ordinance. One of the things, though, that this ordinance also
does is it protects employees from being jerked around by somebody calling them and
taking them off of their day-to-day routine without that being made known to their line
management. We’ve got to preserve schedules unless they’re an emergency situation and
allow our employees to work and do their daily jobs without unnecessarily jerking them
around. This document is intended to keep our line employees below the exempt levels,
in particular those field people, from having 11 bosses in addition to those that they have.
61
We have the ability to get the information based on this that’s very clear. Anybody that
would stop that from happening is in violation of the codes of the City of Augusta and
should be dealt with accordingly. What we can’t have happen, though, is all of us calling
and making requests without realizing the impact that has on somebody trying to get a
schedule of work done. It takes time to get information. It doesn’t take a long time in a
lot of cases. It takes time to go do a special job for somebody. And in order for this
government to work, it’s got to work not only for the Commission but for the citizens,
too. If we continue to -- and I don’t think this is the case, but we cannot allow it to
[inaudible] into a situation to where we are calling and diverting employees from
working their normal work schedules, but there has to be ways for us to get information,
to answer constituents’ questions because, quite frankly, I think Commissioner Kuhlke
hit on a good point, is sometimes constituents call and they don’t get calls back. So I’m
proud to be one of the authors of this. I think it’s very clearly written, and as
Commissioner Mays, this was an argument at the time, there are no, there is no language
in here stipulating punishment that could be censured, but those things that have to be
brought up by the Commission at the time somebody so grievously violates this that we
all fell like they deserve to be punished. This is a good code. It needs to be followed by
staff as well as the Commission, and I’d hate to see us go and change it because this is
language very similar to what Athens has in place and other governments have in place
delineating the lines of responsibility and accountability between elected officials and
employees.
Mr. Hankerson: Call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: I thought I saw another hand up down there. Was there another hand
up? Okay. All right, the question has been called. I rule there has been adequate debate.
All in favor of the motion as amended, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, next item.
The Clerk:
39. Discuss the administrator’s delegation of duties from the Commission.
(Requested by Commissioner Willie Mays)
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, and I changed course a little bit. This one is friendly
to Administrator. Balance it out [inaudible] messing with him today. The reason why I
put this on here, this, this primarily has come about, a part of the conversation that was
being held last week that I sat in on Commissioner Shepard’s committee meeting in
Finance, but has to do with more than just Finance. There was a question in reference to
some things being put in resolution form versus the actions taken by this committee, by
this Commission, and -- or even at a committee level but later on passed by the
62
Commission. And it was my feeling that if the Administrator had some suggestions that
he wanted to make that would streamline making sure that what we voted on, particularly
in terms of expenditures and of making sure that was done, that that could be done in a
timely fashion, and I was a little confused at the time about some things being asked to be
done by resolution form. I guess probably [inaudible] with at least Steve and myself to a
point and defenders of verbatim minutes. You know, I’d always been raised on the
theory that whatever the makeup of that body was, you know, when you pass something,
it didn’t make any different really what side you were on, if it was passed, and if it was
an expenditure to go buy two Fords, you bought two Fords. It was nothing, you know,
about rocket science about doing that. You bought the two Fords. Now if there needs to
be some time provisions put in or if there is something illegal or wrong that the
Administrator and the Attorney get to say that this can’t be done or we’ve found this, this
needs to be brought back up, then I think that’s a different story. But I think if he has
something that will deal with this, I’m, I would be more than supportive to try and make
that work. Quite frankly, I think it’s enough here to make it work if it just makes it work.
It’s already enough that -- we got enough rules, I think, and we got enough [inaudible]
and enough ways to get it done already. I don’t really think it needs [inaudible], but if
there are some further defining that needs to be done, then I’m loss Ross Perot, I’m all
ears, I’m willing to listen to it and willing to deal with it. But now this second provision
about that, that -- and it’s friendly, as well. Is that in terms of those duties, I know we
have a long time and I can be accused of making some things a long time. But my other
problem I have is that if we’ve got people, for instance, who come and we have nothing
really to tell them. They come to a committee and it’s not worked out, and under the
rules we’ve got, Mr. Mayor, whether it be delegations or people who want to come down
or Commissioners may ask people to come down, then I think there needs to be some
way that if they are coming for an answer, that prior to those folk coming, two things
need to happen. One, those folk need to receive some communication from somebody,
staff, whether it’s Administrator, whether it’s one of his assistants, whether it’s
department head handling that area. Be it committee or regular committee meeting, Mr.
and Mrs. John Doe, your item is being worked on, it cannot be addressed to a point it
may come on a committee and wait two to three hours basically to hear that a committee
is going to be appointed to deal with their problem. Usually we’re the last stop anyway
and that’s why they’re here. They do not need another two to three hours to deal with
more frustration and to get mad with government to do it. I think we need to work with
the Administrator on this to a point that if he’s got some suggestions, in working around
that to do it. Secondly, if those folk are going to be here, then obviously if two weeks,
three weeks have occurred, we certainly need to be able to have an answer for persons
when they come and the proper representatives to be here, fully equipped, mentally ready
to answer those questions. Most of these meetings are covered, they’re broadcast, it’s a
form of our own PR, and it’s a matter, I think, of how we handle it. We can either handle
it sloppy, which I think in a lot of cases that’s what’s happening. Or we can fine tune it
and work together. I don’t think it’s just on the Administrator’s part. Third, and I’m
through, if there’s something there that’s on the agenda, I don’t think that we should get
into a room to a point of where staffing says I’m not aware of this or I don’t know about
this. If something is printed up, number one, I thought there was a part of putting stuff
there to deal with an agenda, if it’s not something that staff puts in, if it’s something
63
there, then I think we got enough people out of 2700 that work for Richmond County that
somebody needs to inquire and say what is item number nine? You know, I mean if it’s
nothing more, Mr. Mayor, than when -- and I think by the time it gets to meetings that
maybe you, the Mayor Pro Tem and the Administrator have, it’s at a [inaudible] stage
then. I think it needs to be done in the pre-agenda format to a point that it’s addressed,
that it’s dealt with. I think you may find that some items that we discuss maybe don’t
need to be here at all. I think by the time they get to us, they can be placed in such a
mannerism that they can be voted up or down. But I think when you get in a room where
the general public is ready and in many cases the complainant is ready and has been
waiting, and we don’t have people who are ready, that further sends a bad signal, and
most of the time the world and the city, at least, is watching us when we do that. And
that’s why I placed this on here, not to be combative with anybody. I don’t think it can
be resolved today. But if it’s feedback on it, you know, I’m willing to hear it, but I think
to a point that some of these things can be possibly corrected in terms of both sides
working together with it. But I still think on expenditures and time lines, we got enough
in place already in terms of being done. But if that’s not enough to explain it, then I’m
willing to hear what else needs to be done. I’ve talked my 43 minutes. I’m through. I’m
just trying to hear an answer to a point that, you know, I -- well, let me get a little bit
clearer. I was just, I was [inaudible], I think when we vote to do something and
[inaudible] -- let me [inaudible] some of y’all, y’all know how the hell this [inaudible]
talked about [inaudible] same thing we talk about at lunch, dinner, in the bathroom or
anywhere else to talk about what this problem is concerning.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I agree with what you are saying, Mr. Mays. For example, I
think it’s one of the things -- I have a project over in Summerchase that’s been two years
old and we have constituents coming down in committee meetings and waiting on
Engineering Service all day long. And then we, we vote on something to pass, for some
action to be taken, and we come back. The constituents come back and they still wait. I
think what he’s saying is if, if it’s not resolved in between time, at least if we can notify
the constituents and say we’re still working on it so they won’t have to come back down
and stay another four hours waiting to get the same answer that they received before. We
need something, and I think that’s what I was hearing Mr. Mays say, that -- because
that’s sort of embarrassing to the Commissioners, to have your constituents to come back
over and over again. And most of the time when they call us, they’ve already, have been
calling and calling and trying to get their problems resolved. So they don’t need to keep
coming back. I agree with that.
Mr. Mayor: Are y’all asking the body to do something today? Is there a motion
or anything?
Mr. Colclough: I think what I’m hearing them saying is that someone in
administration needs to contact the constituents if a problem is [inaudible] and [inaudible]
64
an issue where [inaudible] and administration or a department head [inaudible] phone call
[inaudible] or letter saying that [inaudible], we’re working on the issue and as soon as
[inaudible]. That’s what I’m hearing, is that correct? Someone needs to say to the
constituents [inaudible] .
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, my [inaudible] respond to Mr. Colclough. You’re correct
on that point, but the Administrator had a suggestion or at least it was being said the other
week and we just happen to have been talking about an expenditure and of how you
define what needs to be done. And maybe, maybe I need to ask Mr. Wall to a point that
we -- it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s in, it’s in City code where your ordinance section to a point, and I
guess what I’m delineating, cause I’m one of those, and the reason I didn’t vote for the
ordinance and I know, I know my good brother from [inaudible], it was done with all the
best intentions. I applaud him for that. But he knows why I didn’t vote for it cause
[inaudible] it didn’t resemble me cause I don’t go to deal with my business in that
manner. But if we going to set policy and we’re supposed to be policymakers, once we
take a vote, and go 9-1, I can be the only one that’s out there, I need to be the biggest
cheerleader for what the other nine did when it passed. If it’s 6-4, by a one vote margin,
we vote and we do it together. But whatever we do, it needs to be directed to the person
to say this is what’s done. Now George is a grown man, a very astute and intelligent
man. Sometimes he may not like the decision that --
(End of tape 2)
(Beginning of tape 3)
Mr. Mays: -- I take friendlily in a way but I take it in a business manner this is
not just something we do up here. When we pass something, it’s passed. And if it’s to
change all the colors of every car that we buy, it may be stupid as the devil in terms of
what we’re doing, but if that’s what we vote to do, that’s what we voted to do. Now
that’s a policy decision. And gentlemen, we need to be clear on what is policy and how
it’s divided. I have no problem with the administrative staff dealing with the day-to-day
activities. They got enough to do over there. They don’t need me over there dealing with
it. But I also when I take a vote, whether I’m on the side that carries or the side that
loses, I expect that to be done, and we don’t need to get back to a point of thinking,
gentlemen, that something is done, and it’s not done. And if the Administrator has got
some thoughts as to how that can happen better than it is happening, I for one am willing
to accommodate him in doing that. But we don’t need to keep getting in these things
where the ox is in the ditch, we don’t know how the ox got in there, and we think the ox
has gone down the road. Cause that’s what’s happening. And that, to me, is crossing the
line of when you deal with policy. Now we keep saying or ignoring that situation, but it
may happen with $5 and it doesn’t cost you. It happen with $5 million it’s going to cost
you like the devil. And something needs to be done in terms of how you deal with policy
if you going to be policy makers.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Shepard.
65
Mr. Shepard: Let me following what the Public Safety chairman has said, and I
think that an example of this was the motion that I read from a few hours ago when we
had the called meeting, which had the passage of the 2003 millage rate as its primary
object. But it also had two amendments. One about reviews from the assessors and the
other for alternatives for balancing the budget. And I think that if it wasn’t pretty clear to
the Administrator today that the proposed budget resolutions were unacceptable, I believe
the vote was unanimous. I mean that was the direction that I thought we gave him, to go
back and not be so heavy on fund balance, for example. That was the direction of this
Commission at the special called meeting, was to look at the two alternatives left, which
are budget cutting and fund balance use. And I, maybe I’m, maybe I didn’t get it, Mr.
Mays, or maybe I’m getting it too specifically, but I think the message was sent in this
vote that we had a few hours ago that we’re expecting to have some proposals for some
serious cuts. I mean [inaudible] use of fund balance. I mean we’ve got to have options to
choose from. I think we said today the options that you brought today are not exactly
what we wanted to see. I mean am I, am I in the same wavelength with you? I mean
maybe not.
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir, we’re on the same wavelength on that issue, but what I’m,
what I’m, what I’m still saying is that there are broader issues than the issue that we are
just dealing with today. Because that was one of them, that’s why I went back to refresh
memory in reference to the calendar that we proposed. And I remember the inquiry
because you know, we’d had the conversation as to when we were going to discuss it,
how was that going to be done, and you know, when you direct something and you vote
on it, it’s either something to be followed or it’s not to be followed. But it’s definitely,
gentlemen, and I say this because it’s all business, it’s not to be ignored. Now folk just
cannot change policy. I refuse to accept that. After 24 years and having won eight
elections and in three governments, you know, somebody sent me here to do something.
And I may not been the best thing to come out of District 9 but for the next two years, if
the Lord spares me and I’m alive, I’m going to be right here, you know, and so I’m going
to do my part of my job the best that I can do it. And that is a policy maker. And when
we [inaudible] policy, that’s what this Commissioner expects to be followed. And when
I’m unsure of it, I go back and I check minutes. And I check votes. And if they are in
the affirmative to do a decision, that is what is to be done. Anything different from that,
gentlemen, to me is a violation of policy. Now y’all can determine that any way y’all
want to. But I’m just telling you from where I sit. And I agree with you, Steve, I think
that went out loud and clear. But we cannot continue to go in a fashion, and that’s why
I’m trying to be open-minded enough that if the Administrator has some suggestions to
make that would make it different, because I’m still hearing the fact that expenditures
need to be dealt with in some type of different resolution form. And if that needs to be
dealt with to do that, then you know, my first question is why. You know, I don’t think it
should. But if it needs to be and that helps his office to run more smoothly, this
Commissioner is willing to support with that. But I cannot [inaudible] vote on something
to deal with it that is either forgotten or either ignore, and that’s a matter of policy. And
I’ve said all along folk don’t have to like policy, but you damn sure got to abide by it in
my book.
66
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: Would it be possible that when we’ve got the upcoming session on
ththth
the 27, the 26 or 27, whatever it is, that we might could devote maybe an hour, an
hour-and-a-half to this discussion? I’ve not seen the agenda, but -- it probably hasn’t
been published -- but is it possible we could talk about this and maybe do it in more of a
workshop-type environment and [inaudible] legal session?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: I don’t think we need a workshop on this. It’s simple. If this
committee, the ten Commissioners up here, make policy, if that policy is violated, then
whoever is violating that policy needs a letter of reprimand and that’s all it takes. Very
simple. We don’t have to discuss that. Because all ten of us up here know that. So I
suggest that whatever Mr. Mays has in mind there, but the point is we ought to accept
that as Commissioners, we know that as Commissioners, and if anybody is doing that, it
should be brought to this body and they receive that.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I certainly agree with Mr. Beard, but I’m just saying that
sometimes to work out the mechanics of it, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: No mechanics to be worked out in that, if you violating the policy.
Just deal with it. And we ought to be men enough to deal with it up here.
Mr. Mayor: There’s obviously something that needs to be dealt with and
everybody is talking around it and nobody’s dealing with it for this discussion. Mr.
Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me get this straight so I won’t be
confused with my twin brother. You know, and you said, Mr. Mayor, it’s a problem. Mr.
Beard brought it as plain as day. If anybody violate the policy, anybody break a rule,
then there’s consequences for not doing what is laid down. We as policy makers make
those policies and we expect those policies to be carried out, whether it be a department
head, whether it be the Administrator, whether it be the Clerk, whether it be anybody that
don’t do what we have put in place, then there ought to be something done. A letter of
reprimand. If that don’t get them in order, then we go to the next step. But we act like
well, everybody is talking and nobody don’t know what we talking about. Everybody
understand. Mr. Mays made it plain as day about ten times. But nobody wants to accept
that. We don’t have to talk about it any more. There a rule, there’s guidelines. We
talked about First Friday. There’s guidelines. Had to have some structure. We’ve got to
have some structure in this government and the buck stop on this table right here. With
the Mayor and the ten Commissioners. We are the policy makers. And if we make a
policy, that’s what it is.
67
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke:
I’m not, I’m not, I’m not exactly sure what everybody is talking
about. I mean I understand that we make policy and it’s supposed to be carried out. But
I agree with Tommy Boyles, I think if there are some things that we need to put on the
table, that ought to be one of the items that we ought to have on the work session, that we
can get things out in the open, find out where we’ve got some problems, where
Commissioners may have some problems with what you do, and let’s talk about them
frankly. You may have some recommendations that you bring back to us on how we can
I
better communicate with you. When we take a vote, that’s it, and we know that. But
would like to make a motion that we accept the presentation by Commissioner Mays
as information and that we place this on the agenda for our work session at the end
of September.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion on the motion?
Mr. Mays: And I think that’s a much as we can accomplish today and I’m going
to vote for the motion, but I’ll leave y’all with this to think about before you get to the
work session. All of us were elected, Mr. Mayor, by the entire city, Bill and I by half of
it, and everybody else by the single Districts. Your vote and your decision should mean
something. It should have some value in terms of what it does because it affects the lives
of people individually and collectively. It ought to mean something when you cast it,
gentlemen. One story I’ll leave you with, whether your vote means something or not.
The question a few weeks ago, it came up about change orders, they are the life of the
business, we got to have them, they happen in all construction fields. Well, let me tell
you something, and I’m going to, I’m going to cut it off because I’m going to bring it up
in legal, Jim. If our vote is taken so for granted that we got folk making decisions to
grant business to firms of saying they’ve got business before it comes to us to be voted
on, then I’ll leave you with this to think about. Either our vote ain’t worth a damn or we
aren’t. And I vote for Mr. Kuhlke’s motion.
Mr. Shepard: Call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. Rule there has been adequate debate.
All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, I believe you’re next.
Mr. Wall:
68
41. LEGAL MEETING
??
Discuss pending and potential litigation.
??
Purpose of giving legal advice.
Mr. Mayor: Anybody else want to add anything to the legal meeting?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: Point of information. Did we do anything to additions to the
agenda?
Mr. Mayor: I didn’t know we had any. Nobody gave it to me, I’m sorry.
Mr. Wall: One addition, and I wanted to take that up after legal session, was the
reason I added it.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: I had communication, and the Attorney advised me exactly what he
just said, and therefore I did not put it on.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I did not even know we had this delegation that --
The Clerk: They’re not here.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Mays: I was hoping they would be a friendly one, Mr. Mayor. But we can
hold that one until late.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry. Again, this was some policy that didn’t get distributed to
everybody. All right, we have a motion to go into legal for the reasons cited by the
Attorney. All in favor --
Mr. Mays: He discuss pending litigation, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, he did.
Mr. Mays: I need one to add on with it, so it’s under there.
Mr. Mayor: It’s under. If it’s pending, it’s there.
The Clerk: We need a motion.
69
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion, I thought we did.
The Clerk: No.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we’ve got six votes either way, with a motion or without a
motion.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Wall:
42. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. All in favor of the motion, please
signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What else?
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir.
Mr. Wall: I ask that you add to the agenda under the Indigent Defense and
approve a motion to approve two new staff attorney positions, two secretarial
positions, and one investigator position and provide additional funding in the
amount of $280,000 from contingency for the balance of 2003.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Need a motion to add and approve.
70
Mr. Shepard: So move.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion on the floor.
Mr. Boyles: 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. Cheek votes No.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 7-1.
[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 September 2, 2003.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
71