HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-2003 Joint Meeting
THE AUGUSTA COMMISSION
LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION
JOINT MEETING
COMMISSION CHAMBER
November 12, 2003
Present: Hons. Cheeks, Warren, Murphy, Mays, Boyles, Cheek, Colclough,
Beard, Anderson, Beard and Howard.
Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Fred
Russell, Deputy Administrator.
Media representatives also present.
Mr. Cheeks: Thank all of you for being here, especially those who started this
morning quite early. I’m going to turn it over to whoever is representing the County
Commissioners to present [inaudible]. Mr. Beard, if you would proceed, please.
Mr. Beard: Thank you, Senator. We want to thank all of the visitors and the
members of the committee for coming out this morning [inaudible]. We got involved in
this a year or so ago where we would meet, and decided last year to meet as a group
[inaudible] different items to you. You asked us to keep it down to a [inaudible] number,
and we kind of came up with seven that we would like to present to our Delegation.
When we first started I think we had about 20-something, so we understood [inaudible]
last year you didn’t get around to most of the seven that we had last year, so we thought
we would just work with this and see can’t we break it down. The other thing that we
came up with was, that all of the Commissioners came up with, we had [inaudible] things
we needed to talk to you about. And they all don’t include funds. So we were saying
that if the subcommittee, this subcommittee agreed to it, that we would establish a
committee -- not a committee -- we would establish a meeting where all the
Commissioners and all of the General Assembly Legislators could participate in, if we
wanted to do that. That’s only if you wanted to do it. There are so many things
[inaudible] requested that we needed to talk about and we can’t do it within this realm,
but if you want to sit down one Saturday -- and I know the busy part of your time is just
coming up, but if we could do that between now and the time that you go back -- I think
th
you said you go back on the 4 -- we would be glad to do that and we entertain that
thought. We leave that up to the subcommittee to address at a later point.
Mr. Cheeks: I’ll poll the Delegation but I’m sure we would be happy to meet as a
full Delegation, full Commissioners. We’ll get back to you or either to Lena of your
Commission and let her know the date that’s agreeable to the Delegation, and I’m sure
we would like to sit down and this is what we need. We need more communication and
dialog between the two groups, so that, I think that is even more important than the
meeting we’re having today, so I’m sure that the Delegation would agree with me that
that’s important and they will agree that we will meet. We will try to do that soon,
1
sooner than later, because as you say, as the days and weeks progress we will be called
on to meet different groups many, many times. And those of us that represent numerous
counties will be called on to meet the same people within those counties. So hopefully
with the Delegation’s approval we will probably meet the latter part of this month.
Mr. Beard: We will leave that at your discretion.
Mr. Cheeks: Thank you very much.
Mr. Beard: The way we were going to do this, this morning is that we have seven
items here that what we would like to do is go through each item. If y’all have questions
on these items, we’ll be glad to explain them to you, but we will start with one, and there
are different people in here who are going to explain the item because they had the
contact with these items and they know a little more about them [inaudible] were selected
[inaudible]. And we’re going to start, the first item, Commissioner Mays will explain the
first item. Commissioner Cheek will explain the next, 2 and 3. And also Commissioner
Mays will work with 4, insurance. Commissioner Boyles will do 5. Mayor Pro Tem
Colclough will do 6. And we’ll come back -- if Steve Shepard come in, he will be 7, if
not we will have someone else do that one.
1. Sales Tax for Public Safety Within Consolidated Governments
As a result of their being only three consolidated governments in Georgia, it has
been suggested that the provisions for SPLOST could be amended to allow SPLOST
funding to be utilized for public safety departments, rather than being limited to
Capital Outlay Projects as current exists. In addition, legislation could be
introduced to allow an addition to LOST statutes to allow additional sales tax
earmarked for public safety. These provisions would apply only to consolidated
governments, hopefully eliminating some opposition from other legislators around
the State. There is a logical nexus of being allowed to use SPLOST/LOST funds for
public safety, since out of county residents are coming into the county to generate
sales tax, and also are contributing to traffic control issues, vehicular accidents, etc.,
necessitating greater public safety involvement.
Mr. Mays: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your dictation from our side. Let me,
let me preface this, Mr. Chairman and other members of the Legislative Delegation. Let
me first say in looking at item number 1, let me make something real clear that the
Commissioners have been talking, and that’s all of us, item 1 contains nothing in terms of
an additional sales tax period. That thought has never entered our mind. I know I think a
year or two ago something got out from the City side that we may have been entertaining
that, and that was mistakenly out there. At no time has the Commission discussed even
asking for any increase of any kind in reference to sales tax whatsoever, so I just wanted
to throw that out there very first and foremost. What we had talked about in reference to
sales tax having some flexibility within consolidated governments only. And I know that
you all know the lay of the land better than anybody else in reference to, to how things
can get done in Atlanta and particularly when legislation is passed that may not affect
other counties. And I guess, Mr. Chairman, you’re probably more familiar with it in
2
reference to some of the legislation that was passed years ago relating to populations per
se that was done and was able to get support for it primarily because it did not affect
other areas across the State. We looked at the flexibility of sales tax, and I’m, I’m sure
we did it with looking at it in mind that there would have to be a referendum as such that
even if something was passed, that the consolidated government would have to put it
forth and the people would have to approve it before it being done. Where we sit and no
one has -- and I mentioned about the, the no increase on the sales tax side of it -- there is
no any form of thinking, I think, with the majority of this Commission that we will want
to deal with any, any local taxes on any side in terms of [inaudible] increase. So what
we’ve been looking at is those areas kind of where either from, from mandates, from,
from, from, from our upper governments that may be placed upon us, or even things that
we may be doing where we have monies to, to complete projects per se, but may not at all
be able to use any sales tax proposals to deal with anything else. We had looked at trying
to get some help because Athens Clarke had had some interest, I think Columbus
Muskogee has been the prime mover of having some interest. Their interest is a little
different. As you know in Columbus Muskogee, they’ve got the 3 mill tax dedication
that they do on their property for hospital causes. So everybody has something different.
And we know that in the legislation if something gets done, it would have to be crafted so
that everybody could deal with their own level of flexibility and that’s why we thought
about it in terms of referendum form. We put on ours, and this was kind of a consensus
of everybody, while we narrowed it down to public safety, because we figured well, in
that case it might be one that’s sort of non-debatable per se with the general public.
However, as we probably will meet with you all later, we didn’t limit it to, to just public
safety, that it may be in areas for instance with say Mr. Johnson and his group that where
you and the federal government have good in reference to, to vehicles, per se, that we
may be able to get monies for transportation, but then we can’t use a nickel in terms of
doing anything else for, for hiring anybody to do [inaudible]. So I know that just in our
membership group with ACCG, they are kind of very sticky about wanting to change
anything in sales tax. And I know I had to address them, Mr. Chairman, on this issue,
and I told them, I said well, this was before the fourth county consolidated -- I said well,
it’s only three of us. I said if y’all could just take the other 156 of y’all get out of our
fight and maybe let the Legislators that represent the three of us get something carved out
that would only affect our governments and we would only be doing ours by referendum.
Now this might be an easier way to be able to have some thing in there that would give us
some breathing room. Because with our limitations and taxing means and also with a
major county that’s with the second-largest city now, but where I think we rank on our
millage per se is that most of the major counties and cities are found anywhere from
numbers 1 through 25. Augusta Richmond County ranks up about 122-123, in that area.
But yet our level of service, particularly with things that are uncontrollable, such as
indigent defense, indigent care, just the list goes on. We just need to possibly be able to
have some help in making a decision within the taxing structure that we’ve got. Not to
change anything, not to increase it, but if the people so desire they would have a
mechanism to be able to, to get that done. And we, we kind of narrowed it down to
something that all of us wouldn’t get to arguing and fighting about, and that’s how the
public element safety element came on there, that maybe if that was done in that way,
then it would free up other funds that we would have within general fund to do some of
3
those other things with, and that would be within the existing tax and done by referendum
that would be approved by the people. And that’s where we are on that.
Mr. Beard: Does anyone have any questions from the General Assembly in
reference to Mr. Mays’ item 1?
Mr. Cheeks: What you’re saying is that you do not want to increase the
percentage but you want the ability to use it for, for public safety? All in you want to do
is alter what is put on the ballot when the SPLOST is presented? Is that what I’m
hearing?
Mr. Mays: If, if we, if it was done by referendum and approved to be able to have
that ability and flexibility.
Mr. Cheeks: Let, let me ask this question. If you know; if not, I’m sure, Jim, you
do. When do you come back for your SPLOST approval? Aren’t we just before putting
another SPLOST out there for the people to vote on?
Mr. Wall: Well, it expires, the existing one expires December 31 of ’05. Yes,
there has been discussion about having a referendum early, which there’s no restriction
upon doing. And so there has been discussion and work being done for developing the
list to be voted on sometime next year.
Mr. Cheeks: So what we’re really saying that we would introducing legislation as
far as this county is concerned, it would only be used or usable for one year?
Mr. Wall: No. What, what Commissioner Mays is suggesting is under the
SPLOST, permissible uses of SPLOST funding --
Mr. Cheeks: Statewide?
Mr. Wall: Statewide.
Mr. Cheeks: Does not have --
Mr. Wall: It’s for capital improvement projects.
Mr. Cheeks: Capital.
Mr. Wall: And what Commissioner Mays is suggesting is that a separate
subparagraph be worded for just for consolidated governments so that SPLOST funding,
after a referendum, could be utilized for public safety purposes.
Mr. Cheeks: Does any other member of the Delegation, Legislative Delegation --
Henry, you are -- have any questions?
4
Mr. Howard: If SPLOST would take over public safety, what would happen to
the general budget as far as your budget and public safety?
Mr. Mays: What, what I would envision, and this is just my personal speaking,
Mr. Representative, is that it would not take it over. It would just be a means that we
could use, prioritize, just like everything else. It would not become the replacement
formula for public safety. Say for instance where we dealt with a property tax increase
on last year, to deal with fire and, and the Sheriff’s Department. Even though it was a
small millage increase, it was in the public safety arena area. It would give people then
that choice to a point that it would not take over their whole budget, but say for instance
some things as we’re under the constitutional auspices in our, in our bill for the Sheriff to
handle law enforcement. So therefore, those needs of running the jail and what he
presents to us, and I know many time it’s said well, you control the purse strings. Well,
that’s true to a certain extent. But also I think the law is pretty much in Georgia sided
with sheriffs in terms of their, their natural amount of money that it takes to run those
departments, and we are looking at that being one area that’s, that’s coming forth every
year. We are fixing to also -- and I was glad, Mr. Chairman, you brought that out about
that time frame because we’re looking at the possibilities if SPLOST passes, that one of
the things that’s on there is the increase of those jail pods. We’ve been told by the
Sheriff already that there is going to be an increase in personnel in order to handle two
new jail pods that he’s going to come to us with. And so we are trapped in there from the
standpoint of the federal courts. The jail is going to have to be staffed in they are
increased, and so that in itself we know is going to be a natural increase in it. The other
reason we thought that if we could get it off the ground this year is the fact that -- this
gets back to your [inaudible] which is perfect comment, because we were glad that we
didn’t have a SPLOST referendum in November of this year gone. There was some talk
to do that. But if we were going to give y’all any breathing room to try and get
something in there that might a little flexibility -- Jim, you can correct me, but I think our
thinking was that if, if, if we did the SPLOST but then it did not have the parameters to
include possibly doing this, then it would be out there for four to five years or particularly
if it goes for the, the course of cost items or even a ten year situation, we would be within
those limitations only of what, you know, it called for. So therefore we were trying to
give it at least a fair shot at getting out and kind of would see, you know, where it would
go.
Mr. Cheeks: In addition to your increase that’s going to be mandated on
increasing the size of the jail, you’re getting a new law enforcement center -- I assume
that y’all have come to some definite decision on that. And that’s going to be a
tremendous cost, also, to operate it. You’re going to have new furniture that’s got to go
in it. I’m sure that’s not part of the building cost. You’re going to have new staff that’s
going in it. So would this allow y’all to use the SPLOST to somewhat, since it’s public
safety and since that’s the court system, is that going to be combined, Jim, or is that going
to be a separate -- I mean, you know, we’re looking at a tremendous cost besides the
building and if my memory serves me correctly, the last figure was $73 million. Has that
changed? And that’s just the initial cost of the building or the structure, that’s not the
operational cost. And you’re not going to eliminate the cost of this building, because it’s
5
still going to be here, and you’re going to be utilizing it. So, you know, we may as well
look at the -- I think the Delegation, as well as you as local elected officials, must be
looking at the downhill side of five years a minimum, and we’re going to have
tremendous additional, ongoing costs for this government. And now if any member --
excuse me, Tommy.
Mr. Boyles: Senator, we talked about it. It’s in the total cost for the new Judicial
Center. Furniture and furnishings are in there.
Mr. Cheeks: That is in the cost?
Mr. Boyles: It’s in there, but we still have the, the yearly operating costs. Heat,
air, lights, utilities, water, whatever. And that’s where we’re going to be facing a
problem. That has happened with us with every new -- from the Aquatics Center to every
other building that’s been built. It has increased every facet of the budget.
Mr. Cheeks: That’s going to be a tremendous increase, you can be assured of
that. That going to be quite an increase and no one should be shocked by it, because we
are telling them now. So everybody should have that fact in their mind that that’s going
to be a tremendous increase and continued cost. And that’s ongoing, continued cost. I
mean I’m just thinking what you’re saying. We need to know, when we’re talking about
SPLOST, what we’re using it for, [inaudible] all the funds and what are we
supplementing. Does any member other than the members of the Delegation, I mean the
members of this Committee that’s in the Delegation, Quincy, you or Alberta, have a
question?
Mr. Murphy: Yes, I have a question. In terms of the -- have you actually
determined what percentage of the SPLOST would be dedicated to public safety, or are
you asking to have the flexibility of using any amount toward public safety?
Mr. Mays: Actually, we haven’t, Quincy, in terms of, of an actual number or
percentage. I’m, I’m sure that there would probably have to be some, some referendum
limitations within there. And that’s, that’s I responded, you know, to my Representative
like I did. It was not, it would not be a -- in other words, a new funding ground where, in
other words, our road projects, our other stuff would just disappear out of that package.
It would just give in terms of maybe -- and maybe even a fair, fair ground of dealing with
it would be in terms of what might the possibilities of some incremental jumps that might
be from what we were already handling out of general fund money and make, make that
some limitation. Cause while I think people might support it and, and I’ll be honest with
you, I had probably -- Tommy and I have talked about this for years, Mr. Chairman, in
recreation -- that probably mine was initially geared toward a wider scope of doing, but
we knew that if we, if we got to a very wide scope, if we said okay, this might cover five
to six different departments, we might lose an area of public support from the standpoint
that if people think well, that they’re switching from where they are to now we’ve got
five to six new categories, and then how can we control that with our vote? So public
safety was kind of one that we knew we were going to have to deal with, and you
6
mentioned, the things in reference to jail, the Judicial Center, those items where you have
the increase was kind of where the neutral ground that we came together on. And it
would be wonderful if we had some areas to go up and down with it, but I think when
you put it, as you’re looking at it on the ballot, you’ve got to have some specific in there,
whether it be in dollars or whether it’s in percentages, where your limitations are. So
that’s kind of where we are. No, it hadn’t been determined, but I think yes, it would have
to be spelled out in terms of where the limits would be in what you are doing. That’s just
my, my personal opinion of it.
Mr. Cheeks: One other question. I’m going to end, but are we receiving federal
dollars because of 9/11 for public safety or public protection, such as the new structure
we have checking you coming in, metal detectors and all? Are we receiving any? We’re
not receiving any federal -- well, have we explored? I thought there was. I may be
wrong, but I thought there was some federal funds set up for cities to do that. I may be
mistaken.
Mr. Wall: We’re getting federal funds for the -- at the airport for security. I’m
trying to think whether any of the security equipment downstairs was purchased with
federal funds.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] I can’t speak to that [inaudible] fire department or haz-
mat stuff, and stuff like that. We are taking advantage of federal grants that are available
to us and will continue to do that. I think specifically they’re looking for M&O
[inaudible].
Mr. Cheeks: I understand. But I was just wondering, you know, if we are
exercising whatever we can to get down or match whatever we can pick up.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheeks: Henry, I think you had another question.
Mr. Howard: I was looking at the list but I don’t see anything on here this list
that’s pertaining to economic development in a sense. Maybe indirectly they are some,
but economic development can bring industry and jobs and will do some things that
recreation may not do [inaudible]. That’s a service, but I do feel that somewhere in your
list something pertaining to economic development, something that attracts industry.
Mr. Beard: Let me explain. [inaudible] what we said, we were going to list seven
items, and we had about 20-something that we could have presented to you this morning.
And we also recommended that we have a joint meeting and those that we could discuss
[inaudible] talking points that we can discuss, because not only economic development,
but there are a couple of other things that -- mental health is another one that’s really high
on the list. We just didn’t put all those things down.
Mr. Howard: Okay.
7
Mr. Cheeks: Okay, if you will, Mr. Beard, if you will continue.
Mr. Beard: Andy will take the next two items.
2. Eviction Law Change
The General Assembly should amend the statute to declare as abandoned property
any personal property left behind at the time of the eviction. Currently, the
property owner must remove the personal property from his premises and put it on
the right of way. Changing the law would allow the property owner to take it to a
dumpster, call Salvation Army to pick it up or whatever - it would not go to the
right of way. The current practice costs Richmond County over $300,000 a year
and one dedicated crew to clean up rights of way after evictions. Both the
apartment owners association and their lobbyist are expressing no opposition to this
change.
Mr. Cheek: Items 2 and 3 are significant impactors on our general fund budget
and we seeking, through the Legislative Delegation, relief that would help us to offset
those costs, as we incur them. One, item number 2, changing the eviction law, there is
currently a 72-hour waiting period to pick up abandoned articles when they’re taken to
the curb and they pose (1) an aesthetic problem and (2) $300,000 a year impact on us
having to dedicate a crew to clean those up. We feel that if we change the law to allow
the eviction, and based on our [inaudible] eviction process, there’s ample time to move
material and stuff out of a home, that it could be changed to where it goes directly to a
relief agency like the Salvation Army or the landfill or Good Will or whoever, but to take
it instead of to the curb, directly to some point of disposal or disposition other than the
curb. That would help us take that same crew that we dedicate to the cleaning of
evictions, which is one crew basically dedicated year-round, and allow them work on
ditches and roads and other parks and other things and reduce that cost by putting that
power in the hands of the landlord, to allow them to remove the material to some other
point other than to the side of the road.
Mr. Cheeks: If we may, Commissioner Cheek, we discussed this last year. This
was on y’all’s agenda last year, Jim, I have to go back to you. In researching this, we
found that somebody ultimately have to have the responsibility. Correct me if I’m
wrong, Jim, but didn’t the Legislative Council tell us it would have to be the city’s
responsibility? If we were to change this, that somebody would have to accept
responsibility? If we were to take someone’s property and not be accountable and give
them a reasonable time to reclaim it, then we could be sued, or the city. What was the -- I
know we had several letters on it.
Mr. Wall: I didn’t hear it expressed that way. What I heard expressed was there
were due process concerns about giving the apartment owner, the owner the notice
[inaudible]. My response to that was this is the exact same procedure that’s allowed for
mobile homes. And so if the due process is there for mobile homes, it should be for this.
8
Mr. Cheeks: All right, that’s something we’ll definitely look into. I’ll continue.
And now that you’ve mentioned mobile homes, which I haven’t heard until today, I will
see if we can address that through that same type of legislation. That’s not a cost item for
us but we do not want to, as members of our Legislative Delegation, put any
responsibility on the City that they don’t currently already have. Now again, property
owners, it would be more costly to them, also, they say. Whether it will or not, I don’t
know. But that is one that I’m sure the Delegation will be looking at and possibly have
you an answer on, so that being said, unless some member has something else to say, we
can move on with that.
Mr. Cheek: With this particular item, the property owners -- what we’re hearing
is they’re having to pay to have it moved to the curb and then pay to have it picked it and
it’s more or less a double whammy, where that cost is passed on.
Mr. Cheeks: Let me ask something, Andy. If the property owner is saying it
costs them twice, would it be feasible if we had a central location such as -- and I don’t,
I’m not -- a shop on Broad Street, if we had it delivered there and held it, and then give
them a chance. Would it help? I mean I don’t know. I mean I know what y’all are up
against and we fought this last year. The Delegation, I’m sure y’all remember, we had
numerous letters and correspondence on this issue. And there was never anything settled
that we could do. But I’m sure from what you’ve said with the mobile homes, and I’ve
written it down, I’m going to be checking on that. That might be our answer.
Mr. Cheek: Eviction is about a 90-day process or so. You know, there again we
feel that within that period of time a homeowner or property owner or renter would have
adequate time to make plans to move their equipment, you know, their materials without
waiting until it’s essentially on the curb.
3. Surcharge on Fines/Filing Fees for Courts
Consider an increase in filing fees for Superior, State, Civil, Juvenile and Magistrate
Courts to cover increasing expenses because of decisions contained in Alabama v.
Shelton and the increased workload generally in our court system.
Indigent Defense
Consider the decriminalization of minor traffic violations. Currently, Indigent
Defense is required to provide a defense of indigent persons stopped for minor
traffic violations. By eliminating these offenses from the criminal code, it would no
longer be necessary for Indigent Defense attorneys to represent anyone if the traffic
violation is contested. This would save some expenses even though we may lose
some revenue.
Mr. Cheek: Item 3, as a result of Alabama v. Shelton, we are seeing significant
increases in the cost of indigent defense. And we’re asking for relief, for the Delegation
to consider any ways to increase filing fees for Superior Court, State, Civil, Juvenile and
Magistrate Courts to cover increasing expenses. And also to look at decriminalizing
minor traffic violations, which would have a two-fold benefit. One, it would help us keep
people out of jail who are otherwise sometimes jailed for minor offenses. And keep them
9
out of the court process, which we’re required to cover the costs for indigent defendants,
even for traffic violations. That would help us offset or reduce the amount of costs for
indigent defense that we’re currently incurring.
Mr. Cheeks: Members of the Delegation?
Mr. Speaker: You know, last year we worked on that to some extent, and we kind
of got bogged down in how much and where and all that. To be helpful with that, if we
could be provided information on how much and where. And the decriminalization of
minor traffic violations, I assume that’s so they don’t have the opportunity to go to jail
for non-payment of fine or what-have-you, that would help the situation also. So
hopefully that would reduce the amount of the increase in fines an individual might have
to pay. You know, if we could get some information, you know, specifics on what is
really necessary, and certainly being frugal, that might help us work to that end.
Mr. Cheeks: And [inaudible] here today we have [inaudible] attorneys [inaudible]
Delegation, I can assure you that we as a State is looking at some decriminalization for
some minor offenses. That’s being done. One of them is minor traffic cases and things,
because we as a State cannot continue to do it. So we are looking at that, and I wish they
were here because they [inaudible] and they could tell you exactly what has been the
approach, but I have, I know that we are -- meaning the Legislature as a whole. So I
think you will on 3 get some relief. I would hope so, Jim. I mean I’m sure that they must
have contacted you or they should be contacting the people back within the State, the
Legislative group should be contacting to see what y’all --
Mr. Wall: I have not been contacted but other might have.
Mr. Cheeks: Well, I’m sure that I will ask one of our attorneys that is in our
Delegation to bring us up-to-date on that, because we are looking on a statewide basis.
Now as you say, the case over there in Alabama is really creating a problem, not only for
y’all but for the State, also. And also for the jail system throughout. We can’t continue
building jails.
Mr. Cheek: On the filing fees, the increase is certainly somewhere in the
neighborhood [inaudible] index rate of inflation [inaudible] over some period of time
[inaudible]. It would provide [inaudible].
Mr. Speaker: Last year, depending on who I talked to, I got numbers from $5 to
$100 on different things [inaudible] percentages.
Mr. Speaker: It varies.
Mr. Speaker: 1% to 10%. Can you kind of give us something that, that y’all want
and then we can work to that end?
10
Mr. Cheeks: We need to know a cost, what your true cost is and what you feel
you’d like to have, so when we’re speaking -- not we, necessarily, the judiciary, when we
speak to the members of the judiciary we can present them and say this is what it’s
costing Richmond County, Columbia County. You know, we’ll ask them to do the same
thing. And Burke and Jefferson, you know, we’ll ask all of them, our neighboring
communities to give us what it’s costing. And if we’ve got some true costs against the
fees that we’re charging, I think we’ve got a better way of getting an increase.
Mr. Cheek: We’ll try to put that together, I guess for the next meeting, when we
get together.
Mr. Cheeks: That would be something good for us when we meet again with the
GMA and County Commission group, and we’re meeting this week I think or either next
week, to ask them. Jim, are you going to be meeting with the County Commission
Association, the Municipal Association? Who is here is going to be meeting? I know
I’ve been invited. I don’t know if I’ll be here or I’ll be in Washington, one of the two. If
I’m there, I’ll ask them to provide this information. If any of y’all are there, please, y’all
ask them to provide the information on a statewide basis.
The Clerk: That’s our Commission meeting day.
th
Mr. Cheeks: So y’all won’t be there? What day is that? The 18?
th
The Clerk: November 18.
Mr. Cheeks: And I’ll be in Washington.
Mr. Beard: The next item will be insurance [inaudible].
4. Relief from Insurance Premium Tax
Mr. Mays: Gentlemen and lady, I, I guess probably we could hear more from
y’all on, on, on this one in terms of the fact that I guess I -- we more or just have a four-
letter word for this and it’s H-E-L-P. We appreciate the, the coordination last year of
setting up with the Insurance Commissioner’s office, however we realize that -- of how
the, you know, the formula reads. We discussed this on the tail end of one of our
committee meetings. I think it was last week. And while we, while the Administrator
was in, I think you remember, Fred, we were talking about how that formula works and
that we had kind of -- there had been some thinking maybe to say well, we, we, we back
off from asking because the formula as it reads does exactly what it says. And my
comment was, I know it does exactly what it says, but in our case it still hits us in a
punitive way, per se. It does count heads, but then it still does not take into account that
we’ve not lost any people that we still have to protect, the people who, who may even
come in from other counties or across the state on just a visiting basis daily, as well as
those that may work inside Richmond County, still have to be protected, as well as our
citizens that live here. And while we’ve not grown as much as some places have in the
11
doughnut area, and I can see where nobody wants to give up something from a formula
that gets them more money, we realize that this might be one that, that, that’s easier said
than done, because you’re dealing with people who are getting some revenue, and
obviously they don’t want to give up what they’re getting to do it. But we, we did feel
that we, we still needed to address it from the standpoint that it means that we, we’re
going to be getting still less even though our growth rate has not dropped below any level
of protection that we’ve had before. Growth has not been as much, but then again, with
the, with the people that’s in the metro that we still deal with, they are still there. And so
I didn’t know whether there was, didn’t know whether there was any hope in terms of
being able to, to have some asterisk within that formula per se that helped Augusta and
Richmond County out. But we felt that it was, that it was worth a shot. But when you go
around the state and money’s the name of the game, nobody’s got something that they
want to give to somebody else. And we just felt like we understood what the formula
said but as it’s applied to Augusta, it still hits us as a, a penalty per se, and it’s, and it’s
one of those areas I guess that kind of gets us a little bit back to number 1, because from
the standpoint that we may, we may cover ourselves right now, we did a little bit of a tax
increase, minor, that dealt with fire protection, but somewhere along the road -- and how
this came up, we were talking about what was going to happen within the formula, Mr.
Chairman, in terms of the, of the new ISO readings which are going to take place, where
they are, it was all in a conversation of, of what might soon be rates of how we deal with
fire and how we fund it period. And it’s kind of one of those things where it’s like,
unfortunately, the dog is soon going to catch up with the tail around here on, on, even on
the fire side, because of the way that it’s, that’s it’s historically been funded, particularly
out of the old county. Well, we had a formula, as you k now, with the city, but it was
[inaudible] but as it relates to premium tax and subscriptions, there’s a dependency where
you’re at, kind of at somebody else’s mercy. And when those revenues decrease, then it
gets you in a position, then you’re in an uncontrollable factor of what it takes to, to run
part of your operation. So 4 kind of relates to 1 a little bit in its necessity of trying to get
some means that if we, if we don’t get some means of relief on 4, then we, for the future
at least, we may need to look at what may happen in the public safety arena as to how it
takes place under 1. And, and we realize that when y’all start that kind of fight with
people who have money and numbers and Delegations outweigh yours, we’re not looking
at it as though you’re standing still and not doing. We just know that the fact that they
don’t want to give up something that they’ve got in their hand, and we understand that.
But we thought it was worth bringing back to the table again to see if something could be
done or if there could be something that would at least not penalize those who didn’t drop
below a certain mark and still had to protect the same amount of people. So that’s what
we, where we are on item 4.
Mr. Cheeks: Quincy?
Mr. Murphy: I have a comment. As a result of the last presentation that the
Commission made to us, we did present this, this item to the Chairman of the Ways &
Means Committee in the House, and he has committed to form a study committee on, on
this issue. This was done during the last session and unfortunately that has not been
complete. But we will once again present it to, to the Chairman and ask that he proceed
12
with getting some additional information and putting forth the study committee to see if
there are some other counties, some other counties that’s in the same position that we are.
They might have the same problem. We won’t know until we get some information. So
we will proceeding with this.
Mr. Mays: I think we very much appreciate the move in trying to do it.
Mr. Cheek: I guess the thing to be concerned with is we say we have a population
of 200,000 residents. The daytime population, where a lot of surrounding bedroom
communities, they will come into Augusta to work and our population may grow by as
much as 25%. We have to provide a level of protection to compensate for that 225,000
versus the 200,000, and we can’t not protect to that level, and therefore we need to be
given some type of relief to compensate for the total number of people we have to cover
versus actual population [inaudible].
Mr. Cheeks: Quincy, being in the business, I’m sure you’re more familiar with
that [inaudible] member serves on the Insurance Committee. I would request of you, if
you would, to discuss this with the Insurance Commissioner and see if you can get some
help in assisting what they’re asking for from the Commission. He would understand it,
he might have [inaudible] the situation. Have y’all, has your committee, has the
Insurance Committee of the House asked him to come over and discuss it with you?
Mr. Murphy: The Insurance Committee suggested that we present this to the
Ways --
Mr. Cheeks: Ways & Means? Well, if you can get the Commissioner to sing the
same page with you, you’re going to get a little more input. He’s a constitutional officer
and it would help a little bit. That’s all I can say on that. I’m just not knowledgeable.
I’m not on Insurance and I don’t know as to what a fair formula would be. But I think
the Commissioner could help us.
Mr. Murphy: We will pursue all avenues.
Mr. Cheeks: Anyone else?
Mr. Beard: [inaudible] Tommy.
5. Funding for Museums and State Attractions
Augusta is looking to secure permanent funding for the Augusta Museum of History
and Lucy Craft Laney Museum of Black History. Currently, the museums receive
discretionary funding from the hotel/motel tax, which is not enough to support those
two enterprises. In addition, Augusta requests funding to complete the Georgia
Golf Hall of Fame (GGHF). Currently, the GGHF has raised as much private
financing as it is able and has requested assistance from the public sector. Augusta
is requesting state assistance in this effort. Other communities such as Macon and
Atlanta receive state funding for museums that contribute to state tourism. The
13
Golf Hall of Fame certainly contributes significantly to tourism, especially
considering the annual Masters golf tournament that spotlights Augusta and the
state of Georgia worldwide and Fort Discovery. Certainly, the museums in Augusta
deserve state funding participation.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Cheeks, members of the
Delegation, I think this may come back around a little bit to what Representative Howard
just alluded to, economic development. W have two very good, very good museums in
Augusta with significant, or make significant contributions to the overall community.
I’m talking about the metropolitan statistical area and [inaudible] around. However, their
funding is mostly discretionary. As it says in here, there is funding from the hotel/motel
tax, and we do, as a Commission, give them a certain amount of money each year for
their operations. In our Administrator’s budget this time, both of those museums have
been cut, not drastically, but they have been cut, as almost all other items of our budget
have. So what we would like to request is that you look at, for number one, to look at
some sort of permanent funding for the Augusta Museum of History and the Laney
Museum based on their contributions to the community and to the citizens. And
secondly, we’re asking that you take a look at the Golf Hall of Fame. There has already
been some state money placed over there and that has been, I think, our sales tax money,
part of our SPLOST issue, has been placed over there. It’s a tremendous attraction, and
when we talk about economic development I think I read last week or the week before
that, that the significant growth in economic development in Georgia has been in the
tourism industry. The service industry. I think that we have the means here, but we’ve
got some projects -- whether it’s Fort Discovery or if it’s the Golf Hall of Fame -- we
need to finish those projects and make sure they’re funded because they do attract people.
When we look at the corridor with the Museum attached to it, the other development
[inaudible] downtown, I think it would give us a tremendous incentive to draw more
people. And we’re just asking simply for some help, if you can help us along, assist us in
some way along that, along those items.
Mr. Cheeks: Any comment? Let me say this, and I’ll play that broken record
again. Last year, they were going to cut the Golf Hall of Fame completely out and then I
told them they’d have to cut out the Music Hall of Fame, they’d have to cut out the
Sports Hall of Fame, and statements was made we would fund the last year [inaudible]
funding this year according to how the economy picked up. I can assure that maybe we
need, and this is -- maybe we need to ask the Augusta National to help us. They give
away $1,000,000+ every year, to help us with the Golf Hall of Fame. That might be an
answer. I have a letter on my desk from the Governor that says that there will be no new
programs added this year, be no increases added to the program as currently existing.
There are lots of worthwhile, needed programs cut completely out. He has a new formula
that he’s working on a budget from and as you know, Tommy, having worked up there
and every member sitting here [inaudible] knows it, the Governor sets the revenue
estimate, the Governor spends the revenue, then it comes to us to look at, and once he
sets the estimate and once he spends it, any money that we get for any project, we have to
take it from another project. So there’s no additional money of what he says. Now if he
says that, that’s going to be his ironclad rule, which I don’t know how he’s going to do it,
14
but we’re going, as members, are going to be held responsible to try to help him. And
that’s for three consecutive years having a double-digit decrease, with the increase in
population, in the state of Georgia. Two new Congressmen. We are in bad, hard times.
There’s children wanting to go to school in all facets. We have to fund. There’s more
children needed Peach Care health care. There’s more senior adults needing
hospitalization, nursing homes. But yet we have less income. And although we have had
the last three months a slight increase, single digits, none of it, none of it’s more than --
slightly the best has been 5.-something. It will take 15 to 18 months before we ever get
our hands on that increase and even with that we still have a 20% less increase this year
at the end than we had three years ago, without about a 20% to 30% need increase,
because of the growth in the state. Just want to say we will do all we can as a Delegation
to continue to get the funds that we feel are necessary. Nobody has made a request that
we don’t think is necessary. And we’ve been to two this morning making requests, we’ll
got to two or three more tomorrow, just in this county. We’ve got 158 other counties
who are going to be making these requests. We’re going to do as a Delegation all that we
can. Believe me, we will. And I think if you will look at the facts, this Delegation has
brought home more dollars to our immediate area and the counties which we represent
than any other Delegation. And that wasn’t by chance. That was because we diligently
presented a program, such as y’all are doing today, with a worthwhile need that we were
able to convince other members of the General Assembly to help us receive that money,
because we can’t do by ourselves. To help us convince the Governor these programs are
needed. But as late as two weeks ago, when I get this letter from the Governor, and he
tells me, as a member of the Appropriations Committee [inaudible], make no promises,
I’m giving you marching orders today, this is what it’s going to be. We’re going to first
take care of our needy, our [inaudible], our youth. We’re going to take care of that. But
y’all got to realize that the State of Georgia is to the point now we are going to be laying
people off. And we’re better than our neighboring states, and we do see a gleam of light
at the end of the tunnel. But it will take us five years to get back to where we were, at the
amount of increase that we’re getting where we were 2-1/2 to three years ago. You must
keep that in mind when you’re making requests. There’s lot of things that we used to
could get as individual members of the General Assembly, back for our community.
Little perks that we all had. That is a thing of the past. That will not be. And if y’all
notice, the Governor, after we passed the budget this past year, took his pen, which he has
the power to do, and he eliminated $20-some-odd million of perks. Now some of those
perks were needed. Some of those perks should have been. We didn’t lose any of ours in
this area. We kept every one of them. That wasn’t by accident. You have a hard-
working Delegation. But I don’t want y’all to leave here thinking that we’ve got a magic
wand, that we can get you funds that we can’t get. I’m saying that just to say that we as
Legislators know that we are going to have to do more with less than we’ve ever had to
do before. We are right at a billion dollar deficit of this budget over next budget based on
our income. Now we have been able to return the last seven years over a billion dollars
in taxes we used to collect but no longer collect. We’ve given back over a billion dollars
in about seven-something, a few months, in perks. We don’t have it. There’s no place to
get it except from the taxpayers. And we are not going to raise taxes in Georgia this year.
Put it blunt. It is election year. And Legislators want to get elected, just like County
Commissioners. And we are not even going to talk about a tax increase on a state level.
15
That being said, anything that we can do to assist where there’s not a dollar involved, I
think you’re going to get it done. If it’s a dollar involved, we’re going to give it 100%
from every member you’ve got to get it. But the good days, the happy days have come
and gone. We’re not getting a double-digit increase in our income as we had for 20-
some-odd years. A double-digit increase in income. We don’t have that anymore. Those
perks are a thing of the past. So saying that, about economic development, yes, we want
it, we want to see it, but it’s going to be each of us that have got get out here and sell
ourselves. And I do think with the road improvement program, the Fall Line Freeway
and the Savannah Parkway, is going to help our economic additions here in this county
and the counties south and east of us. So I think we’re on the right road. I think y’all are
on the right road, but I don’t want to paint you a picture that does not exist. With all that
gloom and doom, I want to say there is light at the end of the tunnel, but it will be a year
plus, if it continues to come. And after it comes, we are still 20% less than what we had
three years previous. So Tommy, I hope we’ve answered your questions on that.
Anybody in the Delegation can shed any better light to that than I have, then I’d like to
hear from you.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you. Certainly have, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate it and I
just want to comment, too, that of all of my years of service as a department head,
working with you in the Senate and working here for two years on the Commission, I
certainly like and appreciate this format to sit down and talk, much more so than the way
[inaudible] did before. I think this [inaudible] lines of communication [inaudible]. I do
appreciate the members who take the time to come down and see us. Thank you, Mr.
Beard.
Mr. Beard: We’re to item 6.
6. Request that no local legislation be introduced by the Augusta-Richmond
Legislative Delegation regarding the restructuring of Augusta-Richmond County
Government unless requested by the Augusta Commission in the form of a
Resolution.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Chairman, members of the Delegation, this item, this item
costs no money, I don’t believe. But this is something that has been an item of discussion
since I’ve been down here for the past five years. And I would like to say that regardless
of what the armchair quarterbacks say about this government, we have done a good job
over the last five years at running this county. As you know, we’re [inaudible] on a
democratic process where people have the opportunity to agree or disagree. So what
we’re asking in this item is that the Legislative Delegation make no changes to Augusta
Richmond County government unless there a resolution sent to you by the body of this
government. We have done an amazing job. I have seen a great change in Augusta
Richmond County since I’ve been down here, in the short period of time that I’ve been
here in Augusta. I think we’ve done a good job in running this government. There are
hard times all over the place. But we have managed our government I think very well
over the past five years. And I would ask that unless you receive a resolution from this
body, that no change be made to our government. This items doesn’t cost any money.
16
Mr. Cheeks: Any member of the Delegation? Well, let me give you my outlook
on this particular item. I’ve made it public and I am going to make it public again today.
I’m not, I’m not complaining with what y’all have done. I commend each member for
what you have done. But when the Legislature, when we set the Legislation that we’re
operating under, we gave two avenues of change, knowing that it needed changing. Y’all
have exercised one or two of those items on your own. It takes 2/3 of y’all to make major
changes. But we left it where the General Assembly can change it with a simple majority
of both bodies. I don’t think we -- I, for one, would not want to make a change in this
government without going back to the people and allowing the people to have a final say.
People should have the final say because that’s who is going to operate or live under the
operations of the government. I thought when we passed the legislation it needed
changing, I think we need change now. I haven’t changed my opinion. And by law, I
cannot acquiesce my powers to a local government of any description. By law I can’t do
that. So I will not make you a promise or anyone else that I as one member of this
Delegation will not exercise a right that I have, and that we built into the legislation, that
I will not strive to make improvements where I feel improvements need to be made. That
being said, I don’t even know what my colleagues, and I doubt seriously, that sits beside
me, would agree with some of the changes I might like to see. I don’t know that the
members of the House would agree with the changes I would like to see. But I feel that it
is my duty, if I think there need to be changes, then I must present it, and give them the
opportunity to say yes or no. I think it was purposefully set out to where we could do it
with a simple majority of both bodies, where y’all had to have 2/3. Don’t think that was
not intended. That was intended. So then for any member of this elected Delegation of
the General Assembly to say I will not do anything, then they are acquiescing their
powers that they were elected by the State under the Constitution, the duties that they’ve
upheld to do. So I don’t know how any member of the Delegation feels, but I will not be
bound by any request that anyone makes, and I do mean anyone, on what I feel are my
obligation under the powers that have been vested in me as a Senator from this State, by
rd
the people in the 23 Senatorial District that elects me. I will continue to try to strive to
do what the majority of the people ask me to do. The day that I will stop doing that, that
is the day for me to announce that I intend to not only not run, but stop serving. That’s an
obligation that I held my hand up and said I would uphold. I plan to continue. That’s
not, that’s not to be said that every member of the Delegation will have the same right,
and I have never, since I’ve been there, since 1967, ever tried to put someone’s palm
back of them and raised it up and twisted it and tell them how to vote. And I will not this
year, either. But I’m going to do what I feel is my constitutional obligation to do. And I
do intend to see that we’re given -- that every member of this Delegation is given an
opportunity to correct some of the ills that I think this government has. I have spelled out
before what I think they are. I’ll be glad to do it again today. I feel it’s wrong when you
have a quorum and the majority can’t rule. You do it on every committee and everything
else y’all have got down here except the main, most important thing. I think it’s wrong
when y’all have a Vice Chairman of the Commission, that nominates and makes the
committee appointments when they only have to answer to 1/8 of the people and not
really 1/8 of the people in the county. Because Hephzibah and McBean is out. I think
it’s wrong. I think the fair thing would be -- and let me say this -- I think it’s wrong when
17
the Mayor is a ribbon-cutting Mayor. And let me say why I’m saying that. You know
and I know and I’ve been saying this now for eight years or six years, ever since after we
got it. Let’s don’t put our heads in the sand. We know that the Mayor -- I really thought
you would have a Mayor today that would have a different skin color in there. And we
know that that’s going to happen. We know it. So I don’t care if his skin color is red,
black, pink or green. If the Mayor is the only person elected countywide, should have
some authority. Now that being said, I’m going to go back and say -- there was a little
Biblical quote in The Augusta Chronicle yesterday. Ezekiel 2:12, I believe. “I have
given you eyes to see, I have given you ears to hear, but you don’t see and you don’t
hear.” All I’m saying is I’m listening, I’m listening to y’all. Some of you can vote for or
against me when I run again. You are my constituents. And y’all have the choice of
keeping me there or sending me home. But I’m listening to the people and I do
transverse this community. I’m listening to y’all. I’m listening to the people in Burke
County, Jefferson County, all the other counties. And the people here are screaming that
we need gridlock stopped. Now whether it’s gridlock or not, that’s for y’all to decide.
That’s like beauty. It’s the eye of the beholder whether you’re pretty or not. Y’all don’t
think there’s gridlock. Maybe there’s not. But the people I’m representing are telling me
there’s gridlock. So I got to strive to change it. That being said, I think everybody
knows how I feel. I’ve discussed this with Quincy on about a month ago at another
meeting. I’ve discussed it with Henry at the same meeting. Henry brought out some of
the things at that meeting when we were discussing it. Again, they’ll have to make up
their mind. Again, it takes a majority of both bodies to do it.
Mr. Colclough: When the consolidated government was set up [inaudible].
Mr. Cheeks: Henry and myself are the only two members here that can answer
what was said and what was not. Henry and myself was there. We debated it to the point
that if had not been for Bettieanne Hart, the consolidation bill would have never gotten
out of the Delegation. Henry and Bettieanne Hart and myself sat down and compromised
and gave in and said what we felt we could pass within the community at that time, but
we reserved the right to change it and granted y’all the right to change it, but we said then
that it was not a perfect bill and we recognized that fact. If you want to get down to the
real reason why we worked so desperately to try to get it passed, Henry made this
statement already in the last six weeks. The City of Augusta was broke. They were
passing bad checks. 83 or either 87 in one day to my knowledge. And we sold the idea,
if we’re going to save the City, the County has got to come to the rescue. And we did.
Whether it was good, I don’t know. I think it was. But whether Henry agrees that it’s
perfect, I don’t know. I don’t think any of us [inaudible] perfect. Until we feel it’s
perfect, I think we should look at change. Whether we can agree on what the changes are
is the main thing, but I think we all agree it’s not a perfect piece of legislation. You have
a question?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: Just a comment. I think the point is here today that we, we dialog
about these changes and discuss real v. perceived based on whatever information is
18
disseminated to the public. I would offer an example of the hire-fire discussion that came
up in that, Senator, as you mentioned, you would not delegate a constitutionally-given
authority away. We had no guidelines, and this was not reported or, I doubt, made it to
you guys, that we had no administrative guidelines to govern that activity and therefore
based on the push that was made for us to make that change is asking us to delegate an
authority to a non-elected person that had been given to us without any coherent
guidelines to govern that activity for the remainder of life. And so, you see, gridlock, as
y’all know, in some cases is a good thing until you get the details worked out. But I
would encourage before we all jump on to believing some calls or what’s printed to arm
ourselves with the facts in that Augusta has a quarter of a billion dollars’ worth of work
going on. We’ve had some things in the upper 90% by unanimous consent, and then
some things are worthy of debate and being held up, and that in the future -- and I agree,
there are certain changes. The Legislation needs to be tweaked and improved. There are
things that can be done. All of us don’t agree on those changes. But that we at least talk
it through and that it not consume y’all’s time in Atlanta and our time down here fighting
about this issue, that we try to work collectively to make improvements in this.
Mr. Colclough: One of the things you said [inaudible] out there with me most of
the time when all the people get together and I’d just like to understand that we’ve gotten
a lot of calls about how bad the government is down here.
Mr. Speaker: I’ve gotten -- I don’t know [inaudible] fair amount calls, not as how
bad it is. That’s not the term I’m hearing. What I’m hearing is it can be better.
Mr. Colclough: Well, I agree with you on that.
Mr. Speaker: And that’s in a nutshell, that’s what I’m hearing. We’ve heard
some, sure, I’ve heard some negative things.
Mr. Colclough: Of course.
Mr. Speaker: But I mean the majority of what I get phone calls and conversations
on are it really could be better and could be better easily.
Mr. Cheeks: If I may speak on that behalf. I haven’t received, I haven’t had
anybody tell me that y’all are not doing a good job. They’re complaining about the
method in which you are doing it. They are complaining to me, the perception is there.
Now whether we like it or not, we have to answer to that. Now I think that you, I think
the results of the last election speaks volumes. Two of you didn’t have opposition. Both
of you sitting here. One of you had opposition that’s not here and got reelected. And the
other one couldn’t run again. Isn’t that saying something? But it’s still not saying, from
what I’m hearing, that we can’t do better. And that we shouldn’t. And that’s all I’m
saying. And if I can’t convince the majority members of the Delegation to see it, then it’s
a mute issue. And we all know that. But I cannot conscientiously say to you today that
I’m not going to try. And that’s what this item says. And I’m not going to do that. But -
- am I going to try to twist anybody’s arm or hold a gun to their head? No, I’m not. It’s
19
not my job to do that. But it’s at least my job to try to say why and hopefully they will
agree. And if they don’t, you know, we’re still going to be friends. We’re going to drink
a cup of coffee the next day.
Mr. Beard: Senator, one thing is that this item is no different from any of the rest
of the items that we presented to you. We recognize that this would, the Delegation, that
you’re going to answer to the people who elected to.
Mr. Cheeks: And y’all ought to.
Mr. Beard: [inaudible] But we also asking, as we asked for the others here, that
item 6 is no different. If we going to do something, then let’s sit down and come to some
kind of consensus on what we’re going to do. If we think that the things are so bad that
we need to change here, we were hoping that, you know, you just wouldn’t go off and do
-- come back -- we we’ve stated before, we have a lot of talking points. This probably
can be one of the talking points and probably will be one of the talking points. But we
can sit down and, and, and you can really find out firsthand what is wrong with the
government, how we are proceeding, and then if you still feel that way, that’s your duty,
that’s your right to offer this up as a change. But I think this is more or less a point where
we’re just asking to come together prior to just going ahead and, and, and, and to me, the
last couple of years [inaudible] to do this. It’s nothing but a media [inaudible]. And I
think we ought to be above that, because we’ve started on a right direction today. I just
hope we can continue going on with that.
Mr. Cheeks: Mr. Beard, I’d like to say, the statement that you just made, there
wasn’t media. I, as an individual elected official, met with numerous leaders of this
community. Black leaders. Two occasions this past session. Once before the session
began, and once during the session. Met with them and asked them to give me input.
The bottom line is this. It takes 2/3 of y’all, and y’all are going to have a hard time
getting 2/3 out of 10. And it takes a majority of us. That’s the difference. It takes 2/3 of
y’all and a majority of us. There were some of the issues that was brought up in these
meetings, and I could call names, and actually most of them, 2/3 of them was ministers
and the other 1/3 was business people. We did not agree on every issue to the extent that
we could say we would unequivocally support that issue, but we did agree on every issue
that I brought up that some change in there, some give was possible. But to what extent?
I have asked those same people to meet again. I have already told you that this
Delegation, I’m going to request of this Delegation that we get together back again, the
total Delegation and the total members of the County Commission, to meet again.
Unfortunately, when we meet in a meeting such as this, the press is going to be there and
we can’t stop the press from saying whatever they want to say was said. They have
freedom of the pen. But when we meet individually, as I have done, and I can give you
names, and some of you probably know because some of you was invited, singly, not as a
group, and some attended. You can talk about things more because you’re not fearful of
what might be misinterpreted or misprinted or a quote that you might have said between
the saying and the printed page or whatever they say as a news commentator on the tube
or radio. And that’s something we have to live with. Open records, and I’m for it. I’ll
20
accept anything that they want to print that I’ve said, unless it’s absolutely contrary to
what I have said. As long as it’s in the direction I’m saying it, I’ll accept it. But when
it’s completely reversed, as it has been, years ago, on numerous occasions -- the
gentleman is not here that did it -- then I will bring it back to the editorial board of the
paper. I will go to the owner or whomever I can, the manager of the station, and say this
is absolutely false to what I had said and here is my tape, because I usually tape it,
everywhere I go, to show you that I didn’t say that, I said thus. So I believe in the press, I
believe in the news media, and I believe in the fairness of both. So you know, I’m not
trying to say --
Mr. Beard: We have not problem, Senator, with the press being present. I don’t
think that’s the way I was going with this. I said usually when we, when y’all are doing
something in Atlanta, we’re thinking something else here. It hasn’t been discussed, so
we have a media blitz going back and forth. This is what I’m trying to avoid.
Mr. Cheeks: I understand.
Mr. Beard: And I’m saying if the press is there, I have no, no problem with that,
but I think it should the dialog, should be between your -- the General Assembly
members and the Commissioners, and this is what I’m trying to bring this to. That that is
where your dialog should be and, you know, I know nobody asked me, but, you know,
when we get to this, I would have an explanation when we all meet as to my feelings for
this, because nobody has asked me personally about this, but I’m sure that others have
been asked about their personal feelings. But I’m just saying I think we would be get
more complete resolve of this if we meet together and discuss it. That’s all I’m saying.
Mr. Cheeks: Can’t disagree with that.
Mr. Howard: Let me say this, if you will. I agree with the resolution coming
from the local government because you all are more affected it, as well as the people, and
I agree with Senator Cheeks. I did say that at the time I found out the City was going
broke and passing bad checks, I said we have to do something, and we did something.
Now who was to say that the next Mayor wouldn’t have got us in the same situation?
There was no guarantee. The next Mayor could have put us in a deeper whole in the City
than the previous Mayor. It takes time to be sure. Do you want to give that power over
to a Mayor the previous Mayor had when he was doing almost anything he wanted to?
That’s my concern more than anything else. I feel y’all have a got a surplus in your
budget, I believe you’re stable in your finances and so forth, I have not heard those
negative things about your financial situation since [inaudible] Mayor not have a vote and
not have all the authority as the previous Mayor that got us into the trouble we got into.
That’s my reason for being might afraid. You all know how your money is going. You
all know how you’ve to expend those funds and what you need to do be kept in the right
position as far as the federal government is concerned. So I want to follow your lead.
When you say we’re ready now, I don’t care who the Mayor would be, I’ll be willing
then to go forward and give up those powers and other things. The whole bill needs to be
scrutinized. We’re looking at one or two areas, but there are many other things in that
21
bill that [inaudible] haven’t looked at. So I’m saying that was my fear and I’m not saying
it’s still my fear, but I’m still leery. Because when you get burned one time, you can get
burned twice. You can get burned twice if you’re not careful. So the resolution will tell
me that you guys are ready for whatever change you want to be made. The people out
there, all they understand is what they read in the newspaper, see on television. They do
not understand the financial function of government. All they want is what they want.
They don’t understand [inaudible] coming from. They don’t understand what a struggle
you’re having to try to meet their wishes and their needs. And those people that are
saying change it may not understand either. All they know is what their newspaper is
saying. So my concern is, since you guys are in the [inaudible] and you know where you
are and you know where you want to be, where you want to go, and stay stable, I’ll wait
for that revolution to come before I sign it.
Mr. Cheeks: Anything else?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Chairman, just let me comment as a junior member of the
Commission. Maybe I can say this because I was not a significant part of it, part of it, but
I’ve been a part of the ten for the last two years. And when you talk about bad checks
and whatever else that may have gone on prior to 1996, ’95, this Commission has a
balanced budget right now and it will be balanced again for 2004. We have absolutely no
bonded indebtedness. [inaudible] city in Georgia can basically set that. All the old city
bonds, old county bonds have been paid for. And we’re sitting here today with $29
million in our reserve fund. It grew almost $2.1 million from last year. So I think that
the Commission as a whole, including Mayor Young, are pretty well [inaudible] manage
this government. I have seen from my short period of time that there have been some
disagreements. But two weeks later, they’re not disagreements. They come back and we
work them out. They’re brought back to us and they’re handled, and the City moves
forward. And I think if I could say anything, I’d just like to see us continue to talk about
the great City of Augusta and not continue to talk about, you know,, what this
Commission as a whole may be doing wrong of where we’re making mistakes. I think
we should receive some sort of credit when you all debate what you want to do, along
th
these [inaudible]. I, for one, and I feel like the residents of the 7 District that I represent
that I talk with daily are very proud of that fact. And I don’t think we get the comments
from the citizens as a whole of how bad this government is. Anything has room for
improvement. Any form of government. Federal, state and local. And I think we’re all
together doing our part. And again, I say that as a junior member [inaudible].
Mr. Cheeks: No question that y’all, as I said early on, I think election proves that
the people are satisfied with what [inaudible] are doing as far as managing and running.
Apparently that’s what that said. That’s what I would have to read in it if I were an
outsider. And I don’t try and I’m not trying to say anything different. You are to be
commended if you have a $29 million surplus, especially in the times that we are
currently in. But this I also see your list that you presented us, needing more money and
asking us to bring you more money down here, so I’m going to flip it back to y’all. Y’all
loan us some money. We don’t have any. So we’re not doing a good job on the state
level maybe. So how about sending us some of y’all’s money?
22
Mr. Speaker: That’s why we’ve got it, we’ve held on to it.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, let, let me say this. As somebody who will be leaving
office in two years if, if my health permits and I’m healthy enough to stay here through,
through the rest of my term, I respect every elected official’s right to, to make change and
to represent their constituents. The only thing I’ve tried to do over the course of three
governments and, and 24-25 years of being in this place is to not only respect their rights
but also make sure that they respect mine. And I think when you have the mutual respect
for colleagues on any governmental level, it goes a long way to what, what you can do. I
would never tell a person how they should vote. I think what’s in this measure is a
suggested means that goes beyond what you all have talked about around this table since
we started talking about item 6. You mentioned one word about perception. Perception
is important, but reality is far more important. I think that when you, when you listen to,
to things that are perceived, that it’s the duty of all of us to try and seek out what the truth
is. Now we came into a referendum in 1995 based on -- and you all made my point, you
all said what y’all discussed, how you talked about the City’s situation and all of those
things. That’s why when we met with Albany Doughty County a few weeks ago I
stressed basically two things: to be honest with the people and know what you are voting
on. I don’t necessarily think that code of honesty quite frankly was followed in terms of
putting these two governments together. Because everybody now talks back about what
happened and about the situation that it was. What I think, and this is not necessarily on
the elected officials who drew the bill, but there was a lot of promo in this community
that all of a sudden the savior of politics was coming. Once we consolidated, all of our
problems would go away. The great messiah was coming down I20 and that every
problem we had would go away. Those who drew the bill, those of us who were in local
government and those who kept any inkling of political knowledge knew that this was not
true. But yet we were not honest enough to say that, what the real reasons were and why
we were putting it together. Now there were some of us who were saying that. There
were some of us in opposing that bill, Mr. Chairman, that were basically looked upon as
progress blockers, it was said we didn’t want anything to change, we were small minded.
Well, I ran for that new office. I accepted the fact of what the rules were that were
handed out. Granted, the United States Constitution is not perfect. If it was, it would not
have amendments to it. I think you can go back and you can look at change. But I
accepted rules as they were. You talk about who you talked to. You know, I think that’s
very important. All of us try and listed to our constituents. I listen to a lot of folk, and all
the folk I listen to, even though I represent four majority black Districts, the folk that I
talk to and that I listen to are not all black. I listen to a lot of white constituents. I listen
to a lot of Hispanics, lot of Asians. I am probably the most diverse District of anybody
sitting in the room. I’ve got 2-1/2 Legislative Districts in the Super District that I
represent. And I try and be fair. The bill itself, if I wanted to be selfish about what it
doesn’t do, my constituents ask me every day, Mr. Commissioner, why can’t you run
again? And I think percentage wise I’ve gotten more votes than anybody else has in this
consolidated government. I beat -- five-way race I won without a runoff the first time,
23
and I’ve kept everybody else on the sidelines ever since. And if I live through these last
two years it will be ten, with that high percentage that’s there. So I think that it is
[inaudible] if I wanted to say what was beneficial to me as a Commissioner, I’d say,
number one, you all put term limits on this government and denied the people the right of
their representation to a point that you all didn’t have the courage to put on yourself. But
yet it’s done, but those are rules, and I abide and live by the rules. I’ve had two previous
Mayors. The one in government now, the one before him. Who knew what the job
description was on, on what they were getting into. Both of them, I assume, could read.
Therefore, they read what they had. And it was all [inaudible]. They said that they
needed the power to build consensus. I ask you to go back before you think about this
and look at how many times the former Mayor or the current Mayor has introduced
legislation to this Commission, regardless of who was on it, that the Commission has not
supported or turned down. I think the only issue probably that the Mayor has brought
forth, the current one, that I turned down and didn’t vote for, was the advertising lead that
was done in Forbes magazine for that amount to go over there. That’s the only thing
that’s been there. And I’ve said that when you a program, when you have vision, bring it.
I think that needs to go into account. If you’re going to talk about that, say then what is
the Commission denying you? And I’m going tell you what I, what I personally felt very
hurt by. And almost insulted. On our grand day to go before the General Assembly,
there we were with visitors, we were there with all of us at governmental people, I had
folk who were visitors that had asked me should I wear the sticker today to fix the
government? There we were to promote our City, we’ve got a diverse community, we
are asking the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, State officers, and everybody else to come
over and enjoy the hospitality of Augusta, but we had to be greeted at the door to say
fixing the government. What I’m getting to is the fact that when -- you have the right to
do [inaudible] -- the statement was made once, Mr. Chairman, of the Legislators that all
the time when you have the right, it does not make it right. There were a lot of things that
were on, on legal in America that were not necessarily good about America, that had to
be changed. And you may say okay, well, the government needs to be changed. But I
say that at least be honest about what it is, lay it on the table when you’re, when you’re
talking about it, and also consider the hurt and ramifications that come from division. I
said this in going out the door in and some in the meeting present now remember me
making the statement prior to leaving the [inaudible] and I know, Mr. Chairman, and I
give you credit, you probably in terms of trying to make every meeting that’s done when
this community would do it, but I made the statement to media them, and I said the same
thing this year, if we concentrate on those things that keep us together and that we can do,
we’ll have less time to fight about those things that obviously we know we can’t. And
while the right may be there to introduce anything, the ramifications that come from it is
that it trickles down into division. It spins a Legislative Session, dividing this group to a
point that it cannot address these and other issues. It puts us in a position politically of
[inaudible] how are we going to deal with our seniors’ programs, how are we going to
deal with matching our road monies, to deal with things in the [inaudible] that we can’t
get to because every time a microphone is in front of our faces, what position do you
have on the bill to change the government? So it creates unique divisions that go beyond
the gold dome, they go beyond the courthouse, and go into this community. And at the
end of the session, when it’s all over, and nothing’s done, then I think we’ve squandered
24
some wasted time on some things that we could have done together. And that’s my only
point. I would never say don’t do it. That’s a man or woman’s right to introduce. It’s
almost as ridiculous as those who were going to introduce the bill, which I do [inaudible],
I told my County Attorney, my good friend, this, that I felt the same way when folks who
said to me that I cannot abstain. I said when you stop Senator Thurmond in the Senate
from filibustering, when you prevent the Legislature from not voting or not being there
doing what they want to do, I can vote any way that I feel that I’m representing my
constituents. That’s been a bone of contention. And I think to represent those Districts,
and I represent probably as many people [inaudible] almost as much as some of you do in
a Senate District, and 2-1/2 Legislative Districts, I listen to constituents, too. And if they
were thoroughly mad, thoroughly mad, I have talented people throughout that Super
District that could come in and do a better job than Willie Mays could do. But it’s never
personal. It’s about our constituents. So I respect the rights of each of you. I don’t say
don’t do something. And I agree with you, I wouldn’t attempt to put a hand behind a
Legislator’s back to say don’t do it. But I’m just saying to you that when you do do it,
you create situations in the community, you created one within this Delegation that
caused splits, you create them out there in that body that we [inaudible] and spend it
doing positive things for this community and getting this done. And so I just think that’s
just my personal opinion on it. We all going to still be friends. You and I have shared
[inaudible] for a long time [inaudible]. We both can be our outspoken individuals when
we want to. I just put that out there to a point that I hope that it can be everybody’s New
Year’s resolution to work on something that deals with the wholeness of this community
and the governmental bodies and to get some things done that’s positive that’s in there.
Those, those, those stories you may not hear about and represent, this new Commission
over here, and you’re right, Don, not only did it work in this election, it worked in the
past one. I remember as sitting on Public Works, in this gentleman’s District across from
me. We been friends a long time. I supported and put more projects in than his
predecessor did. The stuff that went into National Hills on the water pipe line, the stuff
[inaudible] protection of Rae’s Creek, I supported it and did it. That’s why they’ve got a
new Commissioner. The people will speak. When they have bad representatives, they
will put them out. When you’ve got good ones, they’ll support them. And that’s, that’s,
that’s the only thing I’m going to say and we’re all going to be friends.
Mr. Beard: [inaudible] questions on that issue?
Mr. Cheeks: I think we have all expressed our feelings. I don’t they’ve changed,
I don’t think we’ve changed anybody’s opinion of what we are going and not going to do.
Mr. Beard: Let’s go on.
Mr. Cheeks: Head on to number 7 with you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cheek: Number 7.
7. Request State financial assistance in the Augusta Downtown Rail Relocation
initiative to relocate the CSX Railroad’s rail line that runs parallel to R. A. Dent
25
Boulevard to the CSX belt-line - Norfolk Southern old Georgia./Fla. Line and for
the planning and preliminary engineering for the removal of two main freight train
lines that bisect our central business district, create significant conflicts with
vehicular traffic and inhibit development on publicly owned riverfront property in
Augusta, Georgia, and North Augusta, South Carolina (relocation of the Norfolk
Southern Railroad line in the right-of-way of the Bobby Jones Expressway crossing
the Savannah River).
Mr. Cheek: This is a request for financial assistance or any other kind of
assistance as it pertains to traffic flow, life safety and economic development in
downtown Augusta. We are asking for any and all assistance, be it lobbying, financial
assistance, transportation funds to assist us with the relocation process of the main spur of
Norfolk Southern coming through, down Broad Street, across Broad Street. We are in
negotiations with them to relocate that and acquire easement along the Bobby Jones
overpass over the river and reroute that rail line and convert that to a pedestrian bridge for
our greenspace and Riverwalk initiatives in partnership with North Augusta. We realize
that funding is tight, but that this, all of us realize this is something that will take a multi-
year approach to accomplish, but that we begin laying the groundwork together to try to
find funding -- federal, state --
(End of tape 1)
(Beginning of tape 2)
Mr. Cheek: But this is a request to help us beat the bushes, to try to find ways to,
to fund this and of course y’all are involved with rail legislation and other things
throughout the State. If you serve on a committee that is involved with that, put in a good
work for us with the railroad guys to help them understand how important this is for the
City of Augusta.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheeks: I guess that covers the agenda. Is anybody from the Legislative
Delegation or the County Commission Delegation would like to say anything else?
Mr. Beard: Yes, sir. Senator, I just want to thank you for calling this meeting and
getting us together. When we started this a couple of years ago or last year -- I think it’s
been very fruitful, and we appreciate the work that y’all are doing in Atlanta and working
with us. We know that we’re going to continue this because of the statements that have
been made and another meeting where everybody can participate and we can just talk
about a number of things. We do want to express our appreciation for you and the
Delegation for taking your time out to come down to listen to us.
Mr. Cheeks: Took us a little better than an hour-and-a-half to discuss seven
items. Y’all say you got 20? Should I tell the Delegation to plan a half-a-day meeting or
a two-day meeting?
26
(Laughter)
Mr. Cheeks: You think we can cover it in a half-a-day?
Mr. Beard: We don’t want a whole day.
Mr. Cheeks: I will try to get back to Ms. Bonner and tell you the day as soon as I
can pool the Delegation, and hopefully it will be the end of this month and not into
December that we will meet and possibly the same day will request that the Board of
Education meet with us because they’re going to request it before it’s over, they’re going
to request to try to have the County Commission and the School Board on the same day
and probably expect to spend a minimum of four hours between the two. If we have to, if
we go over, we’ll just have to go over. But I’d like to try to keep it, I think the
Delegation would like to keep it to a half day, Quincy, or a full day.
Mr. Murphy: Half day.
Mr. Cheeks: Half day. Half day. So we will share the time. The date that we
set, I’ll notify the County Board of Education that we will ask them to meet with us on
the same day and I think this is a good place to meet down here because people know
how to get here. I don’t now what the condition is going to be at the School Board’s new
facility. I doubt if it’s in place, so we’ll just ask them to come on down here rather than
us leave here and go up there. We’ll ask them to excuse us and start the other meeting.
Quincy, Alberta, that suit y’all all right? Okay, is there any particular day? Would the
last week of this month -- what day suit who better? Monday through Thursday?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Beard: We usually have meetings on Mondays and Tuesdays.
thththth
The Clerk: The 18 and the 24 is our meetings dates. The 18 and the 24 are
our meetings dates.
th
Mr. Cheeks: The 18 I can’t be here. I’ll be in Washington.
th
The Clerk: Our committee meetings are on the 24.
th
Mr. Cheeks: The 24 is out, you’re telling?
Mr. Speaker: Next week is out for me.
Mr. Cheeks: Well, it’s going to be the last week, I can tell you that, because I’m
not even going to be here. I’ve got to try to get that pit facility [inaudible]. That’s where
I’m headed.
27
Mr. Cheek: In closing, I’d just -- they’re calling me to run to work. I’d like to
collectively or individually tell everybody thank you but I’m going to do it collectively
and say thank you for being here, and I’m going to run out the door and go back to work.
But I’m looking forward to this and many more.
Mr. Cheeks: Anything else? If not, we stand adjourned.
Mr. Warren: I just wanted to say thanks. I think the more of this stuff that we do
together, the more functional we’re going to be together, and the better Richmond County
is going to be. And I think it’s very, very important. We started this a couple of weeks
th
ago in the 99 and [inaudible] push it on with two gentlemen here Saturday about an
issue of working together. I talked to one of the newly-elected Commissioners last night
to get him on board and I’ll see the other one Friday night. But that’s what it’s all about,
working together. That’s what I want to do. Thank you.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, Tommy and I left some money with Jim Wall, so just
in case everybody says we don’t have a quorum of any group, we want to get a little bite,
Jim’s got the financial resources that we’re dealing with and I’m doing all the inviting, so
if we need to go on and get us a bite [inaudible]
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
28