HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-04-2004 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
February 4, 2004
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m., Wednesday,
February 4, 2004, the Honorable W. H. Mays, III, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Cheek, Beard,
Williams, Sims and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Bob Young, Mayor.
Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The invocation was given by Rev. Johnny Hampton.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
RECOGNITION:
The U.S. Conference of Mayors recognized Augusta’s partnership (Augusta Utilities
Department) with Operations Management International, Inc. (OMI) with its
Outstanding Achievement in Public–Private Partnership Award during its winter
conference meeting in Washington, D.C.
PRESENTATION/DELEGATION:
Mr. Willis Irvin, Jr., Author
The Point of the Arrow: A Soldier’s Memories of World War II
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: -- I still would rather have four more points on the side of
that board for Carolina, but we couldn’t get it all, and at this time the Chair recognizes
Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Than you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I rise today in [inaudible] to address
an issue that has been very heavy on my heart. First I’d like to thank God for the chance
he’s given me to continue my life and my service to the people of this City. I’d like to
apologize to the members of this Commission, my District and this City for bringing
embarrassment that has brought before the people of this City. I’d like to say and I hope
you will accept this apology from my heart, but God has given me a chance to carry on
and serve the people and that is exactly what I intend to do. I pledge the remainder of
these four years to try to improve upon my record, my level of service to the people of
this City, and to continue to represent everyone as I have in the past. I live this City.
Again, all of you, thank you for the calls. My answering machine was full every night for
the last week. And were it not for the prayers and the people calling and offering
support, it would have been a very dark time. Prayer is the most powerful thing in the
world and I can really feel that coming from the people of this community. And for that I
1
thank all of you. I intend to serve and work with you and bring a new level of service
and dedication to this job God has given me. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That is an apology that is unanimously accepted without
having to take a vote Members and your colleague continue to pray for you, for your
family, and we’re glad to have you back and we know that you are a valuable member of
this Commission and to this community, and I think that the people will be supporting
you, as well. And it’s good to have you back. Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Our consent agenda -- is that where you’re headed?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let’s, let’s go ahead with the consent. There are some
items, because we did not have one committee meeting on Engineering Services, but
before we do the consent, there [inaudible] yield to the Engineering Services chairman,
Commissioner Cheek, there is a few that he would like to present to go on to the consent
agent, and if some Commissioners may wish to pull some we’re still here [inaudible]
Engineering Services, but if we can go through the regular and go through your normal
order, Madame Clerk, and then I’ll yield to him on those [inaudible] if we can.
The Clerk:The consent agenda as it stands now consists of items 1
Yes, sir.
through 9C, that’s items 1 through 9C.
For the benefit of any objectors to our alcohol
petitions, once the petitions are read, if there are any objectors, would you please signify
your objection by raising your hand?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by William H. Islar for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Utopia
Enterprises, Inc. located at 2508 Peach Orchard Rd. There will be Sunday sales.
District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 27,
2004)
The Clerk: Are there any objections to that alcohol petition? No objections, Mr.
Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Before we get to the Engineering Services part, and
items 1 through 9C, is there anything that any Commissioners need to have pulled in that
grouping?
Mr. Speaker: 3.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item number 3. 3 will be the only one of 1 through 9C,
Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
2
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If we could at this time turn to the Engineering Services
portion, which is under our regular agenda, and I’m going to yield to the Chairman of that
committee in just a moment, and if we’ve got something we can do on, on consent, the
Chair will wait a few moments to see, and other Commissioners, particularly those that
may not be on that committee can have an opportunity to look and see if they cannot be
inserted there. But we’ll respect the right to pull any of them that’s there. So it’s yours at
this time.
Mr. Cheek:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. We have two pathways that we
are going to follow here or recommend. We have items to be added to the consent
agenda which include items 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, items 21A. There’s a
. Item 21A, 13 and 14 we’d like to defer back to Engineering Services
separation there
for discussion
With the consent of the committee, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we offer that.
13. Recommendation from Public Works Department regarding testing results
on the streets in Victoria Station and Glennfield Lane concerning their acceptance
into the City’s maintenance system. (Referred from January 12 Engineering
Services)
14. Ms. Terri Wakefield to appear before the Committee regarding a sewer
back up in her home on December 2, 2003.
21A. Discuss emergency bank stabilization on Vassar Drive Project. (Requested
by Commissioners Grantham and Sims)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioners, if you all would take a few moments to
look at those under that committee item, and we’ll respect the right of adding those or not
adding them, just as we normally do with the regular agenda at this time, because some of
you may need further information in it. While we’re waiting, I saw the hand of the
Attorney, and I’d like to recognize him at this time.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, with the consent of the committee and the
Commission, I was prepared to address the Wakefield claim in legal, to table that,
so after legal there is possible disposition of that matter today. That’s item 14.
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Cheek: Do we need a motion to table that, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s a place holder for it, it’s already there in legal and I
think the Attorney has done a very track and Herculean job of having something to
present to you in legal in reference to that so it’s under potential litigation so I think we
can resolve it very quickly once it’s in there. But he does need to explain it to you. I’m
sorry for the hands on this side for a minute. There’s some big old fellows I left over
there. I heard Don in my ear, so I’m going to recognize him first.
3
Mr. Grantham: Well, I’m glad to know that size does prevail sometimes anyway.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It does.
(Laughter)
Mr. Grantham: Since we’ve not taken a motion on the consent agenda, on the
consent agenda for the Engineering Services, is there any reason to pull 14 other than for
legal matter? Which I think that’s what you’re indicating, were you not, Steve?
Mr. Shepard: I was. Ms. Wakefield appeared at our information session and
explained [inaudible], and as a result of that, I was prepared to make a recommendation.
Mr. Grantham: Just wanted to make sure.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yeah, I think it’s one that does need to be there. The
subject came up and I think he’s done a very good job in terms of both for this City and
for the person making the claim and I think we can resolve it very quickly. Anybody else
while I’m down this side? I’m going to have to return to y’all in two weeks, so
[inaudible] come back. Okay. On this side, Commissioner Williams and then
Commissioner Boyles.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I just got one question here
concerning probably 15 through 19 under the recaptured SPLOST money. Do we have a,
a figure as to the amount of money that’s left? I mean I’ve got no problem with none of
these projects, but I’ve been very [inaudible] about trying to get some of the recaptured
money to be used in some areas that’s very neglected? I mean I don’t want to sit here
and vote and then say all of it’s gone. We been asking about how much money is
recaptured money is left, so I need to know where we are with that and what kind of
money that leaving us in recaptured money.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair recognizes the Public Works Director, and I
think if we can get those questions answered then maybe we might stay on the, on the
road where we’re going. But go ahead. It’s yours, Ms. Smith, and then I’ll recognize
Mr. Boyles.
Ms. Smith: Before any action is taken on any of these items in Phase I Suburban,
there is $110,000. There are some limits on what these funds can be used for. Phase II
Suburban, there is $1,067,000. Phase II Urban, $125,000. And Phase III Suburban,
$1,914,000. The projects that are on the books for today to be considered come to a total
of $1,025,000. Those projects are all proposed and eligible to be funded from Phase III,
which would leave just under $900,000 available for Phase III projects, projects that
would qualify for Phase III funds.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
4
Mr. Williams: Yes, that answered my question, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. That
doesn’t leave a whole lot there but I’m not going to hold up any of these. We, we, we
talked about it several times, about getting the, those numbers together to find out what
would be left, what we had to actually deal with. And, you know, I think these projects
are very deserving. I think they, they needed. But we been trying our best to try to get
some of the recaptured money to be used in some areas where hadn’t no money been
used, recaptured or any otherwise. Handicap, recaptured, [inaudible], nothing, we hadn’t
got anything. So we, we trying to make sure that that’s, that’s something that’s brought
to the table, that we [inaudible] look at.
Ms. Smith: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. There is a correction. There are
two of these projects that will be funded from the Phase II Suburban, and the total on
those is $880,000, which would leave just under $200,000 in that account. So the total
amount left would be about the $900,000 that’s left in Phase III and then a total of about
$300,000 in the other three accounts.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me, let me say this before Commissioner Boyles. He
may have a different question. But I guess we’re getting to then is the net of what you’ve
got in recaptured available then?
Ms. Smith: Those funds are currently available.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. But because of the Phase there might be a slight
[inaudible]?
Ms. Smith: Correct.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] use them for?
Ms. Smith: That is correct. There are different limits placed, limitations placed
on usage for the different phases if sales tax.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: But this gets us to accurate update on where we are on
numbers?
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: With this at this point.
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And that’s provided if these are approved?
Ms. Smith: Correct.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: This time. That leaves us --
5
Ms. Smith: Around a million dollars on all phases.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. That’s what I wanted to ask. Commissioner Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I was going to ask the Chairman, if
he would, to read those numbers again, that he’s placing on consent.
Mr. Cheek: Item 12 --
Mr. Boyles: On consent?
Mr. Cheek: Consent. 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you very much.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: The 21 and 21A, Andy, what’s the 21A, is an issue that I wanted
to -- and that’s [inaudible] adding to it, is that right? 21A will be left off?
Mr. Cheek: That will be discussed at the next committee meeting.
Mr. Williams: Okay, that’s good.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. [inaudible] ladies and gentlemen, that, that are being
asked to be put on consent from Engineering Services. I want to make clear that we’ve
got the numbers and everybody has had adequate time, because this doesn’t happen very
often but in fairness to those, like I said, that particularly may not be on the committee,
that you’ve had enough time to peruse that, and in addition to those that are coming on to
consent, there are three there that will go back to Engineering Services, and is there any
problem with that happening? I just want to make sure we’re clear what’s on those three.
We clarified one, and that’s 14 in reference to legal, because that will be settled and we
can handle that hopefully. I think you’re going to be glad with what’s there and we’ll be
able to get through that one today. Okay. Better move while I’m ahead. If we’ve got
those numbers to go on, Madame Clerk, and I don’t think we, we have anything else that
we probably can shift over to regular unless we’re going to take the -- and I’m just asking
so don’t y’all shoot the messenger, but you’ve got under these appointments that’s on the
regular agenda, if we are satisfied with those that are at the top of those lists to move, we
can move that to regular. If not, they can stay where they are.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
6
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Chairman, I like what you just said, and I think we ought to
consider grouping the appointments for the Hospital Authority with the three names and
include them on the consent agenda. And I’d make a motion that we appoint Hugh
Hamilton, John Markwalter and Dr. Mac Bowman to those positions that’s been
requested by the Hospital Authority.
Mr. Boyles: I’ll second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, what I’ll do, we won’t necessarily have to deal with a
motion. They’ll just shift to the automatic consent list at that time unless we have an
objection from either side to move those, and if [inaudible] we’ll have to handle them
through the regular agenda.
Ms. Beard: I have a question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sure. The Chair recognizes Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: I think there is something, there is some type age limit, and you might
want to look at Mr. Markwalter’s age.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You picking that up okay?
Mr. Hankerson: Can’t hear.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The mike.
Ms. Beard: I believe there is something in reference to age limit, and I’m not
absolutely certain, but I thought when I read it mentioned something like if they were 70
or over, they were unable to participate, and I’m wondering if you would check those
ages.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m just thinking, and I’m brainstorming a little bit,
Commissioner, they are actually sending them to us, and the research is supposed to be
done by them. But now you’re technically, you’re right because we’re doing the
appointing. But I would assume that they have, and hopefully they have checked
whatever requirements that they have on any, on anybody serving, that they have done
their homework before sending it to us. And so if it’s something that would violate
within their own rules, then they would obviously, you know, immediately know that that
person has to be pulled. But I’m just not familiar with, with the depth of where their
numbers are and whether there is a provision in there.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
7
Ms. Beard: You have information in reference to the talent bank information. All
of the -- and I’m not sure but I thought there was one that had the problem, according to
the stipulations.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair recognizes Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Smith, you have the floor.
Mr. Smith: Could we ask the Attorney to speak to that?
Mr. Shepard: I think the, from what information I’ve been furnished, that, that
limitation does exist. We just looked at the talent bank sheet. You might want to hold
that particular position, but then there is a problem of, is that, is that possibly age
discrimination? I think the best thing to do is just hold that one and address the other
two.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just -- since talent bank information is public for the right
of public information, it’s there in terms of where those numbers are. Let me reiterate
something. I’m going to recognize Commissioner Hankerson [inaudible]. Probably I’ve
had a situation with, with these appointments to a point that they, they send them to us
and it’s somewhat where we are in a box in terms of deciding what, you know, they
should screen with the rules and provisions that they’ve got. And if we, if we’re going to
do that, and I have no problem with that, then I think we need to either, either scrutinize it
and allow the Attorney to get with them and to just, just, just relook at where they are at
this time, in this century of relating to that, with the hospital’s rules period. Because that,
that sanctions into another area and we, we talked about us needing to have some further
dialog with them if we are going to approve it. And I’m not going, I’m not going to open
an old hat of where I’ve been with, with this particular deal, but those of you who have
followed my course on not only appointments over there but I guess [inaudible] I kind of
been mad from the standpoint that when the Legislature did what it did a few years ago
and basically to a point of where we no longer have a county hospital per se, you know,
other than when it’s been a situation of where some folk have needed money, and then
we’ve been kind of classified one way and then the independence has gone another way.
So I’m not going, I’m not, I’ve dealt with that one probably 60-70 times and been beat up
with it and it fell upon some deaf ears, so I’m not going to resurrect that one today. But I
do think it’s a point well taken, the point that we can hold that one and there are some
other things that the Attorney has discussed that he may want to deal with them with,
with the language of where their bylaws are specifically.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I have been in
conversation initially about some information from their counsel, Mr. Burr. It came in
late last week. We anticipate some further discussions with him and I can be back to the
board with. He was kind enough to give me some insight into the interplay of the statutes
8
that created this Authority, as well as the resolutions of its board. And this is something
that my work is not quite finished in, quite frankly, today.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, thank you. We discussed this when it came before us
before and had some questions about it. To my understanding, these are
recommendations that we have and we have the privilege to nominate one out of the three
in each column; is that correct? And I’ve got [inaudible] we were accepting all of these,
but as I look at the talent bank and making decisions on the particular individual that I
prefer does not agree with just accepting these on the first name listed. And I, I’d like for
us to, you know, the privilege to nominate. There’s a motion on the floor and it’s been
seconded; is that right?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, we’re not accepting a motion per se. You have the
right, if you wanted to go ahead them during the regular agenda, we don’t have to
entertain really of them during consent. We can just actually pull them and then we’ll
discuss them, you know, as regular and then we can make nominations up or down from
that entire list. You are absolutely correct. So it really depends upon unanimous consent
as to whether they move off of that list and over to the other one at all. That’s why I did
not recognize the motion cause you can’t do it within the place of sliding them over to
consent. If we don’t have unanimous consent and we need to discuss this today, my
decision is that we need to just recognized a Commissioner that may not have unanimous
consent and then it moves automatically to the regular agenda for discussion. And then
we just dispose of it by whatever the majority of the body wants to do.
Mr. Hankerson: You do not have unanimous consent.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. And that’s on all three appointments?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Then so those appointments will not be going over
to the consent agenda. They will remain on the regular agenda and they will come up
after the consent agenda has bee voted on in the regular numerical order in which they’re
in, and we’ll discuss them today.
The Clerk: Okay. Want to go over the consent agenda one time?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
The Clerk: For a motion?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If everybody’s ready on those numbers. Everybody have
where we are. Item 3 that was pulled off of consent and --
9
The Clerk: Need the numbers read again?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Everybody set on numbers?
The Clerk: You want me to just read them?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: My memory is worse than anybody else’s, so you might as
well go ahead and read them.
The Clerk: Consent agenda items 1 through 9C, items 1 through 9C, with
the exception of item 3 being pulled, and the addition under the Engineering
Services portion of the agenda, items 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21. That’s our
consent agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by William H. Islar for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Utopia
Enterprises, Inc. located at 2508 Peach Orchard Rd. There will be Sunday sales.
District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 27,
2004)
2. Motion to approve a request by Lee Holtman for a Therapeutic Massage
license to be used in connection with Augusta Center 4 Massage located at 211
Pleasant Home Road, Suite B-3. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee January 27, 2004)
3. Deleted from the consent agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
4. Motion to approve Hotel/Motel Excise Tax payment agreement between
SAPNA, Inc. doing business as Days Inn, 3026 Washington Road and Augusta, Ga.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee January 27, 2004)
5. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain
unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the East Augusta Neighborhood: 145
McElmurray Road, 432 Dupont Street, 1038 Nellieville Road (District 1, Super
District 9); Turpin Hill Neighborhood: 2122 Martin Luther King Boulevard
(District 2, Super District 9); and waive 2nd reading. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee January 27, 2004)
6. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain
unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Bethlehem Neighborhood: 1104
Wrightsboro Road, 1106 Wrightsboro Road (District 2, Super District 9); South
Augusta Neighborhood: 314 Calvary Drive (District 2, Super District 9) and waive
2nd reading. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee January 27, 2004)
FINANCE:
10
7. Motion to approve the expenditure of $900 payment for purchase of tickets
for the Paine College sponsored event from 2003 budgetary funds as approved by
the Finance Director. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 27, 2004)
8. Motion to approve a request from the Downtown Development Authority for
their SPLOST funds in the amount of $10,000 as partial payment of the statue
honoring James Brown. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 27, 2004)
PLANNING:
9. ZA-R-162 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to Section 8-2, Special Exceptions,
providing extensive regulations regarding the placement of construction trailers in
new subdivisions in Augusta. (Approved by Commission January 20, 2004 – second
reading)
9A. ZA-R-163 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to Section 21-1 by deleting “Retail
filling station” as a permitted use. (Approved by Commission January 20, 2004 –
second reading)
9B. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held January 20, 2004.
9C. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Kenneth G. Grisko to Augusta
Aviation Commission replacing Mr. Pat Owens.
ENGINEERING SERVICES COMMITTEE:
12. Authorize award and execution of a contract with Messerly Design Group to
provide engineering services for the James B. Messerly Water Pollution Control
Plant Upgrade in the amount of $5,906,368.
15. Approve Capital Project Budget Change Number One in the amount of
$250,000 for the Powell Road Culvert Replacement Project (CPB # 323-04-
203823336) to be funded from One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III Recapture.
16. Approve Capital Project Budget Change Number One in the amount of
$10,000 for the Parham Road Improvements Project (CPB # 322-04-200822631) to
be funded from One Percent Sales Tax, Phase II Recapture.
17. Approve Capital Project Budget in the amount of $870,000 for the Peach
Orchard Road (S. R. 121/U.S. 25) Project (CPB # 322-04-XXXXXXX) to be funded
from One Percent Sales Tax, Phase II Suburban Recapture.
18. Approve reprogramming of $500,000 from One Percent Sales Tax Phase III,
Recapture to the Alexander Drive Project (CPB # 323-04-296823215) to fund right
of way and utility relocation costs.
19. Approve Capital Project Budget Number 323-04-296823308 in the
amount of $275,000 for the I-20/I-520 Interchange Project for utility relocations to
be funded from One Percent Sales Tax Phase III, Recapture.
20. Ratify funds in the amount of $27,605.13 for payment to Beam’s Contracting,
Inc. for emergency repairs to Norton Road.
21. Approve funding in the amount of $41,585.00 for JG Swift & Associates for
the engineering design of the Sunlight Park Water Improvement Project.
11
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair will entertain a motion.
Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion on those
items on consent or those that have been moved to consent? All in favor of the motion
will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-2, 4-9C, 12, 15-21]
The Clerk:
3. Motion to approve a request by Laurie L. Pratt for a Therapeutic Massage
Operators license to be used in connection with Serenity Day Spa located at 504
Shartom Drive. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee January 27, 2004)
Mr. Sherman: At the committee meeting, when we were presenting this case, one
of the Commissioners, Commissioner Hankerson asked whether or not the person had a
licensed massage therapist working for her. At the time, we did not have a copy of that
contract or the person, a copy of the person’s national certification. We’ve provided that
to you, and if there are any questions we’re here to answer them.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson, you have the floor.
Mr. Hankerson: This information I just received just before the meeting of the
agreement. My concern is still the same today because the national certification that we
have as we discussed it in committee that we, we were about to approve the license of
operation, but we did not have any licensed, any proof of licensed masseurs in the
massage parlor. The license that we have is the certification from a previous owner.
Now I still, I’m still not satisfied and settled on that we have a licensed from masseurs
that will be working in this particular business. Are we issuing a license for this business
without have a license, proof of a licensed masseur?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Sherman: I think one of the documents that we gave you is a contract -- I
can’t pronounce the name -- has a contract with the applicant, the operator that is before
you today to be her employee -- well, not her employee. She’s going to be a
subcontractor. She has her own business license at that address. She is going to be the
licensed therapist and then they have four apprentices who have their national
certification who will be coming before you in the next few weeks to get their license
12
from you. The ordinance provides that an apprentice can work under a licensed therapist
for 12 months, and that’s not going to occur that long. It’s my understanding they’ll be
coming before you in the next few weeks.
Mr. Hankerson: I, we pass these all the time, but I think we need to be, make sure
when we pass them that it’s legal, what we are doing and I heard you say that the
ordinance requires that someone with a license have to be in the business with the
business. Now the agreement, we have the agreement that I just received before the
meeting, but I haven’t had a chance to read no more than the first or second page while
we were having the meeting here. But I’m still not pleased with, with the agreement,
because I don’t think the agreement is legal because it’s presented with no signatures of
the two people that are in agreement. It’s just for, to me, I ask the Attorney to make that
decision whether that’s a legal agreement.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I have seen it. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] deal with [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair recognizes Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Rob, while you’re standing, let
me, let me ask you a question. What, what we issue, what we doing here is issuing a
license to an owner kind of like registering your automobile, and if you caught driving
without a license, the officer would take the next step; is that right?
Mr. Sherman: Yes.
Mr. Williams: So I mean, what, what, in, in, in other words, what we are doing
here is, is authorizing a business to operate and if they operate illegally or without a
license, then we’ve got people who, who address those issues and make the decision upon
whether or not they -- is that -- am I right with that?
Mr. Sherman: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: You know, I, I hear what the Commissioner is saying but I just
don’t see the, the, the impact there. If we are doing what we supposed to do, as long as
they meet the guidelines that they brought before us and the Planning & Zoning
Department I can’t see why we can’t go ahead and issue it. And if there is a violation, I
think the law enforcement will do their job as to say whether they have qualified or
[inaudible] person in that position to do that. I just thought I’d make that comment, Mr.
Mayor Pro Tem. I think we, we discussed this in committee and it’s got to the floor.
They brought back the information. If the lady in violation, I think this government, you
know, will fine her or revoke or take back, whatever is necessary to do in that position. I
think we can go on with another issue.
13
Mr. Sherman: If I could just make one comment to that. One of the requirements
is that, it says at the time of filing the application for an operator’s license and thereafter
the applicant must have in his employ under a binding contract a person who holds a
massage license. And that’s the agreement and that’s what -- I just wanted to say that.
That’s what Mr. Shepard is going to review, I guess for validity.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just a minute. I’m going to recognize Commissioner
Hankerson but I want to recognize Commissioner Boyles. He was behind Commissioner
Williams, and I’ll come back to you, Commissioner Hankerson.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I’m just speaking to this because Shartom
th
Road is in the 7 Commission District. How many of these do we have?
Mr. Sherman: We, we were looking back over the agenda items for last year and
I think three operator licenses were approved. I know that on one of those, the operator
was also the therapist, the massage therapist. And in another situation, the operator and
the licensed therapist applied at the same time. I don’t know about the third. But since
the ordinance was amended in I believe it was December of 2002, maybe three have
come before you last year as operators. We’ve had other, others who have come before
you as the therapist for license approval.
Mr. Boyles: So this one is not unusual compared to the other three that you have?
Mr. Sherman: No, it’s not.
Mr. Boyles: It meets all the requirements that we impose at the License
Department?
Mr. Sherman: Well, the question that Mr. Hankerson brought up was a good
question at the committee meeting, and that is to verify that they have a licensed
massage therapist working for them. At the time, we didn’t that documentation. He has
made an agreement with the former owner to serve as the licensed therapist in the interim
time until those four -- I think three or four -- apprentices -- call them apprentices, they
have their national certification -- until they can come before you. That complies with
the intent of the ordinance.
Mr. Boyles: Again, that’s not unusual?
Mr. Sherman: No.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
14
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, sir. I’m not, as I said in the last meeting, the first
meeting when we discussed this when I pulled this and brought this to your attention, I’m
not against the masseur, the business here of masseuring. I’m not against that. But we
don’t Ms. Pratt to open up and we don’t want to issue a license if we’re not following the
guidance of the ordinance. And the ordinance does say to issue the license and must have
a licensed masseur there. We do not have proof that a licensed masseur is in this
business. Now we have agreement that was brought before us and I just had a chance to
scan the agreement, but one thing, the last page, there’s no signatures, there’s nobody
signing. So how is agreement without – now it may be or she may come back with the
signatures, but I don’t see one. Maybe they left off that page. Is it a signed agreement? I
don’t know. I’m not seeing anything signed by the two individuals, the previous owner
that says that she could work under my license – that’s fine – but as, as a government we
ought to have those documents to make sure. We don’t want another mistake of a license
being issued that shouldn’t be issued.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: Member of the Commission, if I could. I did suggest a minute ago
a, a signature page on that document, Commissioner, but what I haven’t seen is the, is the
license. And like I say, if you’d give me the opportunity during the meeting to examine
that.
Mr. Sherman: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: Here again, Commissioner, if I could talk to Mr. Harris, I’m
looking for some documentation that I don’t see, either. Therefore, I do – I ask the
Commission not to take action at this time. I may, if I have during the recess if I have
time to talk with Mr. Harris, it may be a non issue. But I agree that you should have a
license in the, a licensed massage therapist.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me, let me make a suggestion, ladies and gentlemen,
both in fairness to the City and in fairness to the applicant. I think if this is something
that can be worked out during the course of this particular meeting or the course of the
day that we probably need to take an appropriate motion to do that. But making sure that
we act on it today and that will be in fairness to that applicant. But at the same time, I
think the Attorney is kind of asking us for some time to make sure that the documentation
that he’s reviewing is in order, and I think that’s fair to both sides, but at least the action
will get hopefully taken today. Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I make a motion that we postpone this
until the Attorney has time to take the necessary paperwork, review it today and we
come back at a later time and vote on this issue here today.
15
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me get a clarification on the motion. Oh, okay, here
today. Okay. You answered it for me.
Mr. Speaker: What did he say?
Mr. Grantham: Table it so he can look at it and then we’ll come back and
vote on it later today.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s a motion and a second to that effect. Is there any
discussion? Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Motion and postpone and tabling it? That’s not the same, is it?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, no. Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, as I interpreted the motion as finely made, it is a
motion to table, which means it is laid on the table today and we will deal with it today.
Mr. Hankerson: And we finish it?
Mr. Grantham: Finish it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s going to come back.
Mr. Hankerson: She should know today before she leaves. I don’t intend to hold
her up. If it’s legal, let her go forward with it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s my intention, is to get the applicant and hopefully
prior to us getting into legal session, because I think he can have some time to do that,
because the regular agenda is not that long. I think we have some items that are there in
legal, and if the Attorney is clear prior to legal, I would rather us try and go ahead on and
act upon that when it’s here in fairness to the applicant so that person can go ahead on
and make some money in their business, rather than sitting around and waiting for our
business to get through. There being no further discussion, all in favor of the motion will
do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’re past number 3.
The Clerk: Item 10 under the regular agenda, that will be our –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am.
16
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
10. Z-03-99 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that parking be located in the
side yard; no parking shall face Peach Orchard Road; a petition by John Glenn
requesting change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone P-1
(Professional) with a Special Exception for residential purposes per Section 20-2 (b)
of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 3418 Peach Orchard Road and containing .57 acres. (Tax Map
133-1 Parcel 54) DISTRICT 6 (Deferred from the January 6, 2004 meeting)
Mr. Cheek: A motion to approve.
I thought we handled it last meeting.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and a second to approve with the
conditions that are there. Does any Commissioner have any discussion on this first?
Commissioner Cheek? Commissioner Cheek and then Commissioner Boyles and I’ll
also recognize the applicant if he needs to respond to anything that might be said during
the course of the motion.
Mr. Cheek: First, I thought we had passed this last meeting, and I apologize for
you having to come back down here. I met with Mr. Glenn, the neighbors. I concur with
the recommendations for the exemption to allow the fence to be there. There are health
and safety concerns for the children. In reference to my travels, I’ve seen the same
similar situations in California and other places where you have residential next to major
thoroughfares. I find this request, based on all the neighbors that I have talked to, to meet
with their approval, and highly recommend that we approve this and allow him to go
about his business.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was thinking the same thing as Chairman
Cheek did. I thought that it was handled with Mr. Glenn and he last week or last time we
met, and I was just wondering why it came back.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] I didn’t get nothing saying it was approved.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I think the applicant is pretty much moving in the
direction he needs to go [inaudible]. If he doesn’t have anything to say, I’m going to go
ahead and entertain the motion where we can get it passed. Okay. All in favor of the
motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Motion carries 10-0.
17
The Clerk: Item –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, if we could, for just a moment, is Mr.
Reece [inaudible]? I see one of the board members here, but I just wanted to –
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What I, what I wanted to do at this time, because I’m trying
to get everybody out of here, Sonny, that need to go to work. The point is [inaudible] but
we paying you and the board member probably need to go and earn him some money,
too. I’d like to, Madame Clerk, if we could, to move up to 22.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And then we can come back to, to 11 on the appointment.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
22. Written response to the Georgia Department of Revenue Performance
Review Board Report by ARC Board of Assessors and Chief Appraiser.
Mr. Smith: Good afternoon, Commissioners, and thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
You have received –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If you would, Mr. Smith, state your name and address just
for the record.
Mr. Smith: I’m Charles Smith and I’m Chairman of the Board of Assessors,
Richmond County. You have in your package a response, our response to the peer
review board’s report, and we, at your request and also because we wanted to make sure
that we got all of the issues before this Commission, we wanted to respond and we have
prepared a response in this manner so that you could see the item, the point that was
being made, and then a response to each of the items. I don’t know whether or not or
how you want to proceed. If you want to proceed with our reading through all of this, if
you have time and have questions we can address those. We certainly can go through
and take it point by point.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me, let me say this before we, before we continue. I
don’t know in reference to, to all the Commissioners as to whether everybody has read in
its entirety the report and the responses in there. The Chair is kind of open in terms of the
fact if we wish to ask any questions at this point if we have [inaudible]. I think that
would be fine. I think the report is very – the whole thing is very serious in its nature,
and obviously I think all sides are concerned about it. But I think to, if we’ve not
thoroughly reviewed it, I think we need to take the adequate time to do that, and quite
frankly, even though I may be a person of very few words, and I say that sarcastically,
18
but I don’t think this is necessarily the day to review this report in its entirety word by
word if we’ve not done that. I think probably the best thing to do is if we’ve got
immediate questions then we can ask some, and that’s not trying to dictate from the
Chair, but I think we may want to do that if they’re ready at this time. If not, then I think
we have the option of channeling this through the proper committee, receiving it today,
and then preparing certain questions in reference to the response that might be in its
committee action, or if we deem necessary to have a particular workshop to deal with this
item or some other items that we may want to do. And this does concern our finances but
it concerns not just members of a particular committee but the entire Commission, so the
Chair is open in reference to that respect today. Commissioner Hankerson, and I know
you have been very concerned about this and another matter regarding the Tax Assessor’s
office. I recognize you first.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. I would hope that we would set aside a time that we
can address the issues and be pro-active about the report. I read the report thoroughly
and I’ve jotted down questions, but I don’t want to prolong the meeting of asking all
these questions today and also have some suggestions to make, cause a lot of things that’s
in the report that calls for us as the Commissioners to take some action, and also for the
board to take some actions, also for the Tax Appraiser to take some actions. So I think
it’s going to take more time than just coming before the Commission, so I would like to –
I don’t know what the motion is at this time, but I think that we need to do it in a
committee meeting or workshop, also give the resident Commissioners if they haven’t
had time to really go over the whole report more time to do it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me, let me make one other suggestion, and then Mr.
Russell and Mr. Shepard may have a comment in reference to this. As I said earlier, this
concerns all of us and immediately as far as the committees. I think you’ve got some
things in here, while I’m looking at Commissioner Boyles, and he’s my Finance
Chairman, that concern both Finance, as well as through your committee, Commissioner
Hankerson in Admin Services because it would come through there as well. I think we
have got some time. We can either look at what the committee schedule is shaping up to
be and deal with this as a joint committee item, and that would cover probably six to
seven Commissioners directly, and then would concern all of us, so we could either do it
on committee day or we can set aside a particular time to do it. That, that would
obviously be the choice of the Commission to do that on a different day. But I think as
important as it is that if we’ve got limited time, the items are not real heavy. Madame
Clerk, [inaudible] committee, we might use an extra 30 minutes in expanding one of
those committees and then handle their business and then Tommy, Bobby, recon – you
know, convene them so that we can do the joint action and then everybody gets a chance
to participate in the dialog, but then if we take action we can have separate motions per
committee in order to move from it at that point. And that’s just a, a suggestion. Let me,
let me hear from the Attorney. Just a minute, Mr. Shepard, I think he may want to chime
in on that a little bit.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. It would
seem that it would be an appropriate topic for one of those – we call them bridge items
19
where we consider them at the same time. In Finance and Engineering Services there’s
ample precedent for that. I think if you reschedule the committee so that it’s the last item
on one and the first on the next, those are the two committees that are involved, I do
remember Public Safety is sandwiched in between those but perhaps that could be moved
around to be ahead of Administrative Services or Administrative Services could simply
not adjourn, they could recess and then reconvene in conjunction with Finance.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think either one of those –
Mr. Shepard: Either one would work.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: -- are workable, because usually the one on – that we have
probably actual guests are concerned more with licenses and those types of things, and
that’s the first one, Public Services, so it’s completely gone so we’re not tying up visitors
at that point to do it. And then we could, we could work in order to fit that in where we
could be able to schedule it. Mr. Smith, you may have a suggestion as to the board’s
standpoint and I want to hear you at this time. But obviously we’re not going to take
action today.
Mr. Smith: Correct.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’re just trying to set a course that it can get the proper
attention that it needs and that we’re ready to ask certain questions and then I’ll recognize
Commissioner Boyles after you finish.
Mr. Smith: If I, I think I have more of a question. Commissioner Hankerson
indicated the other possibility of a workshop kind of forum, that it could be, I guess, a
different kind of setting, and I didn’t know whether or not that is something that you
might want to consider, I guess rather than trying to get it into committee immediately,
but to have a bit more of a, of a discussion so that we could get everything laid out before
the, before the Commission, and the Commission could respond. [inaudible] perhaps a
little bit differently than you would in, in a formal committee meeting. I’m not sure. I
want to raise that as a question because you know more of how you function in a
workshop and how you function in committee, but since he raised that as a possibility of
dealing with it, I just wanted to throw that back out and to say whether or not that might
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think that’s a very valid observance. And that’s why I
said I was leaving it open. I didn’t want to skip the committee process [inaudible] and
the reason why I brought it out is the fact that I know on that committee day everybody
will be basically here for one item or another item. If we possibly deal with a workshop,
that may mean a different date, and obviously it is important enough that if we have to
deal with it on a different day, we’ll have to deal with it on a different day. What I think
we may want to not necessarily discus, but in the interim time for setting an agenda, is we
don’t know how many questions are going to be asked from our side of the fence per se,
but maybe if we get an idea of how much in terms of detail that actually the board wants
20
to present or something that we may know, so if it’s in a half hour presentation or if it’s
[inaudible], then obviously you’re going to have to allow enough time to deal with the
questions and answers that Commissioners may have from that standpoint. So if it gets to
be where we are looking at say conservatively an hour-and-a-half to deal with it, then I
think we probably need to consider the aspects of a separate situation of work session and
then maybe with not trying to have folk to come back on a different date, that may have
to deal with business that they may have privately. It may mean that we could set it up
for a morning time to deal with it and then we take a break per se, you know, for lunch
and then start the regular committee meetings. I think there is room to deal with both and
I think we probably can work that out from staffing and Attorney and y’all get together
on that so that we kind of – the Clerk then can kind of poll us [inaudible] doing and then
be able to let you all know from a board-staff position as to how that time would work.
Either one would do it, but I don’t think we need to do a disservice to it, but I don’t think
we need to add on another day if we don’t have to.
Mr. Smith: Exactly.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: But it does need to have the full attention and in an
atmosphere as to where everything is covered during that process. Commissioner
Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I was going to suggest the same
thing, because of the importance of it, that we take it to a Commission work session, and
there’s also several references in here to the Board of Education, and I think they should
probably be invited to sit with us in some form so that they know, because this is
important to them, too. So I wouldn’t – if you were looking at me as Finance Chairman
or Commissioner Hankerson as Public Services, I wouldn’t object to doing it Monday
morning at 10 o’clock. That’s our regular committee day, we can do it earlier and we can
adjourn for lunch as you say, and then start the committee meetings. But whenever you
want to set it. But I think the importance of it, from what we’ve heard over the past year,
I think we need to allow it plenty of time to be fully discussed.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And I, I fully agree with you, Tommy. That definitely
needs to be done. I just want us to have more than one option out here to think about
here today, and I think if that can be adequately coordinated, that gives you enough time
in there depending on what motion we take, Madame Clerk, to get that information per
se, on how we need it. Any questions?
Mr. Boyles: If that gives the Clerk time. When I said 10 o’clock Monday, if that
gives the Clerk time and the staff time to work it up. That’s – I’m not saying that time,
setting it in stone, but I’m just saying that you know, we need to – I just feel like as
urgent and as important as it is, it needs to go to a work session where we can all talk
about it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I think that time frame, unless it, unless it interferes –
and I’m going to be here whatever time, you know, that y’all set it – but I’m just thinking
21
even if we, even if we break [inaudible] during some work sessions, if we do lunch right
in here, you know, in between that period, that would eliminate, you know, people having
to try and leave and come back and then do it, and then a couple of more questions on
those who are on that first committee than anybody else, cause theirs gets slapped there at
12:30, and so if you’re finishing up, even if we, we give it the full two hour measure, that
at least gives them 45 minutes, 30 minutes in there to be able to take a break and a
breather in between there before we start the committees. So I think that’s, that’s, that’s a
good idea. I’m going to swing to this side a minute, if we’ve got some suggestions or
questions in there. We need to go on and entertain a motion and set this time, and that
way staffing can go to work on it and we’ll have that one.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] not good for me.
Mr. Smith: 11 o’clock is better.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] come back to you. Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: We have been discussing also and we agree with Mr. Boyles.
The only thing, we had a time difference there. I’d like to put it in the form of a motion
that we have a work session at 11:00 on the next committee, just before the next
committee meetings, at 11 o’clock.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, I’ve got a motion and a second from that end. Let
me have some discussion on that first. Let me remind the two Commissioners – I don’t
have a problem, and that may work for this particular reason. You all are on that first
committee that starts at 12:30. Two of you anyway. And my own reason in there, I want
to make sure that if you got an hour-and-a-half then we obviously need to start those
committee meeting rolling, particularly with you all having guests, they need to start
within some framework. That’s my old committee, the one that used to be the shortest
one and y’all are continuing in that fashion. But I think that needs to – Mr. Public
Services Chairman, if you are going to set this for 11 o’clock, that leaves you about an
hour and 15-to-20 minutes to get through with whatever this is going be, and if you’re
going to deal with whatever this is going to be, and if you’re going to deal with the Board
of Education in that process, or another government asking questions – I still got the floor
for a second – you still are going to need that time. And I’m not trying to pressure you to
do it, but I’m just saying that you need to consider that if you’re going to set this as a
special time, not to jam yourself to a point and know you’ve got a committee meeting
starting at 12:30. Now that’s just a suggestion. I’m not on that committee anymore. I
can go take a break while y’all are trying to get that one together. But that’s just, just a
thought. Let me swing back to this end. Commission Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I agree 100% that I don’t think the
seriousness of this discussion is going to get to and with just this government being
involved and the board, I think that we need more time then than that. That’s going to
22
jam it where you trying to end it or close it when you going to have some pertinent
questions that want some answers to. I just think that’s not enough time. I mean, you
know, I’m not on either one of those committees [inaudible] early. I can do just like you.
I can, I can take a break, but to be, to be sensitive to what’s going on and to what we need
the answers for, you know, we need to [inaudible] later that afternoon, if it’s the last thing
we do. But it’s, it’s, it’s too important to try to rush through, I think, and I think we’re
making a great mistake to try and do it at 11 o’clock that morning.
Mr. Smith: May I make an observation? If there is, there is a reference to BOE,
and I don’t know if that was the thing of the Board of Education. That’s the Board of
Equalization, not the Board of Education, listed here in the report, and whether or not – I
don’t know if that was the reference you had when you said the report – there were
several references to the Board of Education References to the Board of Equalization.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think in your report the, the BOE is understood, but I think
outside of this Chamber --
Mr. Smith: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s street talk. The Board of Education probably has some
concerns --
Mr. Smith: Oh, I would agree.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: -- about what’s going on. And it’s probably better to a
point that if we’re doing the assessing and we’re assessing things for them but then they
are spending a much larger portion --
Mr. Smith: Absolutely. They should be involved.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: -- of the tax digest than us, if we’re going to try and do that
at one time. Now it may be [inaudible] they may have some cross questions in there so
that they need to have representation in terms of being [inaudible]. And I’m just
[inaudible], you’re correct.
Mr. Smith: One other point that I, one other point that I wanted to make is that
our regular meeting of the Board of Assessors, 4 o’clock next Monday. I would like for
all of the members of the board to be present if possible, and so whatever time you set,
we want to make sure that we will get the notice out to all of our members of the Board
of Assessors to be present as well so that answers and responses won’t be coming from,
from one or two, but from the, from the majority of the board and we can have the kind
of discussion that would make sense, to be able to resolve issues. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
Mr. Smith: I understand.
23
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
Mr. Smith: I understand. I have experience with that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You taught me that and [inaudible] so both of y’all had my
attention. There is a suggestion on some dates that I think the Attorney needs to put out
here in front of us because we’ve got a motion that’s on the floor and I can respect that
time [inaudible] but I do think if we going delay this, we got everything to deal with from
the reports, we’ve got a situation to address as to whether or not we are going to put an ex
officio member onto, onto, to your board. While those decisions may not be made in that
meeting, they are going to have to be discussed, and I’m just worried about the fact that
from 11 o’clock to a point of getting through, I just don’t want a committee meeting up
on us to say when the time clock hits, we got to end talking about something that’s been
this volatile and people are concerned about of trying to get it positioned to where we can
put it to rest and to move forward on whatever suggestion we need to move forward, that
we got a clock ringing, and then we say we got to get out of here and we got to do it
another time. Now having it in the end of the meeting, let me say this in defense of
Engineering Services, now a lot of these committees get through and to a point those of
us on Engineering Services, we’re the ones who leave the building and say goodbye to
the people who in security and who are cleaning the building. So that just will not work
in terms of putting this thing at the end of the day on committee [inaudible] because that
means you might as well schedule a 7 p.m. meeting in order to do that, cause Engineering
Services may not get through until late that evening. So I, I, I’m we got a motion and a
second [inaudible] yield to the Attorney on a suggested date to have a work session,
because if we going to speed this on the heels of a committee, I think we need to think of
some other alternative date of doing this on a separate day by itself, rather than get
jammed and [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Recognize him first and then I’m coming back to the
Commissioners. You go ahead, Steve. You need to go on and get that on the floor in
terms of those other days because a motion is there but I’m thinking we need to try to get
some kind of [inaudible] on these dates.
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, what the Clerk
and I were suggesting I think has been real, not to be convenience because our suggestion
to accommodate the members of the Board of Assessors was not to convene it this
coming Monday before committees, but at least wait until the second committee date,
rd
which is the 23. But then that runs into a problem which the Chair just expressed, that it
may not be sufficient time before the convening of the committees. So -- we could do it
earlier, but then I heard Mr. Colclough say that 11 o’clock was more convenient. So.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Would that be bad just on that day, Richard, or just ten
o’clock period?
24
Mr. Colclough: Ten o’clock period is bad for me.
Mr. Shepard: That’s -- so my suggestion was to couple it with committee days
after consulting with our Clerk, and that not being convenient, I would suggest she poll
everybody and find a day. I think maybe she could do that while we’re --
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I had a Commissioner that wanted to be recognized.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
rd
The Clerk: I said maybe we could do it that Thursday prior to the 23, come up
with a suitable time that’s convenient for most of us.
Mr. Hankerson: I made the motion and so we can get something going with this.
I thought that since we had all the information before us and we had it even before the
last committee meeting, and that if we come prepared, it won’t take all day to, to discuss
it, you know, the important issues that we have. And then if we do not finish with an
hour and 15 minutes, I hope we have another day. At least we’ve gotten a great start on it
because even if we set it for two hours, it could go on like our committee meetings. It
can go on, on and on, it depends on the issues that are at hand and how well we
understand it or how we come to agreement. But they have responded to each one of the
concerns that the State had so we just make our response how they want, how we want to
settle the matter. That’s why I thought either Monday or Tuesday, the same day that the
Commissioners are already here, instead of adding another day. Whatever, the motion,
you know, I made the motion for it to be, the meeting start at 11 o’clock. I did not, the
motion did not include the Board of Education. The motion was that we meet.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, you’re right and you can accept an amendment or the
Chair can entertain receiving a substitute motion for a different time and including the
Board of Education, and I agree with you, you’ve got a motion and a second on the floor.
I’m going to go on and recognize that one in a minute, but I’m also going to recognize
the fact that if another Commissioner wants, wants to make one. But I’m just thinking
that the concerns that came up in reference to this situation, and I think time has been
taken, the board is prepared, and you are correct, they’ve given a detailed response to
what’s there. But you are also correct in the fact that it could go on like other meetings
go on, and if another government is there or if the group decides to invite them, then I’d
hate to think that we’re going to be under a restraint to a point of having another group
with us or even up by ourselves to come in and say, you know, we’ve started meetings to
a point where, you know, I’ve seen how these workshops have gone when I have been
chairing that particular committee, and we’ve had license holders waiting in the hall
when we’ve had other stuff going on and then those people have taken time from their
businesses to be here and then they’re here 12:30, 12:15 to take care of 12:30 business,
and then we start it to a point at 1 to 1:30 and those are private citizens. And I think they
25
deserve better. Now if we are going to cut it off at 12:20 then I think that’s a point well
taken, let’s just cut it off. But I think if we’re not going to have that, we’re going to try
and continue, then we’re not ever going to get the committee meeting started on time.
But you’ve got one motion out there and I’ll recognize Commissioner Boyles or any
Commissioner if it’s for putting a substitute on, but I think we need to go on and vote on,
on the one that’s out there or either make another one.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mays, I wanted to offer at substitute motion that we do it at
10:00 o’clock on February 23, our next committee day, our second committee day,
which gives us plenty -- staff time, plenty of time to bring other folks in, and we do it
rd
at ten o’clock on the 23.
Mr. Hankerson: I second that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem
: We have a motion and a second on the -- to do it at ten
the Board ofEducation, does
o’clock. Commissioner Boyles, since you brought up
your -- you didn’t mention whether or not they were to be invited to that meeting.
Mr. Boyles: I think as a courtesy -- I’m sorry?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Putting that in there, in that motion? Cause the only thing
that separates these two is the time. But I’m saying if you’re going to invite the Board,
and I see one Board member present, if they’re going to do that, then we maybe need to
state that, you know, that we do that.
Mr. Boyles: I think as a courtesy they should be invited, and I’ll include that
in the motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a motion, a substitute motion to do it at ten and
that the Board of Education be included in that. Is there any discussion on the substitute
motion? We’ve had plenty on the original one.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Chairman, I’m going to make, I’m going to have a comment
in regards to the Board of Education. I think it’s important that they are invited, as Mr.
Boyles said, but I think this is a problem we need to work out with our appraiser’s office,
and they are already established and set up as far as the amount of dollars that they are
going to get, regardless of what we collect. I think we should have them there, but I
don’t think they should have any input into our discussion as to what we are trying to
work out.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I think everybody -- but I’ll make the statement
sometimes, Don, that every mule got to carry its own back pack, but I think if you invite
them, obviously I think they know that they can’t work out what our business is, but I
think the key to having them here is if they have any questions about their own business
to the Board while we are discussing this out of what has arisen, to get us to this point,
then that’s the opportunity for them to deal with it totally from their perspective and
26
totally from their side of the table. But I think, I think you’re correct in terms of us
handling our business there. But if they’re there, obviously theirs wouldn’t be as long as
what we may be discussing with them, but it’s a point it may save the board time, the
Assessor’s board from having another separate meeting with the Board of Education to
answer one or two questions that they can answer while they are doing ours.
Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I, I am going to have to differ with
my colleague on this. Since we are mutual stakeholders in the success of the Assessor’s
office and the tax proceeds generating, since it’s been a long standing desire of this
government to try to develop a partnership with the Board of Education, there is going to
have to be some things that we co-operate with as partners. We have often discussed the
locations of schools and its impact on our infrastructure and how we need to be involved
in that process and so forth. I think this is a tremendous opportunity to bring them in, not
that they I don’t think desire to look at how we function or the recommendations for
infrastructure, I doubt that they’d be interested in investing in our Assessor’s office and
the improvements that may be recommended. But bringing them in as a full partner, as
we hope that they would bring us in as full partners on issues, is a step in the right
direction. I don’t think it’s a negative. But I just think, I offer that for consideration.
We’re going to have to take steps somewhere, since we’re both joint stakeholders in the
success of the Assessor’s office. This may be an opportunity to bring them in and let’s
work together on something.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I think we can take care of two matters. There’s another matter
that we should take care of in this discussion about the response. We said to the appraiser
when we asked him to bring the report back that at this time also that employee that was
part time that we should make that decision at this particular meeting [inaudible].
Mr. Reece: Reclass.
Mr. Hankerson: Reclass. I was speaking of that part time --
Mr. Reece: Y’all approved the part time [inaudible] run through June at the last
meeting. The reclass was put on this particular subject here to get this response back
before you would consider the reclass. The SG53 to an SG45, I believe.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay, but you did get the employee that was pending?
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir, the temporary employee y’all extended that six months and
he’s on the job.
Mr. Hankerson: All right, that’s fine. Thank you.
27
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Swung that way and swung this way. If there be -- I’m
missing somebody. We’ve got a substitute motion [inaudible]. I think we can kind of get
this wrapped up here today. [inaudible] before I carry that motion [inaudible]. We’re
going back to number 11 after this?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And that would wrap up the regular?
The Clerk: Yes. Well, you have two items under the Attorney [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I was going to allow him to --
The Clerk: [inaudible] legal?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: -- wait until after we come out. No, they wouldn’t be, they
wouldn’t be legal items.
The Clerk: Okay. Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: They would just be discussed in terms of where, unless he
needs to [inaudible].
The Clerk: We’ll go back to item 11.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. In [inaudible] to the representative of the Board of
Education, I’m going, I am waiting here for just a second. We’ve got a substitute motion.
All in favor of the substitute motion will vote by the usual sign. And any opposed, the
same. The Chair votes yes on the substitute motion.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] the Clerk and staff will get with you [inaudible]
and set that up for the ten o’clock time.
Mr. Smith: Thank you very much. Appreciate your time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENT:
11. Consider the following recommendations for appointment from the
Richmond County Hospital Authority for a four-year term.
28
For the Member-at-Large position, currently occupied by Warren A.Daniel, Mr.
Daniel not being eligible for reappointment:
??
Hugh Hamilton, 3 Eagleton Court, Augusta, Ga. 30909
??
William J. Badger, 2642 Henry Street, Augusta, Ga. 30904
??
John L. Murray, III, 504 Regent Place, Augusta, Ga. 30909
For the Member-of-the-Catholic Faith position currently occupied by Gerald E.
Matheis, Mr. Matheis not being eligible for reappointment:
??
John S. Markwalter, 1130 Belmont Drive, Augusta, Ga. 30904
??
Louis Mulherin, III, 3220 Lake Forest Drive, Augusta, Ga. 30909
??
Eugene F. McManus, 2642 Hillcrest Avenue, Augusta, Ga. 30904
For the Medical Staff position currently occupied by Mac A. Bowman, M.D., Dr.
Bowman being eligible for reappointment:
??
Mac A. Bowman, M.D. 3404 Dunnington Place, Augusta, Ga. 30909
??
Gregory L. Gay, M.D., 1316 Comfort Road, Augusta, Ga. 30909
??
Wade Blount, M.D. 704 Somerset Way, Augusta, Ga. 30909
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] 3.
Mayor Pro Tem: On the -
Mr. Shepard: Massage therapist.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] dispose [inaudible].
The Clerk: The Chair has asked that we take off the table item 3 for
consideration.
3. Motion to approve a request by Laurie L. Pratt for a Therapeutic Massage
Operators license to be used in connection with Serenity Day Spa located at 504
Shartom Drive. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee January 27, 2004)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We need a motion to take it off.
Mr. Cheek: Motion to take item 3 off the table.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Any discussion of taking it off? All
in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
The Clerk: To take it off the table. Need a vote to take it off, ladies and
gentlemen.
29
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Everybody have a document in front of them? The Chair
will recognize first the Attorney in reference to [inaudible] on the documentation and
then we can have discussion on it and questions to him at that time if there be any. Go
ahead.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. The
License & Inspection Department has furnished me with copies of the signature page of
the employment agreement of Carrie Bizarri by the Serenity Day Spa, and they’ve also
furnished me with a copy of a national certification for the therapeutic massage and body
[inaudible] which is held by Carrie L. Bizarri, and with that I think the record would be
complete and the matter could now be voted upon. It appears the qualifications of
employment of a certified practitioner of therapeutic massage is there.
Mr. Cheek: A motion to approve.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Motion and a second. Is there any
discussion? None being, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any
opposed, the same. The Chair votes yes.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: This takes us back to 11 then.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENT:
11. Consider the following recommendations for appointment from the
Richmond County Hospital Authority for a four-year term.
For the Member-at-Large position, currently occupied by Warren A.Daniel, Mr.
Daniel not being eligible for reappointment:
??
Hugh Hamilton, 3 Eagleton Court, Augusta, Ga. 30909
??
William J. Badger, 2642 Henry Street, Augusta, Ga. 30904
??
John L. Murray, III, 504 Regent Place, Augusta, Ga. 30909
For the Member-of-the-Catholic Faith position currently occupied by Gerald E.
Matheis, Mr. Matheis not being eligible for reappointment:
??
John S. Markwalter, 1130 Belmont Drive, Augusta, Ga. 30904
??
Louis Mulherin, III, 3220 Lake Forest Drive, Augusta, Ga. 30909
??
Eugene F. McManus, 2642 Hillcrest Avenue, Augusta, Ga. 30904
30
For the Medical Staff position currently occupied by Mac A. Bowman, M.D., Dr.
Bowman being eligible for reappointment:
??
Mac A. Bowman, M.D. 3404 Dunnington Place, Augusta, Ga. 30909
??
Gregory L. Gay, M.D., 1316 Comfort Road, Augusta, Ga. 30909
??
Wade Blount, M.D. 704 Somerset Way, Augusta, Ga. 30909
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair recognizes Commissioner Grantham and then
Commissioner Hankerson on that end, and that’s a good start, in that order. Gentlemen?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would, I would put it in the form of a
motion that we appoint Mr. Hugh Hamilton, Mr. John Markwalter and Mr. [sic] Mac
Bowman to the Hospital Authority.
Mr. Boyles: I second it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to recognize Commissioner Hankerson
[inaudible]. Go ahead, Bobby, the floor is yours.
Mr. Hankerson: That’s before the second?
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Hankerson: Well, anyway.
Mr. Boyles: I made a second to that, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Hankerson: I was going to move that we select by nomination.
Mr. Grantham: For the individual positions?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We can do -- let me just say this. We got, the reason I left it
sort of open was all the discussion that’s gone on with these nominations. We can, we
can, we can take [inaudible], we’ve got a motion and a second that’s out there, we can
have another one that deals with them in another way, but I think that the, in the, prior to
this being put on the table there was a -- and while we, while we had the right to reject or
to accept the City Attorney’s [inaudible], there was a suggestion made that we deal with
one of the nominations and allow him to check into that regarding University’s
provisions on the question that Mrs. Beard had raised. And therefore with that I’m going
to, to, to hopefully go ahead and we could -- we’ve done them both way. We’ve done
them with nominations, we’ve done then with motions. But I’m concerned about his
recommendation, at least not being considered, at least at this point in the discussion.
And therefore that’s why -- and I saw the only two hands to go up when I did it first and
that’s why I recognized you all in that order. I mean it’s still room in there to deal with,
with, with a substitute, whether it be by names or whether we decide to not deal with any
of them today. And we are still going to have discussion on whatever y’all recommend,
31
so -- just cause y’all make a motion it don’t mean either one of them going pass. It’s still,
it’s still got [inaudible] and we haven’t swung around to this end yet. I’m going to
recognize you, Commissioner Beard, after Commissioner Hankerson finishes if, if he is
through.
Mr. Hankerson: I want --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s your floor.
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to make the motion, I’d like to make a substitute motion
then that we appoint John L. Murray, Louis Mulherin, III and Mac, Dr. Mac Bowman.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Substitute motion did not receive a second. Therefore we
return to the motion that’s on the floor, which still has a consideration in reference to the
City Attorney. I won’t address it at this point. I brought it up for you all to reference and
address. I will address it if it’s not addressed. I refer to at this time -- the floor is Ms.
Beard’s.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Chairman, I, I would like for you -- I mean we have before us
Article V in reference to membership. And this is, this Article V was sent to Ms. Bonner
from Carol Mills, University Hospital. And in Section III it states the term of office for
each member shall be four years. A member may not serve more than two consecutive
full terms of office and shall not be eligible for reappointment unless he has been out of
office for one full year. A member shall serve until his term expires and until a successor
has been appointed. No member shall be elected to a term during which he will attain the
age of 70. Now in reference to your talent bank information, and I’m of the opinion they
may have selected -- these are all fine gentlemen, but they may have selected him without
knowing his age. But in his talent bank information, it states that the date of birth is
8/12/32. And that was my objection.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair recognizes the Attorney, and it’s well observed.
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Chairman, I mean Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and Mr.
Williams, perhaps we should add a fourth member to the law firm -- that would be Ms.
Beard, because it is their bylaw that she is citing. And she is correctly citing it, and my
ruling initially was that we could proceed with two seats, but not the seat that they’ve
submitted an improper nominee. The other interpretation could be that that nominee
could not be a nominee under their own bylaw. As she is citing, a section of the bylaws
of that organization, not our bylaws, so it appears that that particular person is
disqualified under their bylaws. That would be my ruling on that particular person. And
then the procedure that you’ve asked about as far as being a body, this body being,
selecting from lists that are submitted by the Hospital Authority, that is provided for in
the law, and basically for successor appointees, and they’re all successors now because it
was organized some time ago. It’s the, it says that these members shall be appointed by
the governing authority of Richmond County -- of course the consolidated government
succeeds to the rights of the County and the old City -- from lists of names of eligible
32
persons submitted by the board of the Richmond County Hospital Authority. For each
position on the board to be filled, a list of names of three persons shall be submitted to
the governing authority of Richmond County. The governing authority shall select one of
the three persons named to succeed the member whose term has expired. So that, that’s a
provision of the Georgia law, something we don’t change. That’s why, that’s why we go
under that procedure. But I think as to the particular nominee in question, that, although
it was submitted as a eligible person, that person is not eligible under their own bylaws.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Chairman, I’d like --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hold, hold, hold up just a minute. Let me do this. We’ve
got a motion that’s on the floor and since it was not addressed within the -- other than
through the comments that Mrs. Beard made, and I made this reference to what the
Attorney had brought before us. There was another, substitute motion which didn’t get a
second, which would have either fit that bill of allowing him to address the eligibility or
ineligibility of what was brought up with the age question, because another nominee was
made. That one died because you didn’t have it. If that is the ruling then of the Chair
that that person is ineligible -- I mean the Attorney that that person is ineligible, then I am
going to try and get this off square one, then the Chair is going to rule since it contains
that person that’s in there, that that motion is out of order, and we don’t have one on the
floor. It’s vacated. We need to start all over and accept one that says something that gets
us moving out of this deal. Cause we got, we got enough that we got to deal with other
than trying to straight out what make be dealt with in University. And we need to go on
and take a motion to deal with that. There was -- she had her hand up first on this end
and she looks a lot better than you, so. Her hand’s up first.
Mr. Speaker: Good parliamentary ruling.
Ms. Sims: I’d like to make a motion that we appoint Hugh Hamilton, Louis
Mulherin, III and Mac Bowman.
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion to do those three names and a second. Is
there any discussion on that motion? The Chair looks to the right, the Chair looks to the
left, no hands are up for discussion. All in favor of that motion will do so by the usual
sign. The Chair votes yes.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That finishes up what we’ve got.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Unless you want to --
23. OTHER BUSINESS:
33
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair recognizes the Attorney for stating the purposes
of a legal meeting to be called.
Mr. Shepard:
24. LEGAL MEETING.
??
Discuss pending and potential litigation
??
Discuss Real Estate matter(s)
??
Discuss personnel.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I need a motion.
Mr. Boyles: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second to do those stated items by the City
Attorney. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the
usual sign. Any opposed, the same. I vote Yes. That should be unanimous.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: At the same time, cause we going to take one anyway, so if
we could do about a seven to ten minute recess, let’s do that, and then that way we can all
start together.
[LEGAL MEETING]
27. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Cheek: A motion to approve.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second to approve the affidavit. All in favor
of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams, Ms. Beard and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Shepard: For the record, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, [inaudible] pending and
potential litigation, real estate and personnel.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So noted. The Chair recognizes the Attorney for a stated
purpose, so we can entertain a motion.
34
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’d ask that the body add
and approve a motion to settle the Wakefield claim for sewer backup in the amount
that is the difference between the City Risk Management Department’s estimate
and the estimate produced by Ms. Wakefield which would add a total of $394.42 to
that authorization which was submitted by Risk Management.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: Oh, is it on the table?
The Clerk: On the table.
Mr. Shepard: You’re right. You’re absolutely. [inaudible] take it off the table
and approve it.
Mr. Cheek: A motion to remove from the table and approve.
Mr. Shepard: And to pay that difference in those two amounts of $394.42
and for the Attorney to obtain the appropriate release.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion, is there a second?
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. All in favor of the motion will do so
by the usual sign. The Chair votes yes
.
Mr. Williams, Ms. Beard and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Shepard: This one will be necessary to add and approve, Mr. Mayor
Pro Tem. In the matter of the Garnett claim, we need to direct that matter to the
Law Department because it is a conflict for my office to handle it, and we’d ask that
the Law Department through its officers be given the authority to settle that sewer
backup claim and would be ratified by the Commission. I would say it, it would
have to be under $15,000 because it was not to exceed that amount, unless there are
other damages that are not covered in that amount.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
35
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and a second. Any discussion? If not, all
in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Williams, Ms. Beard and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 7-0.
The Clerk: You’ve got two items, the Service Delivery Strategy, you’ve got to do
that.
ATTORNEY:
25. Consider approval of the Service Delivery Strategy.
Mr. Shepard: For the benefit of -- may I be recognized, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead. No problem.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. There are two items that remain. One is --
The Clerk: Service Delivery Strategy.
Mr. Shepard
: -- the Service Deliver Strategy, which I wanted to discuss but I
don’t think we have the time for that tonight. For the benefit of the new Commissioner,
the Service Delivery Strategy is an inter-governmental agreement between Augusta,
Hephzibah and Blythe for the provision of services. You would think that because we’re
a consolidated entity we would not have to execute such an agreement. Well, as you
know, Hephzibah opted out of the consolidated and so did Blythe, so we have to execute
that. We’re on time and not behind in doing it, but I’m going to bring, for the benefit of
the new Commissioners, bring to probably Finance a summary of those services that
Augusta provides and a summary of those services that the other municipalities in the
What I would do tonight is ask that you defer this on to the
county provide.
committee for further discussion next week, and I think Finance is probably the
best, or it could be held, it could be held in Administrative Services or in
conjunction with either of those.
I don’t really have a preference, but I’m thinking
there would be very few changes in those arrangements, but here again I think for the
benefit of those who were not on the Commission when those were negotiated, that we
should handle it through the committees.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think that’s well noted, and we, we’ve got two there to
divided on these last two so we’re going to go 50-50 with them. The Chair will entertain
a motion that we send item number 25 to Finance Committee, the next agenda.
Mr. Grantham: So move.
The Clerk: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion?
36
Mr. Cheek: Just some discussion. Due to the normal length of the agendas for
Finance, I was just thinking would better to send it to Administrative Services, which is
generally a much shorter agenda, to provide some relief? I have no dog in that one.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I don’t have a problem with it. I said it joking I was going
to split them 50-50, and my reason why I was going to ask you to send 26 to
Administrative Services.
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And it’s going to have to handle the development of the
Administrator’s goals and objectives. So I figured while that’s going to keep us pretty
busy over in that one.
Mr. Cheek: Call the question.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles?
rd
Mr. Boyles: Could I request that that report go on the 23 instead of next
Wednesday, is that --
rd
Mr. Shepard: Not a problem. No, that’s not a problem. You mean the 23
rd
meeting, February 23 [inaudible]?
rd
Mr. Boyles: February 23 meeting. If that’s not a problem, I would like to have
it come then, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Shepard: It’s not a matter of timeliness, it’s just a matter of something we
need to do.
rd
Mr. Boyles: If it’s okay with the body I’d like to have it on the 23.
Mr. Grantham: I accept that as an amendment to the motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: He made the motion.
Mr. Boyles: And I made the second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion will do so with that amendment
by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams, Ms. Beard and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 7-0.
37
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, because of the time frame that we’re in and
because of the Commissioner’s needing to dedicate time as well as in fairness to, to
working this with the Administrator, I’d like to see us take item 26, which is in reference
to the Administrator’s goals and objectives, even though that’s a decision that the
Commission will make, but I think needs to get started in committee and we can start it
off by devoting at least a proper time in terms of dealing with it.
26. Discuss development of the Administrator’s Goals and Objectives.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If I can get a motion on and then I’m going to recognize
you.
Mr. Boyles: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. The Chair recognizes the Attorney.
Mr. Shepard: And Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, the purpose of putting that on is that we
had committed last year to that process, with a deadline set of the first meeting in March,
so we should be about it. And I thin the Clerk and I noted together that that would be
appropriate to remind the Commission to go down that road at this time and remind them
of the time frame that we had set.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And I stated earlier to you in the day, I know two things
that you’ve stayed on track on, one was in reference to how we get the budget out and on
time, in your former role. And this one I think will help still keep us on that time frame
because it will start in that committee, give us a regular Commission meeting and if
necessary, if a particular committee needs to meet in between, we’ve got the time to do it.
So -- but we’ve got to stay on that time frame. Any questions? If not, we’ve got a
motion and a second. All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams, Ms. Beard and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Addendum Item 1. Discuss collection of yard waste due to recent ice storm.
(Requested by Commissioner Hankerson)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’ve got two of them that’s in here. If -- well, this one in
terms of, if you’ve got that there and the Commissioner doing the request is, is not here, I
think you’ve got some legal dedication to deal with that on how that is to be done. I have
no objection if you all want to add that and discuss it tonight, but I know he would love to
have some input, and since he’s gone at the lateness of this hour, I would greatly save it
for him for another time. It could go over to the appropriate committee, Engineering
Services.
38
Mr. Cheek: I move that we add and then defer to Engineering Services.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I assume there were no objectors to adding it, so we’ve got
100% ready to go on, to be added and then sent to Engineering Services. Motion and
second to that effect. All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. And I vote
yes.
Mr. Williams, Ms. Beard and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] adjourn.
Mr. Boyles: Before we adjourn, do we have 21A?
Mr. Cheek: 21A we deferred.
Mr. Grantham: 21 or 21A?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 21A went to Engineering Services.
The Clerk: It went back to the committee. That was in the consent motion.
Ms. Sims: Oh, I thought you pulled that.
The Clerk: Referred it back to committee.
Mr. Grantham: When did that, when did that --
The Clerk: The consent agenda motion. That was part of the motion to defer that
back, 21A and 13.
Ms. Sims: I didn’t want to do that.
Mr. Cheek: You want to do it now, revisit?
Ms. Sims: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: A motion to reconsider 21A.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion to reconsider. All in favor of that motion will do so
by the usual sign.
39
The Clerk: To reconsider 21A.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It don’t make no difference what I say, I’m still here.
Mr. Williams, Ms. Beard and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s unanimous. Go ahead.
The Clerk:
21A. Discuss emergency bank stabilization on Vassar Drive Project. (Requested
by Commissioners Grantham and Sims)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Commissioner Sims.
Ms. Sims: I asked for that to be put on, Commissioner Grantham and I did,
because the scope of that project changed. The scope of the project changed and we
have, I guess a report that needs to be presented.
Mr. Grantham: I was involved in this within the last couple of weeks, and even
more so, I guess, in the last couple of years. But we had asked for this particular item to
be brought up and we requested through the, through Engineering Services to review this
as additional work and changing the scope of the project above Vassar Drive, where the
project has almost become completed below Vassar Drive, but the work above it had not,
had not started, and so after looking at it there was much discussion, based with, based
with our Engineering Services Department and with Toole Engineering, when they came
out and looked at it, and that it needed to be changed. Upon making those changes, we
knew there was some additional funds that would be necessary, and I talked to Ms. Smith
about that and I think we were talking about recaptured funds in order to get that project
done. So if you would go over some of that with us, I’d appreciate that and see where we
are.
Ms. Smith: We have some visual information that we’ll provide with respect to
the actual area for which the additional work has been requested. The additional work
will include a, the addition of [inaudible] baskets and restoration of -- partial restoration
of the backyard of one of the property owners, and some additional riff raff on the
project. The funds that will be used, with the -- well, hold on a minute. If we include
contingency in the total cost for this work, it’s going to be -- with the [inaudible] wall, is
going to be approximately almost $85,000.
Mr. Grantham: Is that in addition to the work that has already been done there?
Is that taking the whole scope of that particular addition?
40
Ms. Smith: That is the additional funds that will be needed in order to do the
work in this area to address the back yard and then the items further up the creek. Now
we also, we also are going to need some additional right-of-way, because the right-of-
way that we have acquired for the purpose of doing the original scope of work, the area
that you’re looking at on this sheet goes further upstream and on to the other two
properties.
Mr. Grantham: Right. So what you already have is the right-of-way or easements
of right-of-way up to where the property lines, the three lines or four lines cross there?
Ms. Smith: Near where it says 302 Vassar Drive.
Mr. Grantham: Right. Right. And then you would need to get the right-of-way
for the addition, get the easement part, which there’s really no cost involved as far as that
right-of-way is concerned?
Ms. Smith: If they donate it.
Mr. Grantham: Which I fell reasonably sure they will. In doing that, then, would
the, would the motion that we would have to include in that motion for the recaptured
funds to include $85,000?
Ms. Smith: $85,000 in recaptured fund, as well as approval of the change order.
And we don’t have that document yet.
Mr. Grantham: Right.
Ms. Smith: But approval of the change order, as well as approval for
supplemental agreement for Toole.
Mr. Grantham: Right. For the right-of-way. Did you, did you acquire the permit
from the Corps of Engineers?
Ms. Smith: It has been submitted. It has not been returned.
Mr. Grantham: Okay. Well, we feel like will be forthcoming?
Ms. Smith: The information that we received was that, yes, it takes a brief
turnaround time for that if it is considered to be maintenance related work.
Mr. Grantham: Okay. All right. That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Colclough: Question, Ms. Smith. Is this wetlands?
Ms. Smith: The --
41
Mr. Colclough: The existing wetlands [inaudible]?
Ms. Smith: Yes, it is. The area that you’re looking at, the area that has been
identified thus far as being wetlands is the area that’s dashed. We weren’t doing, with the
original project -- the original project didn’t go as far as this does, so there hasn’t been
any wetlands identified any further upstream. But that investigation hasn’t been done.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] chain link fence here.
Mr. Grantham: That’s already on there. That’s already there.
Mr. Colclough: I was just wondering how far down these yard run into the
wetlands.
Mr. Grantham: You mind me answering that? Those, that’s the property line.
The property line is really in the middle of the creek. And so what we’re having to obtain
is easements to right-of-ways in order to go to the middle of the creek to do the scope of
the project. And that’s what that amounts to. Those are property lines. They submitted
the permit for this, so, you know, I guess in doing that, [inaudible] Andy, do you have --
Mr. Cheek: I just, it sounds to me like there’s been a thorough study done on the
solution. There needs to be some documents acquired or final approvals received, as well
as some easement right-of-way. We do have an identified funding source for the project.
Ms. Smith: Out of available recaptured funds.
Mr. Cheek: Which are dwindling quickly.
Mr. Grantham: Right. And that’s why we need to --
Mr. Cheek:
I know, I know we need to get it in. I want to remind everybody
that the money was recaptured from certain projects, but there are several Districts that
have had zero spent in them, and there will have to be some dedicated efforts on the part
of this Commission to help support the initiatives in those other Districts that have
supported these types of programs in the not-too-distant future. I would just say at this
I make a
point if we’ve got all the information on the table, which it sounds like we do,
motion, one, to identify and authorize staff to acquire all documents and easements
and right-of-way necessary to complete the project and, two, to proceed with
whatever engineering needs to be done to complete the project and, three, to use
recaptured funds to fund whatever additional repairs, not to exceed $100,000.
Ms. Smith: And the change order.
Mr. Cheek: And the change order with Toole Engineering.
Mr. Grantham: I’ll second that.
42
Ms. Smith: And for clarification, the change order will be with Beams
Construction.
Mr. Cheek: Beams Construction, not Toole Engineering.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You got all of that motion, Madame Clerk? We’ve got a
motion and a second, but let me, let me say this [inaudible]. I’ve been listening to y’all
move this [inaudible] and I’m not going to vote. I’m not going to vote against it but now
let me, let me, let me make myself clear on something. Now I’m, I’m, I’m a little
displeased not about [inaudible] but now I realize we didn’t have a committee meeting
last week, but now you know, we, we, we been, we been sticklers about putting in backup
information and having this stuff ready, and I know that is not Commissioners’ fault, but
I mean now I’m looking at -- and I didn’t say nothing today, Andy, we approved four to
five others in here that I didn’t have stuff in there to deal with, Ms. Smith. But now I’m
going to have [inaudible] in his absence, mainly because we did a reconsideration, I
represent District 2 along with Commissioner Williams, and I’m going to have to be fair
for a minute cause now I’m going to try, I’m going to play him if he was here. There has
been situations that have been brought to Public Works as a non committee member that
Marion has brought up in reference to whether it’s been drainage runoff from school
buildings, whether it’s been drainage runoff [inaudible] flat lands and we, we come back
in and we very quickly have this done and you tell me you’ve got $85,000 to reprogram.
Now I need y’all to, to give that District the same type of attention that you are getting
now. You come on here today and you asked me to do something at the end of the day,
on reconsideration, after the Commissioner gone, but I know where he be coming from if
he was here. And I jointly represent that District with him. But you’ve got an item that’s
coming on into the committee that is, that is not going through with committee, we took a
vote earlier of the Commission to send this into deferred. I took a lot of time asking
whether or not everybody understood what we were doing and how we were voting.
Now three Commissioners are gone and I think while it may be very good, I’m going to
have to speak for one that I know that would bring this issue to the floor, because those
persons, one in particular, is not here, and you’re talking about spending money to a point
from what I understand -- let me ask this question. If this, public right-of-way, this on
private property?
Ms. Smith: Most of the work that is proposed to be done is in an easement. Some
of it is on private property, and that’s why the additional easements and right-of-way
would need to be acquired. I would like to for the record indicate that while the
engineering work has been done on this project, the Commissioners have been very pro-
active in working with members of the Public Works staff and the engineering firm and
the construction company to get the information, or additional data, that was needed in
order to generate the information for today.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, and I think that’s to be applauded. I’m not knocking
them in any way at all. But now you’ve got to remember, and I said I was speaking for
the Commissioner from District 2 for a while, cause I represent that District. When that
43
Commissioner has tried to be pro-active, certain things he’s been restricted to do over in
your department, even as far as receiving information, Ms. Smith, so I mean when you
start talking about how active the Commissioners have been, now let’s not get our
memories real short to a point of where projects that that Commissioner has been asking
for, that have been years old, that have not gotten any attention at all, and to a point
where I think if you’re going to do that, then administrative door, and I’m not saying this
cause George isn’t here cause ain’t nothing I won’t tell him in person that I won’t, will
say in his absence. But I think to a point if y’all have been working on this to a point I
think that is good. I applaud that. I’m glad to see some folk that can get in your door to
get something done and not be accused of micromanaging the situation. But I can’t sit
here to a point of where, you know, you tell me how fast you move and what
Commissioners have brought to you. Well, I’ve got a lot I can bring to you, if you need
me to bring some to you. You know, I got, still got them concrete bunkers sitting out
there on a road that’s collapsed, on Railroad Street, in walking distance from my place of
business. They’ve been there for the last four years and went through two Administrators
and two Public Works Directors. They hadn’t got one bit of attention yet. And they may
be a low to moderate income area, and they may not live in our style homes in there, but
they walk out every day like they are in a bunker zone for security, because they’ve got
concrete on half of their street and the other half of it is falling down the bank of it over
there. So I mean that’s just one example that has not been done, has not got any
attention. So I’m not fighting Don, where y’all have gotten this on here. But when this
happens and I see this immediate emergency attention go to turning, I get a map on here,
I’ve got 21A with nothing in the back of it, I had a committee the other day [inaudible],
five other items, Mr. Public Works Chairman, that were not on there that had one bit of
information in it, not one number to deal with it. So I mean I’m just bringing that up for
public consumption. I have no problem with the Commissioners being pro-active. I’m
glad of that, I think that will help you to probably better do your job in terms of getting
some of this over here to us. But I’m not going to sit here to a point on something we
reverse at the end of the day and not put that bit of input in there because that
Commissioner is gone and I know very well that he would have discussed that to the
point of saying if you’re going to consider this and we [inaudible] back to committee,
now we’re changing that and dealing with it, and you’ve got a funding source in place,
you’ve got a nice map here drawn up, and you’ve got everything ready to go. And some
of us have got stuck that have been out here for months, we don’t get a map, we don’t get
no backup, we don’t get no results, by [inaudible] discretion -- I’m not going to say that,
but we don’t get anything to a point in some cases, other than a confrontation either from
the Administrator not to do something or direct you to do it. And, and, and I, for one,
I’ve gotten real sick and tired of that. So I’m not going, I’m not going to vote against it,
but I’m not going to vote for it. And it’s not -- and my reason for that is I don’t think it
ought to be penalized because I think it needs to be done and it’s good, but to a point that
I think y’all better work out either some double standards out of your department that
exists or some double standards that’s occurring on the eighth floor as it relate to some
Commissioners and they relate to Public Works projects. And I’m saying that on behalf,
particularly the Commissioner from District 2. He is gone and at a church program there
to deal with. But I know exactly if this one were not coming before committee, cause
he’s got others he was going to bring there and put on himself. So I mean it’s no, it’s not
44
a fault now. I’m not faulting the Commissioners. That needs to be done, but I mean if
we going to get where that’s what it takes, then send us a memo out to say I welcome
input from Commissioners to come in and to get something worked out. Maybe that’s
the message that needs to go out from Public Works. And I guarantee you some of these,
these raggedly forgotten areas I can get you some info to come in and do that. But I
mean don’t, don’t, don’t bring me something to a point that where we reverse, you turn at
the end of the day and you got material ready to go and then we’ve done five others today
with no backup, no nothing in there, and we’ve got stuff still coming from a workshop. I
wasn’t mean spirited today. I went on and I let it slide. But I’m not going to end of the
day you’re coming here and you deal with this in this manner and put it on to a point I
think the procedure needs to be followed. If we can delay how we deal with emergencies
in a storm and [inaudible] emergency situation, if we got one we don’t even know
whether the Corps of Engineers going approve. I mean when you deal with the Corps of
Engineer, we been trying to get them to give us money back still dealing with [inaudible]
before we got it for the lock and dam where they had the river draw down to deal with it.
So somebody knows something or got a good contact with the Corps, they need to share
that with everybody else. But now I just think to a point if you going to have the
procedure about how it’s supposed to go, then we need to follow procedure. If not, then
everybody just need to come to your office in order to get something done. But we been
basically told we couldn’t do, and what we couldn’t do and that kind of thing, and I think
that’s, that’s, that’s, that’s kind of sickening. So that’s just my opinion on it and I, I’m
going [inaudible] carry the motion on unless somebody else has got some further
discussion. But I do not blame the Commissioners. I think looking out for the area and
of doing the job and of getting what is needed for a project, but I also have to express the
sentiments by some other Commissioners [inaudible] to a point of where stuff that has
been waiting and can’t get anything done to a point of it, and [inaudible] days old,
months old, years old, and you ask me to do this and reverse it and bring it on at the end
of the day. I’m just not going to vote at all, but I will not, I will not kill a vote against a
project, [inaudible] legitimate need, but I just have a bad feeling about you just ignoring
some Districts and some stuff in there. But the Administrator can deal with other stuff
when he wants to, whenever he decides that it’s necessary to deal with it. And I’ve got a
personal problem with that. I recognize the Public Works Chairman and then
Commissioner Sims.
Mr. Cheek: Do we have a, I guess a bottom line figure on with funding this, what
would be left in recaptured? Just an estimate?
Ms. Smith: If this $85,000 is taken from Phase III, I believe the number that I
gave earlier was approximately a little under $900,000, so there would be just under
$800,000 I believe left in recaptured when this project is funded.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to ask this. This is something that we talked about when
we initially went out and found this funding, was that everybody would start jumping in
line to get things for their District. I’m going to ask everybody that’s had emergencies
and other issues dealt with in their District to step back and allow people that have had no
benefit from this sales tax, recapture money, to come to the table with some of their
45
issues. And I do think that we have [inaudible] interest at heart, but there are several
other items that people have brought to the table, and as Commissioner Mays has said,
don’t seem to be able to find legs, whereas others do, and I do applaud the efforts of, and
the proactivity to make this happen, and this is indeed an emergency with the house
foundation sinking and there’s potential liabilities there. But we have many, many other
projects that are underfunded, roads and drainage, that we are going to have to go back
and seek if we can shuffle the deck a little bit more and find some additional funding. I’ll
be meeting with Teresa and we’ll be working on that, try to work up a work session on
this, to come up with some additional funds, if they are available. It’s getting to look
more and more like we need to develop a printing press down in the basement and start
turning out our own money to pay for these things. But I do ask everyone to please, if
you’ve had projects, let us not come with an emergency a week. Let us consider
Commissioner Williams, and I have certain needs in my District that need to be
addressed that are not big ticket items. Some of us do have to realize that the $2 million
or $3 million projects that we have for drainage that are indeed worthy are going to have
come on the list for the next round of sales tax. They’re just not going to be that kind of
money with us needing to fund Windsor Spring Road and several other projects that are
ready to go or at stages that are of need. We’re going to have to put those in a priority
and then design and prepare these major drainage projects and all for the next round of
sales tax and Lord willing, if everybody votes for it and we have the infrastructure money
in there that we’re hoping to have, we’ll be able to accomplish some of these things that
have been deferred for a long time. End of comments. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: Yes, I just wanted to say that this began in 1990, so it’s not, you know,
it has been going on every time there was a big rain. It wasn’t like it just happened. It
has, it has been since 1990, I think was the first call, to have this looked at. So I don’t
want you to think it just happened in the last month or two or three. Just know that it
started in 1990. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And I, and I applaud the Commissioners for getting
together and of bringing this to the attention of trying to get it moving. I don’t have any
objection to that at all. Where my objection comes in is not with the Commissioners.
My objection comes in with, with administrative staff and with Public Works from the
standpoint that there are some that precede ’90, ’80, ’70 and age old that in some cases
prior to, to some of the new Commissioners being sworn in, some have been crying in the
wilderness that can’t get stuff off the agenda, can’t get any attention, folk go and look at
it, and then when they look at it, it gets to be ho-hum, and then nothing is every put
together to say or nothing is every on, on the drawing board with it. Some of this stuff
and some of these areas in District 2 was to have been addressed even prior to the, to the
last City’s annexation program in which they took the part of Albion Acres in the area off
Kissingbower Road. And the promises that were made to those people that were in those
areas that still have not been done to this day. And some of us have been trying to get
done. So I applaud the aggressiveness that’s in there but it’s just a point that it’s a little
bit in my craw to a point that some things can move fast and that they can get done and
46
that we can get drawings, we can get stuff to move in, and I said when I opened this up
that I was speaking because I knew that the Commissioner from District 2, if he was here,
would address it in this manner, particularly because we [inaudible] this coming back and
to a point about him trying to get some things done on some issues that he has. And by
this coming back, like it’s coming back on the end, and to get it done, then that
[inaudible] discretion and I was bringing it out because we represent that particular
District together. But I, I just think when needs are there, that, like I say, if that, if that’s
what it’s going to take in order to get it done, then I don’t mind doing it, but there have
been some of us that have been under the gun that don’t know whether we go in and
whether we push for some things to get done, whether the ordinance that was passed in
terms of harassing department heads is going to be exercised, or where we going to be
with it. And that’s why some of us have basically just backed off. And it’s, it’s been
frustrating in order to do that. And I think when Commissioners have asked for general
information and to a point that folk [inaudible] not send folk stuff unless they get a call to
do it or some Commissioners go into an office, the red alert goes on in a silent way, so
that the eighth floor is notified and the Administrator can come down and to deal with it.
Those are the things that I’m saying that deal with in a double standard way that make us
not have to function as a group. It’s a good project. I applaud y’all for doing it, that’s in
there, but because I have stuff that’s in this Super District that is not being attended to
that I think on a timely basis, I’m not going to vote against it, but I cannot -- I have to
abstain on it. It’s just out of principle to the way I think it ought to follow the procedure
in terms of coming through and of going through the committee in the way that it should
be handled. Now all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. I vote present.
Mr. Williams, Ms. Beard and Mr. Hankerson out.
Mr. Mays votes Present.
Motion carries 6-1.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I move we adjourn.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Non debatable motion.
[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 February 4, 2004.
________________________
Clerk of Commission
47