HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-2004 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
February 17, 2004
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:02 p.m., Tuesday,
February 17, 2004, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Mays, Cheek, Beard,
Williams, Sims and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Rev. Max Hicks.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, please be seated.
The Clerk: Rev. Hicks, on behalf of the Augusta Commission, we’d like to show
our appreciation for you [inaudible] on our behalf. Thank you.
Mr. Hicks: Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, why don’t we defer the recognition until the person
we’re recognizing arrives at the meeting.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, here he comes now. We’ll go ahead with the recognition.
Commissioner Williams.
RECOGNITION:
Congratulations!!! Commissioner Marion F. Williams received during the 2004
Georgia Municipal Association Annual Mayors’ Day Conference the Certificate of
Achievement from the Harold F. Holtz Municipal Training Institute for Elected
Officials sponsored by the University of Georgia, Carl Vinson Institute of
Government.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, congratulations are in order
for Commissioner Marion Williams, who received during the 2004 Georgia Municipal
Association Annual Mayors’ Day Conference the second level of training, the certificate
of achievement from the Harold F. Holtz Municipal Training Institution for Elected
Officials, which is sponsored by the University of Georgia Carl Vinson Institution of
Government. Congratulations, Commissioner Williams.
1
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Next is the Employee of the Month award.
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD:
Mr. Mark Smith
Information Technology Department
The Clerk: Employee of the Month, Mr. Mark Smith from the Information
Technology Department. Ms. Allen, would you please join the Mayor at the podium?
From the Employee Selection Committee: Dear Mayor Young, the Employee
Recognition Committee has selected Mr. Mark Smith with Information Technology as
the January Employee of the Month for the City of Augusta. He was nominated by his
immediate supervisor, Mr. Mike Blanchard. Would you please come forward? He stated
that Mark has excelled in the area of dedication to his work, dependability in critical
situations, and the execution of duties and responsibilities over an extended period of
time and should be commended by management, his peers, and the public for his
devotion to his work. Mark is an accomplished information technology staff member
with over 20 years of experience in the technology field. Every year there are certain
processes related to Augusta’s financial payroll and purchasing systems that must take
place from mid December to the end of January. The recent 2003-04 transition was
exceptional in that there were many new activities that were required with the coming of
the new year. In this time period, Mark has assisted the Purchasing Department in
training for bid management module, for the [inaudible] financial software. Mark also
participated in this training, as well as get more thorough understanding of how to
support the users, assisted Purchasing, Payroll, Human Resources and Accounting with
the end-of-the-year processes. This is critical to the ability of the City to meet its
financial obligations and auditing responsibilities. He served as a liaison between Bi-
Tech, the provider of our office software, and Augusta to ensure smooth implementation
of the stores inventory module of [inaudible]. This entailed many hours, including after
hours work, [inaudible] on the phone with vendors and staff members in order to ensure
that processes were set up correctly. This implementation was carried out efficiently and
without delay, in large part due to his dedication to getting the job done and mobilizing
other resources needed to complete important tasks, worked with the Administrator’s
office and Human Resources to determine the methodology to implement the proper
configuration of part-time and full-time personnel resources in relation to budgeting.
Mark handled a tremendous workload of work and he did so with the high level of
professionalism and good humor. And he also explored new technology and its
applications through training and conferences throughout the year so that he can bring a
fresh perspective to his work. The committee would appreciate you joining us in
awarding Mr. Mark Smith Employee of the Month for the month of January.
Congratulations.
(A round of applause is given.)
2
The Clerk: Ms. Allen or Mr. Blanchard, would you like to say something?
Ms. Allen: I can only echo everything that Mr. Blanchard has stated in his
recommendation for Mark Smith to be the Employee of the Month, but I’d like to also
add that Mark gives 110%. He’s a dedicated employee, he’s a dependable employee.
He’s there for everything that we. Any implementation that Mark is a part of, he does
what’s necessary to make sure it’s a success. He also does what he can to help any of the
other employees with other projects that we have going, so they can be a success as well.
I have to give Mark credit and I have to give you pure appreciation, Mark, for being a
team player and for showing team effort, because we all realize in order for us to be
successful and meet the goals and obligations of this organization, we’re going to have to
have team players. Thank you for being a team player, Mark, and thank you for being
part of the Information Technology Department.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Next is presentations.
The Clerk:
PRESENTATION:
CITIZENS COMMITTEE SPLOST PHASE V
RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Monty Osteen, Co-Chair
Mr. Ed Tarver, Co-Chair
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, welcome.
Mr. Tarver: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we are here to formally
present the recommendation of the Citizens Committee. As you know, we started
meeting in April of 2003 and through a series of weekly meetings and also 14 town hall
meetings we prepared and submitted by transmittal letter on February 6 the
recommendation of the Committee, and we would offer that at this time for consideration
by the Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Monty?
Mr. Osteen: As Ed mentioned, we have been meeting since May. We had 21
people that spent an awful lot of time, hard work. We have a number of our committee
members here today and I’d like to ask them to stand, the members of the committee.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Osteen: These people gave up their Wednesday afternoons for almost nine
months, and I just want to say on behalf of the co-chairs thank you very much.
3
Mr. Mayor: Let me say on behalf of the Commission, and I’ll give those
Commissioners who desire to speak an opportunity to have their say in just a moment,
but let me say a personal thank you to our co-chairman, Ed Tarver and Monty Osteen,
and to the members of the committee who spent those nine months. It’s nice to finally
deliver after nine months, and we are pleased to have this report. This for us is a starting
point, recognizing that the Commission has to put the final list of projects together. But
the [inaudible] process that we went through with the citizens scrutinizing the list and
every request that came in, holding the public hearings, I think is going to make the
Commission’s job a lot easier. You’re to be commended for your commitment to this
and to reaching this point today, and we thank you for that. I might add that I have
th
scheduled a Commission work session for the 12 of March at two o’clock in these
Chambers, at which time the Commission will begin going through the list and bringing
their own projects to the table which they would like to have considered, too. The floor
will be open for any additional comments. Commissioner Cheek?
th
Mr. Cheek: Just on behalf of the people of the 6 District, I’d like to thank you
all for the public forums and the hard work that you put in. I know at some of the forums
that I attended that you enjoyed some of the pressures of the job that we enjoy. But I
appreciate your tenacity and your dedication and the quality of the product you produced
and we hope that we can faithfully use that list to change the face of Augusta, not only
for this generation but for generations to come. And thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else? Okay. Do we have a motion to receive the list as
information?
Mr. Mays: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much.
Mr. Tarver: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Next will be delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
Update on Center Activities (Requested by Mayor Bob Young)
Child Enrichment Inc.
4
Ms. Amy Gaylor, Director
Mr. Mayor: Amy, we’re glad to have you with us today. Ms. Gaylor contacted
my office and wanted to update the Commission on the activities of her organization and
so we’ve scheduled her for the meeting today and she does recognize that she has five
minutes under the rules.
Ms. Gaylor: I recognize it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Ms. Gaylor: Thank you, Your Honor. I want to thank you for the opportunity to
be before y’all today to talk about what is a very difficult subjection that most of us do
not want to thank about, we do not want to acknowledge that it is exists in our
community. I know that you have a very busy agenda and I will try -- I will stay within
those five minutes. You all should have received an invitation to come to our Center for
a reception on February 27, on the afternoon. That is the beginning of a series of talks
we’re going to have with all of the leaders and all of the citizens in our community. The
reason why I’m here is for the children. The state of children in our State is in crisis.
When you, when we look at key indicators in the nation of how the welfare of our
children ranks, the State of Georgia ranks 41 out of 50 states. When we look at the State
of Georgia, just recently the Department of Family and Children Services released key
indicators of how Richmond County looks in comparison to the other 158 counties in the
State of Georgia. And Richmond County ranked 152 out of 159. I know that every one
of you and everyone in this room will agree with me that that’s not an acceptable state of
affairs for the children in our community. I am the Child Advocacy Center Director at
Child Enrichment. Child Enrichment is one of -- it’s the light within the darkness in our
community when it comes to addressing child abuse. Each year in our community, last
year we saw over 700 children in our community that were abused. Or alleged to have
been abused. We provided shelter for 100 children last year who were removed from
their homes because they had faced abuse. Our costs of program, which represents
children in court proceedings in Juvenile Court when they’ve been removed from the
home and are in foster care in Richmond County, there are approximately 500 children in
foster care right now, they represented almost 300 of those children to give them a voice
in Juvenile Court proceedings. Our Child Advocacy Center serves much like the United
Nations in the child welfare arena. When reports are made of child sexual abuse, we
respond to over 300 of them a year in this community. Law enforcement, DEFACs, the
District Attorney’s office, the Medical College of Georgia all come to our Center and we
come together as a team to work together to better serve these children, to protect them,
to pursue justice. I saw a lot of you at some of the services that just were held for Martin
Luther King, and what we believe and what we are trying to voice to the community this
year is that in our pursuit of equality and justice for all and are working together as a
community, for the best wealth of our community, that we believe that this is the time
that we include children in our statements when we’re looking at what is the wealth of
our community, how well are we doing in taking care of our community. I think it’s a
logical step. In the last five years since 1998 until 2001, the amount of reports that have
5
increased in the State of Georgia by 30%. We were investigating 47,000 cases in this
State five years ago. We’re now investigating 67,000. Locally we were investigating
1,200. Now we’re investigating 1,700. The numbers have increased. The resources and
the manpower and the support behind that really has not increased with that level. The
thing about child abuse -- as difficult for us to address, it is the opportunity for us to
unite. Child abuse does not discriminate. It is not an issue about gender. We see as
many, almost as many boys as we do girls. It is not a racial issue. We see, we see
children of all races. It’s not a religious issue. We see children from every, every
religion and denomination. It is definitely a partisan issue. It’s not about Republicans,
it’s not about Democrats, it’s not about any other parties that exist. What exists, I
believe, in our society and this community is a cultural issue. We believe that this is the
time for all of us to unite. It is the thing that we can unite most on to better serve our
children. They need our help. Children can’t come down to the Municipal Building and
speak before you. These 700 children that we saw and the 1,200 investigations that
occurred. You don’t see their faces. But every day, we look with courage into their eyes,
because quite honestly, they have a lot more courage than the majority of us do to speak
up and tell the truth about what’s happening. And if the children have the courage to
come forward with the horror that they are experiencing in many of these cases, then we
certainly have to find the courage to respond to their pleas for help. We think that the
numbers have increased as largely as they have because we have begun as a society and
as a community to realize that this is a problem, that we cannot sweep this problem under
the, under the carpet any more. You can rarely pick up a newspaper without seeing some
headlines. So it’s a difficult, dark reality that we don’t want to deal with, but we want
you to know that there are a lot of us and that our community is doing a good job at
facing that. But we need more support, and that support is a beginning of a dialog for us
to communicate about what that reality is and how we all can be part of that solution. We
talk a lot in this community and in our country about problems. I’m here to tell you what
the reality is and that it is a big problem, but that we can unite together to be part of that
solution. We believe that this is the time for the children. Their well being and their
welfare now certainly is an indicator of what the well being of our community and our
future will be. How am I doing on the time?
Mr. Mayor: You’re out of time.
Ms. Gaylor: So I --
Mr. Mayor: It’s an important message that you bring.
Ms. Gaylor: I just want to thank you for the time. You have an invitation to join
us on February 27. Anyone that is in the room, certainly has an open invitation to call the
Child Enrichment Shelter and Child Advocacy Center. We will come to your groups.
We want to talk to you about how we all can be part of the solution for our children.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Amy.
6
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: We have a number of people who are here for item number 38, I
believe it is, the inert landfill. So we’ll go ahead and take that item up next in deference
to all those people who have arrived here for that. Madame Clerk, if you’ll read the
caption.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
38. Z-04-11 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Dr. Andrew McGovern, on behalf of
James B. Foster, requesting a Special Exception to establish an inert fill area per
Section 26-1 (o) affecting property located at 2039 McDade Road and containing
6.99 acres. (Tax Map 196 Parcel 4) DISTRICT 8
Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. Patty here? Is the petitioner here?
Mr. Patty: Mr. Mayor, he had asked to be allowed to withdraw this without
prejudice.
Mr. Mayor: He didn’t want to come here and do it himself?
Mr. Patty: [inaudible] not.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we’ve got a request from the petitioner to withdraw without
prejudice. We’ll see if the Commission wants to consider that now, and if not, we’ll
move ahead with hearing this matter. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, with that withdrawal that would allow him to bring it
back within the period of a year?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to make a motion that this be denied.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: That the item be denied?
The Clerk: That the petition be denied?
Mr. Mayor: That the petition be denied or his request to withdraw it be denied?
Mr. Cheek: Both, actually. The petition, the petition that we vote on today and
that we deny the petition where it won’t come back for a year.
7
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there a second on that?
Mr. Mays: I’ll second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Let me do this if we may, just so we have a record of what
this is all about. I’m sure the Attorney would like to have it there later if it comes up
again. Could we have a show of hands, please, of all the people who are here objecting
to this item?
(28 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: And they have submitted a petition that the Clerk as.
Mr. Shepard: 28.
Mr. Mayor: 28. Are there any people here in favor, in support of this item? Mr.
Patty, would you, just for the record, come and tell us why the Planning Commission has
recommended denial?
Mr. Patty: Just briefly, this property owner has considerable acreage and he is
located on the bluff going down to Spirit Creek coming off McDade Road. He’s been,
for some time he’s been filling with inert material the bluff trying to create some terraces
to get down to the low part of this property. I believe that EPD somehow got on to this
and as a result it came to us. And what he’s doing under our ordinances fits the definition
of an inert fill area. EPD, under EPD’s rules it would be inert landfill. He wanted to
continue doing what he was doing to reach a certain level of stability with his property,
and there were a variety of reasons, erosion and other reasons why the Planning
Commission felt that he shouldn’t be able to continue that, and so it was denied for those
reasons.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Is there anyone, are there any objectors here who wanted
to speak for the record? If you’d like to come up and speak briefly, if you’d give us your
name and address, please.
Mr. Cooper: My name is Charles Cooper. I live at 1517 Ridgedale Road. It’s in
the general area where this is at. We have passed some folders, distributed some folders
around, it’s a little more involved than what Mr. Patty has said in that we believe there
are contaminants that have been dumped in this landfill area. We have in that list --
there’s a list of haulers for Richmond County landfill who have purchased permits. If
you will notice, the gentleman’s name is not on it. He does contract work with Richmond
County. We believe and the EPD report indicates it, there were probably 30 loads at one
point hauled on this property from the Board of Education building. We don’t
understand why Richmond County is doing business with someone like this. We believe
that the county should -- if I as an individual homeowner hired someone to haul off stuff
from my house and it was dumped illegally, I would be fined. I am responsible. We feel
8
like Richmond County is responsible. I wanted to just show you [inaudible] do believe
the picture speaks a thousand words. And these pictures were taken from --
Mr. Mayor: Excuse me, we need you to speak the words into the mike so we can
get them on the record.
Mr. Cooper: Those pictures were taken from an adjoining property. The
gentleman who owns the adjoining property has a house that is 4,000 square foot on six
acres of land and that’s what he gets to look at from his house every day. We want to
thank the board, the Commission, for taking the time to hear this issue. We understand
that it was not a requirement that you do so. But we would like to see better zoning
enforcement. We live in an area of Richmond County that is growing and expanding,
where property values are going up. And this sort of wanton abuse should not exist.
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any questions for the witness? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, would it be in order for this body to request from State
EPD a soil sampling for any hazardous or toxic materials that may have been deposited in
that area?
Mr. Mayor: Sure. Be glad to do that. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to know from our staff or from our, from the
County or City’s perspective, what they are finding and what steps are being taken with
the City to clean up or to help with this situation. And, and, and I heard pieces of this
before and now seen the pictures and seen these lists. But is anybody from our staff --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman, can you?
Mr. Williams: -- address any of this at all?
Mr. Sherman: Two or three years the License & Inspection Department,
[inaudible] is our environmental inspector, became aware that the petitioner was dumping
out on this property. At the time it was considered solid waste, not only inert waste
which would be earth or earth-like products like brick or concrete or asphalt, but what he
was actually dumping was solid waste, which included wood, metal products, just
finished, processed products. At that time, it was turned over to EPD, and EPD has been
working with him on this. I’m not sure to what extent, but EPD is involved with what
occurred two or three years ago with solid waste dumping. We became aware that he
was dumping inert waste, which is brick, concrete, asphalt products, and we sent him a
letter, told him to stop. This all occurred during the process of him applying to the
Planning Commission for the Special Exception for an inert landfill. That if you deny
that, I think the recommendation or request that we would ask that you include in your
denial is that he remove all uncovered inert materials that he’s brought in. I know that we
received a letter from EPD. The petitioner is working with the City Engineering
9
Department to develop a -- he’s developing a landfill plan with a private engineering firm
which, once it’s completed, will be submitted to the Planning Commission and routed out
to the other departments for review, including soil erosion, soil conservation office. But
we inspected the property a week or two weeks ago, I suppose, and there’s a good bit of
material in there that he has brought in, bricks and concrete, that he brought in as fill
material, and that should be removed. Some of the material that was brought in years
ago, we saw that as well. It is now covered and somewhat stabilized, and I’m not sure
where EPD is with that. But that’s something that they’re working on.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Rob, let me ask one other question. And, and, and I guess
my question is, is there any contamination, is there some immediate concern that besides
stopping this that we need to address, I guess is what I want to know.
Mr. Sherman: With the material that’s clearly visible, I don’t think there’s any,
any potential for soil contamination. It’s possible that it will cause some, some runoff
erosion to get into both his pond and the adjacent pond. But as far as any contaminants
going into the soil, just what’s visible, it’s just brick and concrete.
Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m probably following up on what
Commissioner Williams said, but my understanding is the intent is to not allow his
withdrawal and also go ahead and basically kill the idea?
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Mr. Boyles: All right, what happens with the clean up? I guess I’m following up
on Commissioner Williams’ question. But --
Mr. Mayor: Well, that’s an enforcement issue, and under the consolidation act the
Mayor is charged with enforcing the ordinances and I can assure you that Mr. Shepard
and I will confer on that first thing tomorrow and we’ll get the appropriate instructions
out to the property owner to clean up the mess. [inaudible] EPD with the testing, too.
Mr. Boyles: As you look at those pictures and you talk about what somebody else
can look at outside of their window or their home when they leave in the morning, that
shouldn’t be. And whatever we need to do to -- if that’s a part of the motion, and that’s
being handled by our staff that’s fine. But I just want to make sure that somebody is
going to do it.
Mr. Mayor: It will be pursued with the Attorney. I’ll confer with him. Andy?
10
Mr. Cheek: Just for consideration’s sake, the impacts and cost of removing this
material and the impacts of dump trucks and other things, plus soil erosion and all, should
be considered. I would hope that the department would look at, as we have with our
current [inaudible] pit, State regulations and so forth, by the way which [inaudible] has
handled a 40-year problem in the City masterfully in the past. I know she’s very capable.
But to look at the potential, one, either trucking this out since it is inert in nature and
there are no toxins apparently, the possibility of capping this with some type of soil and
then revegetating the area and stabilizing it in that manner, rather than having tens of
dozens of dump trucks and heavy equipment, causing further erosion into Spirit Creek. I
would just hope that staff would look at those two options and try to come up with the
least impact upon the surrounding community and while improving the aesthetics of that
area.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I’m looking at the report that I guess you brought up?
Mr. Sherman: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] has [inaudible] asbestos and all kind of stuff. How do
we get that asbestos and all these contaminants out there? You’re talking about
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Well, we’re going to need to work with EPD on clean-up.
Mr. Sherman: If I could address that. [inaudible] reminded me. Included in the
letter from EPD to -- copied to me, but to the property owner, the plan that he’s working
on for grading is required and EPD is going to be involved in that. But also, it says
within 15 days of the date of this correspondence please remove any waste, metal,
boards, plastics, other miscellaneous waste that cannot be used to bring the site into
compliance, so it’s addressing the solid waste that you were asking about. And he has 15
days to get that removed. So EPD will be working directly with him on that.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion, we have a motion on the floor to deny this
petition. All in favor of the motion please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
11
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We will take a break here for just a moment. Y’all are
welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting if you’d like to. The petition has been denied
and -- or you may leave the Chambers.
Mr. Cheek: Do we need [inaudible]?
Mr. Mayor: Steve and I will take care of that. Madame Clerk, Madame Clerk, we
have some people here on behalf of item number 39, so we’ll take that one up next.
The Clerk:
39. Z-04-12 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that the new
building, as submitted on the concept plan presented at the meeting, must meet the
side setback requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance unless a BZA
variance to lessen the setback is granted for the property line that abuts Kingston
subdivision and 2) that a vegetative buffer be established and maintained according
to the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance along the same property line; a
petition by Robert W. Gropp requesting the modification of the conditions on a
1995 (Z-95-59) Special Exception for an addition to an equestrian center per Section
26-1 (I) affecting property located at 1333 Jackson Road and containing
approximately 16 acres. (Tax Map 31-4 Parcels 36.06 & 36.09) DISTRICT 3
Mr. Mayor: Members of the Commission, I doubt very seriously -- I have a
conflict of interest -- however, I will just disclose that my granddaughter is a customer of
this stable and so what I will do, I will defer to the Mayor Pro Tem to preside just so
there’s no question as to the Chair’s partiality of this matter.
Mr. Patty: Mr. Mays, Mr. Gropp has had a right serious accident. He’s,
he’s been severely injured and is not going to be available for at least 60 days and I
would ask that you postpone this until the first meeting in April. I’ve contacted the
only known objector and told them this was what I was going to recommend and I
would ask you to do that for us.
Mr. Mays: Approximately 60 days, George?
Mr. Patty: That’s just a guess. He fell 30 feet onto some pavement out of a
cherry picker, so that’s just a guess. Steve, there may be a better way to handle it. But
he’s not going to be available.
Mr. Mays: As far as the activity of the property itself, though, nothing is taking
place --
Mr. Patty: No, sir.
Mr. Mays: -- or moving on this during this period?
12
Mr. Patty: No, sir. Nothing will change until after you make your decision.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’d like to make a motion that we follow
the recommendation of the Planning Director, and that was to postpone for 60 days.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Commissioner
Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I think that the, there are some objectors, or a
person here to object. If that person is here, maybe we need to hear that. And I
understand about the postponement for sixty days, but in -- and I’m not for or against.
I’d like to hear both sides, but if the body feel that we need to wait, then I guess we can
do that. But I’m just thinking about the people who took their time to come down to
address this issue. You think that’s necessary or you think that’s beneficial or --
Mr. Mays: First of all, let me -- and I definitely know one, are there any objectors
that are present for the record that are here on item number 39?
(1 objector noted)
Mr. Mays: Did you want to address us while you’re here? The Chair will
recognize that fact under the, under the limit rule, and it’s not setting precedent. We’ve
[inaudible] courtesy situations where there have been accidents or emergencies, but if
you wanted to give your name and address for the record now, and obviously this is one
we’re going to have to hear again anyway. But if you want to do that at this point,
[inaudible] you may not want to do your total case while you’re here.
Ms. Powell: Okay. My name is Emily Powell and I reside at the back of, at the
north end of Mr. Gropp’s property. And my objection is that we have, we have the stable
there and it’s in my back door. It’s in my kitchen, it’s in my dining room, and I don’t
want to see anything else put there that would create any more problems. I, I want, I’m
old enough now that my next residence is going to be a retirement home. And I want to
keep the property value up so that I can get a good price for my property, and I don’t
think this is going to help my property. But if it’s coming back again in 60 days, then --
Mr. Mays: One thing, let me ask Mr. Patty this. George, she will be fully
notified? We’re saying 60 and that may give or take a day or so in there, but she will be
fully notified to a point when we will have that hearing; am I correct?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir.
13
Mr. Mays: Okay. Let me ask one question, and this is not, and this is of the
Planning Director at this point. The -- cause we have a lot of new Commissioners, but I
guess of hearing this one for the second time, is there anything in this recommendation
that’s different from the previous recommendation that we turned down the last time that
it was heard?
Mr. Patty: It’s basically the same issue.
Mr. Mays: Okay. And I’m just asking for information’s sake, where I would
know. Okay, cause I’ve not read all of the [inaudible].
Mr. Patty: Basically the same issue. We, we -- initially it was presented as a
change in the overall zoning of the property, and we routed it back as a special exception
this time in order to not have opening up the entire property, the unfettered, agricultural
uses as an issue. And we tried to sort of narrow the decision here. But basically it’s the
same issue, it’s the same thing proposed two years ago or whenever it was.
Mr. Mays: And I just was asking for information cause I know if you stay here
long enough, sometimes things start to look very familiar to you again. Does anyone else
have any questions of Mr. Patty or the petitioner? Any other discussion on the motion?
If not, all in favor will do by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mays: We’ll notify you. Back over to you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. We also have some people here for
item number 40, so let’s go ahead and --
The Clerk: Item 40?
Mr. Mayor: Item number 40. We’ll take that one up next.
The Clerk:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
40. Appeal Hearing for Mellow Mushroom Pizza Bakers, 1167 Broad Street
regarding the Historic Preservation Commission’s denial of their request for a
Certification of Appropriateness (COP) to enclose the restaurant’s patio.
Mr. Mayor: All right, is there somebody from the HPC here? Okay, if you’ll
speak on behalf of the organization? Okay, is the appellant here with us today? Is the
company here? Okay. We’ll let the HPC go first and tell us what you did and why you
did it. And I want to thank you for proving the backup. This is the first time we’ve had
backup for one of these, and it’s been very helpful in preparing for the meeting today.
14
Mr. Bush: Good afternoon, everyone. George Bush here on behalf of the
Historic Preservation Commission. We voted on this matter back on January 22, 2004,
and the applicant wanted to enclose -- and you’ll have some materials, I believe. Mr.
Patty, [inaudible] what they wanted to do, they wanted to enclose -- I think everybody is
familiar with the Mellow Mushroom. There’s a porch out on the front that faces Broad
Street that the applicant wanted to enclose with a steel door with glass, I guess glass
panes in it. And we heard discussion and we looked at the guidelines that had been
approved by our Commission. I’m not sure if this Commission has approved them or
not. I was just asking Mr. Patty and he couldn’t recollect whether y’all have actually
adopted these, but these are basically in place to provide guidance to our Commission.
And page 63 -- and what I’ve provided to the Commission is the part detailing the
guidelines for the store fronts, which this falls into that category based upon its location
on Broad Street. And basically it talks about not wanting to materially change the
historic features of the existing contributing feature or structure that’s there. And due to
the visibility of this structure and due to the fact that this glass pane we believe would
detract from the significance of the historic district, we unanimously voted to deny the
applicant. And as I was indicating, at page 63, line two, it says when an addition is
necessary it should be designed so that it will not detract from the character defining
features of the historic building. We believe that this proposed addition will detract from
the historic structure, and 64, it, at number 3 on page 64, which is also included in the
materials provided to you folks, it says try to locate, in line 1, try to locate the additional
rear or side elevations that are not visible from the street. So basically what we’re talking
about is trying to have an appealing, appealing storefront consistency along the street.
We feel like if you were to allow them to put a steel garage door in, that would not be
there all the time. They’re going to move that, you know, they’re going -- it’s going to be
able to be moved up and down basically to allow more people to be served, I guess in
colder weather, and to keep it secure at night and so that they can do some improvements
to this portico area. However, we just don’t feel like the, their plan is consistent with the
guidelines, and we think it would detract from the downtown commercial development
and we also think that it would be a poor precedent if we were to provide these people the
green light to go ahead and put this in. We feel like later applicants could come to this
Commission and request permission to materially alter existing storefronts that are not
compatible with the historic integrity of the downtown historic district. So we would ask
that you affirm our denial of this request for those reasons. We do want to thank -- we’re
glad to have Mellow Mushroom and we think it’s a great place and we’re glad that
they’re here, but we just think this is a poor plan, and they, the Mellow Mushroom did
come down and we did approve their, you know, initial project and we believe that they
also have room to grow in other areas, to the rear of the building, that would not have
such an impact on Broad Street. [inaudible]
Mr. Speaker: No, I’m talking to the Administrator.
Mr. Bush: And that’s all I have for you.
Mr. Mayor: All right. George, thank you. We’ll hear from the petitioner --
15
Mr. Bush: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: -- who has filed this appeal and then we’ll have our discussion. If
you’d give us your name and address for the record, please.
Mr. Ledford: My name is Sean Ledford. You need a home address or business?
Mr. Mayor: Business address will be fine.
Mr. Ledford: 1167 Broad Street. If everyone would direct their attention to the
first photograph, that’s a photograph of the building as it exists now. The small area
that’s fenced off, that’s a patio area. We’re able to seat that about maybe 30% of the
year. Our proposal is to enclose that, but where they’re saying that we are detracting
from the historical look, the only thing that was historical about this building was the
roofline when we first started. All of the other construction that you see is what I have
put in personally. The roofline proposal is still going to be intact. I do not want to take
away from that. That, that is a characteristic of that building that I don’t think needs to be
taken away. So the proposal is to put a flat roof on the fascia board that is just below the
tile there. Okay? So the flat roof comes straight out and you can see in the diagram on
page three of what we are proposing. The roofline is intact. That’s the historical part of
that building. That’s the shape of the building and that’s what I think I was denied for,
was the shape of that building. Because it was important to that block because it’s a gas
station. Well, you’re still going to be able to see that you can pull through there from the
th
12 Street side and the garage door is only there for when we have bad weather we can
close it down, if it’s cool I can put a heater in. If not, it’s just going to be a covered patio
with a door that has glass panes in it that is visible at all times. Okay, you can see
through that. It’s just like the enclosure of the front. The only thing is the garage door.
Then also I’ve given some photographs of options, and this is as the same as [inaudible]
restaurant on Washington Road. There are garage doors that they can roll up, it’s open
air, people can enjoy the outside weather, as well as climate control inside. And so for
the reason for my appeal is there’s no direction given when it’s denied. They want me to
come back in 30 days and give another proposal. I can’t go back to my architect and say
no, there’s no guidelines for me to follow, there’s no suggestions, there’s nothing, it was,
it’s taking away from the historical integrity of that block and I am just here to ask
exactly what that is and why.
Mr. Mayor: According to the backup we have, there was a suggestion made to
you. Mr. Haltermann made a suggestion.
Mr. Ledford: And his suggestion was to enclose it in glass so you can see through
it. Everything that I’m proposing --
Mr. Mayor: This says should be plastic, like at the Partridge Inn.
Mr. Ledford: You still have to have a roof structure to attach that to.
16
Mr. Mayor: I understand that. You just made the statement to the Commission
that you were not given any alternatives and I was just trying to point out in the
information we’ve been provided that you were given an alternative.
Mr. Ledford: A suggestion of putting plastic up is not --
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to ask George a question if I may. I’m familiar with this
building, and George, I’m a little bit at a loss here. I really appreciate the work you do
and how you’re trying to protect the historic character of our downtown. It’s important
work. But there’s been so much modification to this building, enclosing the area where
the gas pumps were and then adding on the building, the addition on the side street, this
building does not very closely or even really remotely resemble what it looked like when
it was a gas station. And, and I’m just wondering how with the work that you’ve allowed
to take place that has physically changed the building so much that y’all would be
opposed to this. Now I’d be opposed to a stainless steel garage door. I think that would
look kind of tacky on Broad Street. But for the concept like this.
Mr. Bush: We just think that this particular block has got a pretty good storefront
façade all the way down the street, and this particular project with a steel door, even with
the glass panes going through it, we think would detract. And I mean that’s our judgment
call as the Historic Preservation Commission, and we think the guidelines fully support
us here, so I mean, I understand what you’re saying. I mean we may have a difference of
an opinion on, on the subject.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I asked it in the context of what you’ve already permitted on
that property. It’s so out of character with the original footprint of the building.
Mr. Bush: We think the, we think the building pretty much -- I mean the former
project was, was approved and basically kept, as far as I am aware, the -- as far as the part
facing Broad Street, did keep the roofline, which the applicant has talked about being
important. But the applicant, you know, and I don’t think that the roof [inaudible] Broad
Street is our main concern, as long as it preserves the store, I mean the roofline. I think
the problem is having a garage door, a steel garage door in a storefront façade on this
particular section of Broad Street. And as far as working with the applicant, we, there
was discussion about different ways, and I do remember Mr. Haltermann talking about
the plastic that is used in the cold weather, both this particular project with the steel
enclosed panes, we just don’t think is appropriate to this section of Broad Street.
Mr. Mayor: So if, if the applicant were to have an alternative façade for it other
than a steel garage door, then you might consider --
Mr. Bush: Absolutely.
Mr. Mayor: -- another type of --
17
Mr. Bush: We’re here to work with the applicant. We like Mellow Mushroom.
I’m just, you know, this, this project is, we just didn’t feel like it was appropriate but yes,
sir, Mr. Mayor, if they wanted to come back, they could do -- I mean I’m not an architect,
I’m not a designer, but I would think if you have more of a -- more glass or more of a
hard plastic that could come down that would be more opaque and more translucent and
didn’t look like a steel door on this, what we consider to be an important part of Broad
Street, I mean sure, we would entertain that. We always do.
Mr. Mayor: Have you looked at some things other than a steel garage door?
Mr. Ledford: [inaudible] steel frame door. It’s not totally steel. There are 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 --
Mr. Mayor: It says -- your drawing that you submitted to us says sectional steel
door with glass panes.
Mr. Ledford: Correct.
Mr. Mayor: So it’s steel door.
Mr. Ledford: But it is transparent, like they’re saying. It’s easy to maintain
something structurally sound rather than plastic that flaps in the wind, and every time it
rains you have water come down in it, or you have to take it in each night. That’s just
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: But there are other materials that could be used to, to make a door
that would accomplish the same.
Mr. Ledford: Instead of steel?
Mr. Mayor: Yeah.
Mr. Ledford: Had the door been wood with windows, is that something?
Mr. Bush: We’d have to go back and discuss it. I can’t speak for the
Commission.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t know, but their objection seems to be steel door.
Mr. Bush: We just think that this has too much of a negative impact on the Broad
Street façade. I mean it’s just as simple as that.
Mr. Mayor: Let me recognize our Broad Street guru here, Andy Cheek, who is on
the DDA.
Mr. Cheek: Never been called a guru, Mr. Mayor.
18
(Laughter)
Mr. Cheek: Just, just to speak from business travels and experiences. If you go to
Los Alamos or Denver or any other places, they have seasonal types of weather like we
do, where they have steel doors with multi-pane windows that they raise which gives the,
the feel of being directly on the sidewalk during the seasons when the whether is good
and also allows them to close the window while still maintaining that visual effect and
allowing people to use that otherwise unseatable area during inclement weather.
Economy, economic development, economic growth is what Augusta has to be about.
The Mellow Mushroom has done a tremendous job in the aesthetic change of a gas
station into a very fine restaurant. The steel -- just to go into a little material science --
plastic is sensitive to ultraviolet light. In order for it to -- for you to be able to see
through it, which would be the intent of having some translucent or some transparent
material, you’d have to change it on an annual basis. Glass, on the other hand, lasts
forever basically. Glass and steel, which you can look at many of the structures in the
city are steel but are treated in such a way that they don’t appear to be garage doors like
we have on our homes. They’re in the business to attract people to that restaurant. We
are in the business of trying to get people to come eat and enjoy Augusta, to raise our
sales tax revenues and other things. This is a case of where the intentions of the Historic
Preservation board are, are sound in their desire to maintain the aesthetic appeal of
Augusta, but I strongly feel that based on what I’ve seen in other cities from the West
Coast to the East Coast, from the North to the South, where this is done, this will be an
opportunity for us to grown a customer base in an area that is unusable for several months
of the year because of the type of weather we’re having right now, that would also give
us the ability to roll those doors up in the springtime and have people eat at those tables
when weather is very desirable to have that outdoor effect. It works in other cities, it can
work here. That’s a former gas station that’s been converted into a very nice place, and I
feel confident that the Mellow Mushroom, with their intention to grow their business,
would maintain that same level of quality, and I just urge support for the Mellow
Mushroom and allow them to move forward with this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I’ll yield, because Ms. Beard and Mr. Williams had their hands up
first.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. To my good friend, Mr. Bush, who we
had a long conversation through our Attorney, Mr. Shepard, I want Mr. Bush to know
that I appreciate your, your dedication and what you do on the board. However, this is
another case where we disagree again and I want you to understand that it’s, it’s just the
way I see it a little bit different from the board. I hear talking about steel doors, but what,
if it was aluminum doors, the same type, or even wood for that matter, Commissioner
Cheek touched on it again. We’re trying to get people back downtown and we’re trying
to get the growth of the community to, to, to come with not only just the restaurant
business but even the loft type apartments and stuff for downtown. The Historic Board
19
got a tough job, but it’s even tougher being a Commissioner, trust me, we deal with more
issues than, than, than, than just the historic part of it. I’m in agreement that since they
took the service station and converted it into a restaurant and it’s growing to the capacity
now where they need to do something to get additional space, if they going to keep the
roofline, if he going keep the basic part that’s necessary, that you really focus on, and I
told Commissioner Beard, this is her District, I’m, I’m just voicing my opinion that I, I
support the change. I think we need to do something. We can’t keep the same historic
look and grow, too. Unless we, unless we build somewhere else. Now we going build
another downtown, another area, that’s one thing. But it’s no way. There some of our
buildings, some of our old structures going have to be added to, some going have to be
even torn down. And nobody like to talk about that. I, I, I, I don’t agree with we ought
to just go and tear down stuff, but I’m saying some of that stuff in order to grow, in order
to have a, a, a base to attach on to and do some things, if they are maintaining the roof
structure like, like they are, I’m in support. I mean I just wanted you to know. We had a
long conversation. I wanted you to know that it’s not my District, it’s not my call, but I
am in support of, of, of either going back and look at aluminum or maybe even wood.
And when you say the word steel, it sounds like it’s solid. I mean that’s the first thought
come into your mind. But to have the, the window type pane, if you look at our fire
station, all our fire stations got aluminum doors now that used to be some wood and they
got the glass panes in there and you can stand to the door and you can see how and it’s
very light, very quiet, very easy to do and very strong. So hopefully y’all can come to
some consensus and do that. I just wanted to, to, to voice my opinion on that side, Mr.
Bush.
Ms. Beard: Well, it is my District, District 1, and I know how hard it is to make
these businesses work, these days. Now we really don’t want to jeopardize the integrity
of the building, but if you, in my opinion, can do it in such a way that it fits in with
everything else, in that area of Broad Street, then I’m for what you need to do.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think they are probably closer to getting this solved than
they are apart. I think one, if the, the concern about the roofline, let’s go back a little bit
into the history, because a former service station, if you’re talking about keeping some
part of that integrity, I guess I’m old enough to remember full service service stations,
and every service station that Don Grantham and I knew about, it had some garage doors
on the bays, because when they closed up at night, that was where you serviced cars at.
So to a point of it being an old service station, I think if, if, if neatly done, and I don’t
think they want to come in with something that’s going to say well, they’re preserving
one part and then make the other part look so, so tacky that you look like you’ve got two
distinct differences in the same building. I think that’s something, whether it be within
the material, but I think that the doors, particularly since you in a, a one story situation, is
a much better deal for Broad Street, and I’m very familiar with the, with the Partridge
Inn’s look, in fact old enough to remember the first UDAG when they improved it
[inaudible] got the money to building it with and stayed around long enough until they
paid it off. But the point being that’s, and I, and I, and I love an respect Brian, he’s my,
20
he’s my appointee and I reappointed him. We differ sometimes, but the point being, I
think when you pass the Partridge Inn, you in such a curve that if you looking to a point
of looking up to see the aesthetics and whether or not it’s covered with the plastic in the
wintertime, you look long enough you going to meet somebody else on the other side of
that curve. That’s a wreck fixing to happen, so I think theirs is more from being able to
keep the integrity and warmth on the inside of the building, therefore you have the
outdoors and columns don’t change and you drop down the plastic, so nobody is really
looking up at that area to a point on a second floor and beyond from down in that curve
area. Broad Street, I think, presents a different scenario, because it’s flat and it’s there on
a one-story building, and I think from the integrity of what you look at, if in nothing else
than neatness alone, I think that, that [inaudible] type doors that can be put in, and I’m
sure they’re not going to have the color on the building being one way and then some
purple doors that’s over in there. They’ve made this type of investment and they make it
look good. I think those things can work because that would like to me from an aesthetic
point of view than them having a backdrop of just plastic [inaudible] down on a one-story
situation of where you have the, the, the, almost to a point of developing then I believe an
eyesore. Because people eating in there trying to look through the plastic, you, you,
you’ve got something there that’s just not working together. So I’d like to, to see if that’s
a point, and I heard y’all say just a mention ago, I mentioned about being close, about the
difference in it. But then material-wise, I wouldn’t want to saddle them down with
something -- you make materials now, they can almost make them look like anything else
that you putting together. Cars with [inaudible] example. Historic changes and there was
old folks like me say well, a car isn’t metal anymore, it’s fiberglass. Now you get one
and everything’s fiberglass. You find some metal on it, to a point, so different things, if
you live long enough, will come around. But I think to keep the integrity of what you’re
doing, I think y’all are very close on it, and, and I’d much rather see the doors there and
to do that and to have something very tastefully done and to add to a growing business
than to, quite frankly, punish them in a, in a plastic backdrop. I just don’t think that’s a
good eye look on Broad Street, or particularly for a one-story street surface building. I
think the plastic works good because it’s up in the air, and when you see the plastic
you’re already up on the Partridge Inn, second floor in the dining room, and it serve their
purpose well. I think this doesn’t serve his purpose well, to suggest that. And I think
your doors there could work.
Mr. Mayor:
Anything further? Mr. Mays said it sounded like both sides are
I just wonder if we had a motion to table this and if we
close, and I think they are, and
could have the petitioner and the [inaudible] and our Attorney, give them a few
minutes to confer, we might be able to come to some compromise that would be
satisfying to everybody.
Ms. Beard: I so move.
Mr. Bush: If the applicant, or the appellant, wanted to come back, we have a
meeting --
21
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. I have a Commissioner who has made a motion to
table. Let me see if I have a second to that motion.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to the motion to table. The motion to table is non-
debatable.
Ms. Beard: And you bring it back.
Mr. Mayor: So we will, we will --
Ms. Beard: At the end of the meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Hopefully they’ll bring it back in a few minutes. But we have a
motion to table. We’ll go ahead to vote on that motion. All in favor of the motion to
table, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, y’all can use my office if you’d like to. Madame
Clerk, let’s go ahead and move forward now with the consent agenda.
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 37, consent
agenda consists of items 1 through 37.
For the benefit of any objectors to our planning
petitions, once the petitions are read, if there are any objectors, would you please signify
your objection by raising your hand? That goes as well for our alcohol petitions.
PLANNING:
1. Z-04-10- A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Christ Redeemed Outreach
Ministries, on behalf of Birnet Johnson and Mary Peebles, requesting a Special
Exception to establish a church with day care activities per Section 26-1 (a) affecting
property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Deen Avenue, 130 feet
southwest of a point where the southeast right-of-way line of Claudia Drive
intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Deen Avenue and containing
approximately 5.5 acres. (Tax Map 96-2 Parcel 142 & 62) DISTRICT 5
2. Z-04-13 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Ervin Clack, Jr. requesting a change of
zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured
Home Residential) affecting property located at 4464 Old Waynesboro Road and
containing approximately 5 acres. (Tax Map 276 Parcel 14) DISTRICT 8
3. Z-04-14 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Michael Fleming requesting a change
of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone LI (Light Industry) affecting property
22
located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Barsim Road and Hartrich
Road and containing 1.67 acres. ( Tax Map 158 Part of Parcel 5.15) DISTRICT 8
4. Z-04-15 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Dale W. Bridges, on behalf of Robert
Spindler and Martha and Roger Bagby, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) with a SPECIAL
EXCEPTION to construct a patio subdivision not exceeding 4 lots per acre per
Section 9-2 affecting property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of
Belair Road and Burdette Drive and containing approximately 44 acres. (Tax Map
53, Parcels 2.2, 8.1 & 8.2) DISTRICT 3
5. Z-04-18 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Johnson Laschober & Associates, on
behalf of Janie Davis, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multiple-
family Residential) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1C (One-family
Residential) affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Windsor
Spring Road; 1,040 feet, more or less, northeast of a point where the centerline of
Meadowbrook Drive extended intersects the southeast right-of-way line of Windsor
Spring Road and containing approximately 10 acres. (Part of Tax Map 131 Parcel
26.02) DISTRICT 6
6. Z-04-19 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Johnson Laschober & Associates, on
behalf of Janie Davis, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multiple-
family Residential) and B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Windsor
Spring Road, 850 feet, more or less, northeast of a point where the centerline of
Meadowbrook Drive extended intersects the south right-of-way line of Windsor
Spring Road and containing approximately 2 acres. (Part of Tax Map 131, Parcel
26.02) DISTRICT 6
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions?
Mr. Mayor: Which item are you objecting to?
Mr. Speaker: Number 2.
Mr. Speaker: We’re objecting to number 2.
Mr. Mayor: Number 2, all right, thank you. Any objectors to any other zoning
items? None are noted, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Under our Public Services portion of the agenda, the alcohol petitions:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
11. Motion to approve a request by Felicia Thrasher for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with S & H Convenience Store located at 2001
23
Barnes Rd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
February 11, 2004)
12. Motion to approve a request by John T. Brogan for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the Shark’s
Club located at 978 Broad St. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee February 11, 2004)
13. Motion to approve a request by Donald Ivey for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the County Line located
at 3379 Gordon Hwy. There will be dance. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved
by Public Services Committee February 11, 2004)
The Clerk: Are there any objections to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: All right, gentlemen, what is your pleasure with respect to the
consent agenda?
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Are there -- we will go ahead and
pull item 2 since we have some objectors.
Mr. Grantham: No, no, I think --
Mr. Mayor: They’re not objectors?
Mr. Hankerson: They’re not objectors.
Mr. Speaker: If you’re denying, we’re all for it.
Mr. Mayor: All right, well, let’s see. The Chair will, the Chair will not pull item
2 and we’ll see if somebody does want to pull it for further discussion then. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I hate to do this, but the request was made of me by a neighbor, so I
have to, I want to pull 2 --
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Cheek: 5, 6, 14 and 30, please.
Mr. Mayor: 2, 5, 6 --
Mr. Cheek: 14 and 30.
Mr. Mayor: 14 and 30. All right, anyone else?
24
Mr. Hankerson: 14 and what?
Mr. Cheek: 30.
Mr. Mayor: 2, 5, 6, 14 and 30.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need to get some clarification on item 35.
Mr. Mayor: Number 35, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Give me some clarification on that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Anyone else?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, could I add from the Finance Committee some items for
consent?
Mr. Mayor: Let me see if anybody wants to pull any more and then we’ll come
right back to you. All right, do we have anyone who wants to pull any more items? All
right, we’re going to talk now about adding some items to the consent agenda? Mr.
Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, if I could, from Finance, because we did not get the
meeting in last week, I’d like to put on consent agenda item 45, 46, 47, 49 and 50, and
understand that 46 and 54 may be the same thing. I discussed that with Mr. Kolb a few
moments ago and I don’t know if he wants to hear 54, but I think both of those are pretty
much the same thing. 46 and 54.
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct. Actually 54 supersedes 46. Is there any objection to
adding any of those items to the consent agenda?
Mr. Hankerson: Not 54. Object.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll hold 54 back. That would be 46.
Mr. Boyles: 46.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s back off 46 then, cause that goes with 54.
Mr. Boyles: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. 45, 47, 49 and 50. Any objection to adding those to the
consent agenda? All right.
25
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, let me ask you, just ask one question. You said 47,
you say?
Mr. Mayor: I said 45, 47, 49 and 59 from the Finance chairman.
Mr. Boyles: 45, 46, 47.
Mr. Mayor: No, we took 46 off. We want to have discussion on 54.
Mr. Grantham: Going to take it off.
Mr. Mayor: Those two go together.
Mr. Williams: But 47 is to discuss --
Mr. Mayor: You want to pull that off, too?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I think we need to.
Mr. Boyles: Okay. No problem.
Mr. Mayor: That was 47? I’ve lost track now.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Williams wanted to pull 47.
Mr. Mayor: 47. Okay.
The Clerk: You want to pull out 47?
Mr. Mayor: Pull out 47. So we have 45, 49 and 50, and Mr. Cheek you had one
you wanted to add to the consent agenda?
Mr. Cheek: I did, but it’s already there.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Are there any other items you’d like to add to the consent
agenda? For reconsideration, are there any items you’d like to delete from the consent
agenda? Please note on the addendum agenda there is a correction to the minutes. We
want to incorporate that correction into the consent agenda motion. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, was 50 moved over to consent?
Mr. Mayor: Yes. Would you like to pull that?
Mr. Mays: Unless I -- I maybe can get a question answered.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
26
Mr. Mays: In reference to it.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s try it.
Mr. Mays: When we discussed this on Monday morning, and I believe Steve
coming, he’s over in the other room, I guess Mr. Kolb, in reference to the second part of
that resolution regarding those revenue bonds, and there was a concern in reference to not
only the part that we needed to approve, but whether or not the, the inter-governmental
agreement, I believe, that needed to be done, is that attached to the resolution in reference
to getting this done? Cause I think that was a concern as to whether or not in terms of
making sure that was a secure borrowing effort that those two agreements needed to go
together as opposed to just one.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, no, that is not attached.
What you have a is resolution of inducement that authorizes us to encourage expenditures
for this and also to prepare the inter-governmental agreement between the Canal
Authority and Augusta. So it’s just authorization to get those, that document done, and
that will come back to you at a later date.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Well, that was my reason for asking, because you had
mentioned it the other morning and I noticed only one was in the packet that we were
doing, but if we got to come back to deal with the second one, I don’t have a problem
with it, don’t have a problem with it going over to consent.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. As we look at the consent agenda, would there be
any objection to adding number 41 -- well, actually the Attorney would like to ask that be
deferred to the next meeting, so if we could recaption 41 to defer to the next meeting and
put it on the consent agenda, we could dispose of it that way, if there’s no objection. Mr.
Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just -- I want to go back and kind of follow
on what Commissioner Mays had to say about the, dealing with the bonding and monies
for improvements to the Augusta Canal. I know you’ve all heard this once, twice, and
maybe ten times, but ladies and gentlemen, if we do not use all the force of this
government to encourage the repairs to the canal tow path above the pumping station, at
some point soon it’s going to make a left turn to the river and it will cost millions of
dollars and take days to restore 60% of the City’s water when we could repair it now, and
I would hope that we would make that above aesthetics a first priority because the tow
path is undercut in some places as much as 45%.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, anything -- and ladies -- anything any further with the
consent agenda before we take a vote on it? Does anybody need to have read back to
them what’s been pulled and what’s been added?
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
27
PLANNING:
1. Z-04-10- A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Christ Redeemed Outreach
Ministries, on behalf of Birnet Johnson and Mary Peebles, requesting a Special
Exception to establish a church with day care activities per Section 26-1 (a) affecting
property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Deen Avenue, 130 feet
southwest of a point where the southeast right-of-way line of Claudia Drive
intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Deen Avenue and containing
approximately 5.5 acres. (Tax Map 96-2 Parcel 142 & 62) DISTRICT 5
2. Deleted from the consent agenda.
3. Z-04-14 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Michael Fleming requesting a change
of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone LI (Light Industry) affecting property
located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Barsim Road and Hartrich
Road and containing 1.67 acres. (Tax Map 158 Part of Parcel 5.15) DISTRICT 8
4. Z-04-15 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Dale W. Bridges, on behalf of Robert
Spindler and Martha and Roger Bagby, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) with a SPECIAL
EXCEPTION to construct a patio subdivision not exceeding 4 lots per acre per
Section 9-2 affecting property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of
Belair Road and Burdette Drive and containing approximately 44 acres. (Tax Map
53, Parcels 2.2, 8.1 & 8.2) DISTRICT 3
5. Deleted from the consent agenda.
6. Deleted from the consent agenda.
7. FINAL PLAT – SKINNER MILL PLACE – S-662 - A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by H. Lawson Graham & Associates, on behalf of DNT Developers
requesting final plat approval for Skinner Mill Place. This residential subdivision is
located on Skinner Mill Road, east of Woodbluff Way and contains 10 lots.
8. FINAL PLAT – CAMBRIDGE, SECTION 6, PHASE 1 (KNA
BANSBERRY, SEC. 6) & CAMBRIDGE, SECTION 6– S-671 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Co., Inc., requesting
final plat approval for Cambridge Subdivision, Section 6, Phase 1 and Cambridge
Subdivision, Section 6. This residential subdivision is located on Essex Place,
adjacent to Cambridge Sections 2-A and 5 and contains 22 lots.
9. FINAL PLAT – EVERGREEN – S-667 – A request for concurrence with the
Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Southern
Partners, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Co., Inc., requesting final plat approval for
Evergreen Subdivision. This residential subdivision is located on Peninsular Drive
adjacent to Bridgeport, Section 4 and contains 32 lots.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
28
10. Motion to approve transfer of $73,140 from contingency to contract
personnel salaries for Augusta Regional Airport. (Approved by Public Services
Committee February 11, 2004)
11. Motion to approve a request by Felicia Thrasher for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with S & H Convenience Store located at 2001
Barnes Rd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
February 11, 2004)
12. Motion to approve a request by John T. Brogan for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the Shark’s
Club located at 978 Broad St. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee February 11, 2004)
13. Motion to approve a request by Donald Ivey for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the County Line located
at 3379 Gordon Hwy. There will be dance. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved
by Public Services Committee February 11, 2004)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
14. Deleted from the consent agenda.
15. Motion to approve 2004 Cost-of-Living Allowance for retirees. (Approved by
Public Services Committee February 11, 2004)
16. Motion to approve the final version of the Augusta Richmond County
Comprehensive Plan. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2004)
17. Motion to approve one new representative to the Downtown Advisory Panel
who would represent the renters/lessees on the panel and consider ex-officio
member at a later date. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11,
2004)
18. Motion to authorize payment for employees who did not report to work on
January 26-27 due to the ice storm and comp time for employees who reported to
work those days. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2004)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
19. Motion to approve matching funds to be used to meet the Augusta Fire
Department’s portion of the Emergency Preparedness & Response Directorate’s
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. (Approved by Public Safety Committee
February 11, 2004)
FINANCE:
20. Motion to approve a request from Garden City Rescue Mission or an
abatement of 2003 taxes. (Approved by Finance Committee February 11, 2004)
21. Motion to authorize the Attorney to draw up a contractual agreement
between Augusta, Ga. and the Augusta Players to assist with their attendance at the
Southeastern Theatre Conference funded from the Promotional Account.
(Approved by Finance Committee February 11, 2004)
22. Motion to authorize submission of a grant application to the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to finance development of a Design
29
Guidelines Manual for the Pinch Gut (Olde Town) National Register Historic
District. (Approved by Finance Committee February 11, 2004)
23. Motion to approve the restoration of the $10,000 budgetary cut to
Commissioners 2004 training budget. (Approved by Finance Committee February
11, 2004)
24. Motion to approve the abatement of taxes on the following properties: Map
59-1, Parcel 555 and Map 46-3, Parcel 176. (Approved by Finance Committee
February 11, 2004)
25. Motion to authorize a General Fund M/O Contingency Transfer to the Board
of Health – Mental Program. (Approved by Finance Committee February 11, 2004)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
26. Motion to approve a new project for Wilkerson Garden Area Road and
Drainage Improvements (CPB# 323-04-204823525) in the One Percent Sales Tax
Program. Authorize utilization of $360,000 of the One Percent Sales Tax Phase III
Recapture to fund engineering design for this project. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee February 11, 2004)
27. Motion to ratify funds for emergency repairs of Turbine #4 at the Raw
Water Pumping Station to Power Equipment Maintenance in the amount of
$37,532.00, American Hydro Corp. in the amount of $10,280.00 and Voith Siemens
in the amount of $4,000.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
February 11, 2004)
28. Motion to approve award of contract to BRW Construction Group, LLC in
the amount of $452,476.00 for construction of the samplers for industrial customers.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2004)
29. Motion to approve award of construction contract in the amount of
$284,899.97 to Blair Construction, Inc. for the construction of the Hwy 56 – Goshen
Ind. and Franklin Covenant Water Improvements Project, Bid Item 04-047.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2004)
30. Deleted from the consent agenda.
31. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Change Number Four
transferring $50,000 from project right-of-way to project engineering (CPB # 323-
04-296823309). Also approve Supplemental Agreement Number Three with Post,
Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc. in the amount of $50,000 to provide additional
engineering services for the Wrightsboro Road Improvement Project. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2004)
32. Motion to approve final adoption of the Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan for
Augusta, GA. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2004)
33. Motion to approve deductive Change Order #1 in the amount of $16,564.18 to
the Mary & Ona Emergency Water Line Replacement Project. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2004)
34. Motion to approve deductive change order in the amount of $14,918.07 to
Blair Construction, Inc. on the International Boulevard Sewer Project. (Bond
Project No. 50240) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11,
2004)
35. Deleted from the consent agenda.
30
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
36. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held February 4, 2004.
APPOINTMENT:
37. Motion to approve the appointment of Ms. Rose Castleberry to the Human
Relations Commission representing District 6.
FINANCE:
45. Consider a request from the Richmond County Neighborhood Association
Alliance regarding the purchase of tickets for their Eighth Annual Banquet.
49. Motion to authorize the Mayor to sign consent letters for the following
organizations to become direct recipients of grant funds from the Children and
Youth Coordinating Council.
??
MACH Academy
??
Southwest Key Program, Inc.
50. Approve Resolution in regard to the issuance of Revenue Bonds for the
Augusta Canal Improvements. (Requested by Jim Wall)
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Regarding item 50 - Resolution of the Augusta Richmond County Commission in
reference to the issuance of revenue bonds for Augusta Canal improvements.
CORRECTION:
Item 36 - Mr. Kolb was incorrectly listed as present; Mr. Russell was present as
Deputy Administration.
DELETION FROM THE AGENDA:
41. (Requested by the Attorney) - (To be deferred to the next meeting) Consider
a request to reclassify an Investigator position to that of Chief Investigator in the
District Attorney’s Office. (Source of funding requested from District Attorney
other than contingency)
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda as
amended.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Boyles: I do have to, under advice of counsel, I do have abstain on item 15.
31
Mr. Mayor: All right, the record will reflect that. Thank you very much. We
have a motion and a second that’s been made. All in favor of the motion, please vote
with the usual sign.
Mr. Boyles abstains.
Motion carries 9-1. [Item 15]
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 9-1. [Item 50]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1, 3-4, 7-13, 16-29, 31-34, 36, 37, 45, 47, 49-50,
Addendum Correction item]
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: If the Clerk would so note on item number 50, as I’ve done with items
that have been related to the Atlanta Gas Light clean-up, and anything related to that, I
think I have abstained from those, and let the record note that I have abstained on that
particular issue.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Do we have any Sunday sales anybody needs
to say anything about before we move on?
Mr. Colclough: We don’t have any.
Mr. Mayor: Don’t have any.
Mr. Mays: Move quick before they [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll take those items that we pulled off the consent agenda. I
lost my list. Here we go. Okay, the first item is item number 2, Madame Clerk, if you’d
read the caption.
The Clerk:
2. Z-04-13 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Ervin Clack, Jr. requesting a change of
zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured
Home Residential) affecting property located at 4464 Old Waynesboro Road and
containing approximately 5 acres. (Tax Map 276 Parcel 14) DISTRICT 8
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Cheek?
32
Mr. Cheek: Out of respect to the homeowners and to the Commissioner
representing the District, I just have a few questions. It was my understanding that this
was, that there were pre-existing mobile homes or modular homes in that area, and that
this was a request to put one modular home on the five acres. Is that not the
understanding or is there a difference in that?
Mr. Patty: This is a [inaudible] subdivision and there are some mobile homes
back there. I can’t tell you how many, but it’s with the predominant fact, I think, it’s
within the 14,000 acre area that we rezoned from Agricultural to R-1 and to date -- that
was 1991 -- and to date we have not changed any of that zoning back, and I would
encourage you not to set that precedent.
Mr. Cheek: I know you’ve probably heard this from me before, but are we going
to be able to do the same thing for the Boykin Road area?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir, as soon as we get that comprehensive plan adopted.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. Been working on that one for a little while. We’d like to see
that one happen. No further questions.
Mr. Mayor: All right, do we have a motion on this item? Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: I make a motion to deny.
Mr. Mayor: A second?
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote with the
usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Y’all are welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting if you’d like to.
All right. Next item is item 5.
The Clerk:
5. Z-04-18 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Johnson Laschober & Associates, on
behalf of Janie Davis, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multiple-
family Residential) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1C (One-family
Residential) affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Windsor
Spring Road; 1,040 feet, more or less, northeast of a point where the centerline of
Meadowbrook Drive extended intersects the southeast right-of-way line of Windsor
33
Spring Road and containing approximately 10 acres. (Part of Tax Map 131 Parcel
26.02) DISTRICT 6
Mr. Mayor: Is item 6 a companion item, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, that’s in the same general vicinity, Augusta’s first major
green space corridor, as well as the location of our new south Augusta health department
and many other things, so --
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner, would you go ahead and read the caption for number 6?
We’ll take these two up together then.
The Clerk:
6. Z-04-19 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Johnson Laschober & Associates, on
behalf of Janie Davis, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multiple-
family Residential) and B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Windsor
Spring Road, 850 feet, more or less, northeast of a point where the centerline of
Meadowbrook Drive extended intersects the south right-of-way line of Windsor
Spring Road and containing approximately 2 acres. (Part of Tax Map 131, Parcel
26.02) DISTRICT 6
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Patty, what is that we’re planning to put in here? What type of
construction criteria are going to be required? We, we have a mixed bag of development
along Windsor Spring Road, and I’m not interested in cheap strip malls or, or things -- I
would like to see some good quality stuff put in there that’s going to complement that
area. The Board of Health is about to spend, well, let’s just say a lot of money on a new
south Augusta branch directly adjacent to Winston Way, and we have the green space
corridor running roughly from Highway 1 to Phinizy Swamp that’s in the making. We
have Lenox Park subdivision there and several other areas that are very concerned about
development in that area, of it being of good quality that will attract quality clientele and
so forth. And so I’m just interested in finding out what we plan to do with these two
parcels.
Mr. Patty: The current zoning of this tract is R-3B, and given the surrounding
zoning pattern that’s not an unreasonable zoning for the property. The applicant wants to
do a small commercial building on the front. You’ve got a plan there that shows that.
And build some single-family homes on the rear. And I’m hopeful that we can talk them
out of the flood plane property for a green space program when the time comes.
34
Mr. Cheek: Some of our R-3B’s higher density properties between Winston
Arms and Windsor Spring Road also tend to be some of our higher crime-generating
areas, as well. That’s one of the reasons for my concern.
Mr. Patty: We’re going from R-3B to R-1 and B-2.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. So this is the initial property, this is parcel 5 or item 5?
Mr. Patty: That’s actually both of them. The front, the front up on Windsor
Spring Road is number 6, and the remainder of the property is, is number 5.
Mr. Cheek: And that’s Butler Creek on the extremely left hand side down at the
bottom?
Mr. Patty: Down at the bottom, yes.
Mr. Cheek: Just a little warning. We’ve talked about removal of beaver dams.
That area this year was less than one foot above water line, so if we don’t get the beaver
dams out, some of those houses are going to be flooded. Mr. Mayor, on items 5 and 6,
seeing this plan and since we have the Rollins Area Neighborhood Association president
here, I’d like to pass this to her, but I’d like to move for approval.
Mr. Mayor: Of items 5 and 6?
Mr. Cheek: 5 and 6.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion of these items? Would the
neighborhood association like to be heard? Certainly give you that opportunity. Just
come up to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record, please.
Ms. Castleberry: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Rose
Castleberry. I live at 3519 Potomac Drive. Actually, this is the first I’ve heard of this
and I was immediately concerned when I read about it in the, on the agenda today. Very
surprised. I usually try to stay up on these things but this one snuck in on me. My first
concern was that this is going to be adjacent to the planned new center there for the
Health Department. And I, I really feel that we need more of an opportunity to find out
what’s going in. I’m really caught short to, for the association. We have 650 people. It’s
not a small association. And I know that they would want to know about this. I’ve gone
to zoning meetings before and I somehow missed this zoning. This slipped by me, and I
would like the opportunity to get more informed about this. It may be a good thing. It
might be, when we’re more informed about it, would be all for it. But I would like to
have the opportunity for the individuals to come forward and for us to learn more about
35
what’s planned on going into our neighborhood. I’ve had a lot of concerns in this
neighborhood about 18-wheelers. One of the biggest things I’m fighting is to keep 18-
wheelers parked off the side of the road. We do have a crime problem. I work Windsor
Springs with the neighborhood in that area, and several issues, and the flooding has been
a constant problem that we’ve worked with. We’re trying to work on our infrastructure.
And so I just ask the Commission to give us an opportunity to learn more about this.
Mr. Mayor: Would it be helpful to you if the Commission entertained a delay, a
postponement until our next meeting so that you would have time?
Ms. Castleberry: I would be very thankful for that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Cheek: Can I modify my motion or withdraw it?
Ms. Castleberry: I’m sorry, Commissioner, what was your motion?
Mr. Cheek: Just motion to approve. And I got my cart before horse.
Ms. Castleberry: I’m sorry, Commissioner, but I would like to learn a little more
about this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make substitute motion that we hold this
until our next Commission meeting.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that.
Ms. Castleberry: Thank you, Commissioners.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Patty, if you could help get the
neighborhood association petitioners together. All in favor of the substitute motion then
to defer this to our next meeting, please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, the next item is 14.
The Clerk:
14. Motion to approve signature authorization for Mayor for Programmatic
Agreements for the mitigation of historic properties at the Savannah River Site.
(Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2004)
36
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess it’s my day to catch up. I don’t
know. But I wanted to just make note of a couple of things. One, if you visit the
National Historical Nuclear Museum in Albuquerque, New Mexico you will see one
picture of Savannah River Site and its contribution to the Cold War. Savannah River Site
has made significant contributions to the arsenal of democracy and freedom. Many of the
items that are at the site now are currently scheduled for demolition or will be lost. The
Mayor’s initiative in this is to be greatly applauded for the history of the amount of
contribution the people of this area have made to the Cold War and defeating
Communism in the world is being completely being erased through time and demolition.
And so, Mr. Mayor, I thank you for this and I urge full support on this. The only thing I
do caution is the older structures out there will require significant financial contributions
from either the federal or the state or some other government. Perhaps we could create a
new wing of our museum and bring these historic things to this area for people to come
from all over the country to see what Savannah River Site has done to defend this nation
I
and in fact other free nations of this world from Communism and other aggression.
move to approve.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second from Ms. Sims. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion
then please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Cheek: Let it be noted that since I am an employee of the Savannah River
Technology Center I will abstain from this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek is a potential artifact of Savannah River Site.
(Laughter)
Mr. Cheek: That would a national resource.
Mr. Grantham: He’s one of the historical features.
Mr. Mayor: Yeah.
Mr. Cheek abstains.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Madame Clerk, the next item is number 30.
The Clerk:
37
30. Motion to deny a request to accept streets in Victoria Station and Glennfield
Lane in Helena Woods into the City’s maintenance program. Once streets are
brought into compliance with City Standard the City would reconsider its position.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 11, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I guess the question is, Commissioner Boyles, too, I know that this
has been a hot issue that we’ve discussed and everything. Have we exhausted every
opportunity to try to bring this in, or has it been determined that it is just not feasible to
do that for maintenance purposes and other reasons?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, if I could respond.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Boyles: I guess it was in the middle of summertime when I asked these two
neighborhoods to come down, and we have put it on agendas, we’ve taken it off agendas,
and then this report was issued. But the residents were told that they -- the residents were
told that our staff would meet with them and go over any reports. The only way that
these folks got reports is I sent them to them myself. And I just asked Mr. Kolb a few
moments ago if I could set a meeting with him, the residents, and Ms. Smith in Public
Works to go over these again to let them know. It’s a situation where we have private
streets that people buy homes on private streets and they’re not gated community they’re
basically built it because they’re probably done a little bit cheaper and they can use a lot
less land space to put in more homes. But they do these with the understanding that they
are private streets. And then the homes sell. And somebody else buys that home and the
person who buys it does not understand because it’s not a stipulation apparently in our
real estate code that allows that knowledge to go to them. So I think have, especially up
thrd
in the 7 Commission District and a great deal in the 3 Commission District where we
have that type of residential development that has occurred on basically dense, dense
areas where more people, more population are placed into denser areas. And I think we
need to come to some sort of resolution with that, so if you would give me the
opportunity to meet with Mr. Kolb and Ms. Smith sometime next week and if necessary,
I’d like to put it back on Engineering Services agenda for discussion, pending the results
of that meeting. I’m going to get with him at the conclusion of this meeting and set a
time for that. So if I could have that courtesy, I’d appreciate it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to make a motion? Would you like to make the
motion?
Mr. Boyles: Well, I’ll do it, and just make the motion that I meet, I meet
with Mr. Kolb and the necessary staff prior to getting back with Engineering
Services.
38
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to that motion. Is there any discussion on that
motion?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: I have a question. Is it your intent to have Engineering Services
consider it prior to it coming back to the Commission? Or are you deferring it, we have a
meeting, and it come back directly to the Commission?
Mr. Boyles: I think we ought we ought to find the outcome of our meeting
with you and Teresa Smith and George, I’d like -- maybe George Patty, too, because
he’s involved in the private residential-type of development -- and then if necessary
bring it back to, probably to the full Commission.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion that’s been seconded. Is there any
further discussion?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, yeah, I would like to confirm what Mr. Boyles is
saying, inasmuch as we would like to see all of our streets come in compliance as far as
construction goes and as far as the utilization of our streets. However, we have granted
over the years many developers to go in and develop these private streets, and I think it’s
important that when you develop a area and you meet all the requirements of that
development that you have been curb and gutter and everything else in, and so I for one
realize the importance of that, having done that myself several years ago when several of
us bought into one particular area. In order to have the City or county come in and take
these streets back for maintenance, you had to come under compliance of the rules that
are so put forth of the builders. So I think this is a good idea. I don’t think we need to be
taking streets in just because people want to dedicate them back to us now, for us to start
maintaining and put them back into position, and I feel like this is a good idea Mr. Boyles
has come up with, and I certainly hope we can support this effort.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Grantham. Any further discussion? All in favor of
the motion, please vote on it.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize Mr. Cheek.
39
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, there’s been some, some discussion concerning items 5
I’d like to move to
and 6, and concurrence has been reach, it’s my understanding, and
reconsider and approve items 5 and 6.
5. Z-04-18 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Johnson Laschober & Associates, on
behalf of Janie Davis, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multiple-
family Residential) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1C (One-family
Residential) affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Windsor
Spring Road; 1,040 feet, more or less, northeast of a point where the centerline of
Meadowbrook Drive extended intersects the southeast right-of-way line of Windsor
Spring Road and containing approximately 10 acres. (Part of Tax Map 131 Parcel
26.02) DISTRICT 6
6. Z-04-19 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Johnson Laschober & Associates, on
behalf of Janie Davis, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multiple-
family Residential) and B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Windsor
Spring Road, 850 feet, more or less, northeast of a point where the centerline of
Meadowbrook Drive extended intersects the south right-of-way line of Windsor
Spring Road and containing approximately 2 acres. (Part of Tax Map 131, Parcel
26.02) DISTRICT 6
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there a motion to -- is there a second to that motion to
reconsider and approve?
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion on the motion to reconsider and approve? All in
favor of the motion then please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: They are reconsidered and approved. All right. That takes us now to
item number 35, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
35. Motion to direct the Administrator to issue Public Service Announcements
(PSA’s) regarding the Department of Public Works Work Plan for cleanup of the
January 26-27, 2004 ice storm debris. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee February 11, 2004)
40
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I needed some clarification on this and I
understand the motion is to direct the Administrator. But I think my question would be
we’ve got a PR person, I think, in the Administrator’s office to handle such as this. And
that direction, I mean even though it comes out of his office, is that, is that the way this is
going to be handled, Mr. Kolb? Or is that something else we doing different, I guess is,
is my question.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I’m not sure I understand
your question, but the press releases have been released out of my office.
Mr. Williams: Okay, and, and, and, and I guess that’s, that’s as much direction I
guess we can give is to give it to the Administrator, but if we got, if we hired on staff a
PR person, that ought to be a given to me, I think, and I’m just, I’m just saying with this
direction going through item 35, that should be a given through the PR person that we got
in the Administrator’s office and I didn’t understand the direction was given here when
that should have been a given through your office anyway. I mean that shouldn’t, should
not had to been a direction from this, this, this, this body.
Mr. Kolb: I agree, but the Engineering Services Committee chose to consider it,
and that was the direction that they gave.
Mr. Williams: Well, I understand why they gave it, but it shouldn’t, it shouldn’t,
there are several things that have come through this government or through this body that
relates to PR that had not been, been, been, been forthcoming from your office, and, and,
and, and I guess that what we need to be addressing rather than to, to address the
Administrator to issue a public service announcement.
Mr. Mayor: We have to address the item that’s on the agenda. If you want to talk
about a broader issuer, Mr. Williams, we need to add the broader issue to the agenda.
Mr. Williams: Well, I will save it for another time, Mr. Mayor, but I was just,
thought since we was on that item that we would maybe find out is there a lack of staff,
lack of funds or something in that area, cause there are several things that hadn’t been
addressed. But we’ll talk about it later.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you, Mr. Williams. Is there a motion with respect
to item 35?
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
41
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion
then please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item will be item number 42.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
42. Consider salary increase for the Board of Elections Executive Director (No
recommendation from Administrative Services Committee)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to this item? Mr.
Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I thought, I was under the impression that we gave
directions that, for someone to let us know the increase that was made to this position,
because it was reported to us by the Board of Elections Executive Director or Assistant
Executive Director that it was not an increase is seven years and that was in question. So
before we can move on that, I’d like to know whether it was an increase and how much it
was.
Mr. Mayor: All right. That information is being passed out right now.
Mr. Hankerson: It’s kind of late for me to get it to interpret it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll take a moment and give you a chance to look over it. You still
have the floor.
Mr. Hankerson: Why don’t somebody just explain it to me, then, cause I think
that would be better. You know, we get these papers at the last minute. I keep saying we
get things at the last minute when we ask for them or request them, so we have time and
we say expedite on time.
Ms. Pelaez: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. The question
that arose at the Committee meeting was regarding the last time Ms. Marilyn Bailey
received a merit increase, and we were asked to go back and compile a history as it
related to the merit increases that she had received and any salary increases that were
approved by her board, and that’s what’s before you today. And as of 1998 when all the
COLA increases were implemented, Ms. Bailey received those, as did all of the other
employees, and her merit increase of 2% was issued in the year 2000, and you can see
that was effective September 16, 2000. So you have the effective dates of when she
received the cost-of-living allowance, and then you also have the one, the year of 2001
where her board approved an increase to have her salary go to $55,000 a year. So that’s
all outlined as to what her salary history is, and that’s what you have before you.
42
Mr. Hankerson: Did you say -- okay, board approved 3/17/01?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir. That’s the effective date of that increase, the $55,000 a
year.
Mr. Hankerson: Is that what it is now?
Ms. Pelaez: Today her salary is $58, 0666.38.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, anything further, Commissioner?
Mr. Hankerson: I don’t have anything.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’ve had a question that I wanted to resolve and I had
asked for some documents to be sent up to the Clerk’s office, and if the body would
indulge me to table this while I get that, I would want to make the Board award of some
material, if that would be in order. I’d like to see some current documents from them and
had requested them be sent up here and they have not yet been, so.
Mr. Mayor: From the Elections Board?
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: I’m sure I can get them in about five minutes. To table is what I’d
like, please.
Mr. Cheek: Motion.
But I do have a question. What is the requested amount of
increase that we’re looking for today?
Mr. Mayor: To $70,000. From $58,000 to $70,000.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to table. Is there a second?
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Motion to table is non-debatable, so we’ll go ahead and deal
with that motion, and then the issue will come back to us later in the meeting. All in
favor of the motion to table, please vote with the usual sign.
43
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s keep track of what we’ve got on the table here. All right, we
will move on them to item number 43.
The Clerk:
43. Consider salary increase for the Civil Engineer III - Chief Soil and Erosion
Control Inspector. (Requested by Commissioner Richard Colclough)
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I had this put on the agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: We’ve been talking about this particular item now for about two
years, trying to increase this gentleman’s salary. He’s our only soil erosion inspector that
we have, and if we don’t do something with him pretty soon, we’re going to lose him.
There’s another county that’s having soil erosion problems and they’ve offered to take
our soil erosion person if we don’t do something about his salary very quickly. And I
think that we need to go ahead and take care of this gentleman, cause we been talking
about this for the last two years.
Mr. Mayor: Are you going to make a motion?
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir, I will make a motion that we increase the Soil
Erosion Chief’s salary.
And I’m not going to say how much, but I’m going to ask that
you approve it and we talk about the amount probably in legal.
Mr. Mayor: Would you want to just take this up during legal then?
Mr. Colclough: Some other Commissioners may want to speak.
Mr. Mayor: Because I don’t know if we can take a motion that doesn’t have a
number in it. The agenda backup, in the agenda backup, says funds are not available, so
we need to identify where the money is going to come from.
Mr. Colclough: I’m going to make a motion that we increase his salary to
$48,000 a year.
Mr. Mayor: $48,000?
Mr. Colclough: $48,000.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to second that, Mr. Mayor, and I have a couple of
comments.
44
Mr. Mayor: All right. Just give me one moment to make a note here. All right.
Mr. Colclough, are you through?
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this, this gentleman is probably one of the finest good
will ambassadors we have working for the City of Augusta. I have never heard one
complaint from any citizen he’s ever dealt with. In fact, quite to the contrary, they talk
about the quality, consideration and dedication this gentleman shows in resolving the
problems that they face. He worked through an illness. We nearly lost him. He’s back.
He’s one of the most dedicated employees we have. And as Commissioner Colclough
has said, this is an individual who has demonstrated a skill and desire above and beyond
the call of duty that we are going to lose, who deserves special recognition not only for
his efforts in the past, but for the things he can contribute and will contribute in the future
to this City if given the opportunity. And I just encourage all of us to consider that
because there is a door open for him one county away, and again we will be losing one of
the best and brightest that this City has in our workforce if we allow that to occur.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, I kind of agree with some of that, that
my twin brother just said, but I need to hear from the Director of Public Works. Ms.
Smith, if you’ll come up, I’ve just got a couple of questions. I’m not going to hold you
long. [inaudible] I can guarantee you, he always tell you it ain’t going to be long.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, if you want to bring somebody up to question, you
need to [inaudible] Chair to the do that.
Mr. Williams: I’m sorry, Mr. Mayor, I’m sorry, but I need to hear from that
Director.
Mr. Mayor: I will allow her to come up and answer your questions. Please just
address the Chair.
Mr. Williams: I’m sorry. I didn’t want to overlook you or overlook your power,
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, if you’ll come up here, please, and respond to the
Commissioner’s questions.
Mr. Williams: I’m hearing all this stuff that [inaudible] almost walking on water.
But Ms. Smith, I hear that we might lose him and I wouldn’t want to lose anybody that
want to be here or that we need to any other county, but how important is this person in
your fleet, in your --
45
Ms. Smith: In the, the timeframe that I have been with the City of Augusta,
which has been since 1998, the roles, responsibilities, general attitude and team spirit
demonstrated by Mr. Oliver has demonstrated his ability to go above and beyond. When
we short of a county engineer on at least two different occasions, he stepped up to the
plate and provided support in that position by taking on additional duties. As was
indicated, when Mr. Oliver was out ill for some brief period of time, he was willing to
provide assistance to the department by assisting the county engineer by working from
home or by addressing complaints or providing historical information on issues that were
open that he had been dealing with while he was ill. So he’s been a great addition to the
Public Works team and if we were to lose him we wouldn’t be -- would feel his absence.
Mr. Williams: How much would it cost to replace a person like that if he left
tomorrow for whatever reason, how much would it cost to replace him? Just a figure. I,
I, I’m trying to cut this sermon down, but I just need a figure. How much money?
Ms. Smith: Well, I mean, without, without having any specific positions in any
other counties to compare it to, being aware that our current pay salaries are slightly
below those of some comparable counties, I’d say that if we had someone coming in from
the outside, that we would probably be somewhere between the $45,000-$55,000 range in
trying to bring someone aboard with his skills and experience.
Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Smith. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays:
Yes, Mr. Mayor, let me, let me say this, and it’s, it’s not something
that I have not said earlier, and it’s not one of those things that, that necessarily falls
under the category of, of, of nobody’s fault. I think it’s one that switches over and falls
under everybody’s fault. There’s a fundamental change that has to take place and I guess
some would even say to a point that it’s micromanaging. So I’m, I’m going ahead on,
I’m going to ask the maker of the motion, and if it’s
and, and, and get hit with that, but
not germane then I’ll make a substitute one to include the motion that’s on the floor
and to do something else.
We have a historical problem with this government that’s got
to be immediately addressed and dealt with. That is, Ms. Smith hinted at one line of
something a minute ago that’s, that’s a bigger issue. You said if, if I got somebody from
the outside. Now I said it jokingly one time, but I said it was better sometime for some of
our people that work for this government that have been here for a number years, if they
would just quit and turn around and go down and apply for the same job that they just
quit and put another address from somewhere else and move here and maybe get living
expenses to move here and come at the same time. We’ve got a problem we’ve got to
correct, ladies and gentlemen, in this employment formula, that is it’s restrictive in terms
of people who are here and who are in house. That’s no knock on people whom come
from somewhere else. I think it’s America, it’s the beauty of diversity, people coming
here from out of town, people you have in your work force, but people who work here
should not be penalized for the fact that they work here. And that their seniority costs
46
them from the standpoint that we cannot offer them the type of incentives or go out and
I’m going to ask the maker of that motion if they would also
to deal with that.
include that this particular policy be directed to HR and to the City Attorney not be
studied but to be changed and to be brought back to this government through its
committee form, Administrative Services and then passed on to this full Commission
to deal with.
We have talked about this long enough, we’ve studied it, we’ve discussed
it enough in private. It needs to be something, Mr. Mayor, that’s finally done. And I
think all of us have said where we support it, which is one that we’ve not carried out and
done. And it just bothers me sometimes when I see things on the agenda and folk come
in and say well, you know, in order for me to land somebody, I need 10% here, I need
15% here. I’m equally or more concerned of the keeping than I am the landing. Some
people who are here who have contributed to the workforce, who have been here for
years and to a point cannot get rewarded because we’ve got a policy that’s restrictive,
that’s punitive, and that causes them not to be able to better their standards of living
unless they quit, become unemployed, and then turn around and reapply for the same job,
and then may still not get it, and might even be asked to come in and train some new
person that gets their job in order to help them to run in for a higher salary than we were
So I’m going to ask the maker of that motion to accept that as
willing to give them.
an amendment, place it on the HR, and to Mr. Shepard, get it back here, it’s not
that Herculean to do, and let’s just change it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, I will not allow that amendment, and let me tell you why,
and I fully understand what you’re saying and why you’re saying it. Because the agenda
item is to consider a salary for one specific position. And the amendment is much more
broad than that. Now what I would like for you to do is let me recognize you after we
dispose of this, and if you’ll make that as a separate motion, we’ll move on it that way.
Mr. Mays: You notice that I politely put that in that if was not germane, and I
think I got your real attention with the germaneness with what I just wanted to get it to
get me a placeholder, and since the Chair is going recognize me to do that, I will gladly
yield [inaudible] on that motion and I’ll make the motion to do that as soon as we finish,
and I thank you, sir, for that courtesy.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Is there any further discussion with respect to the agenda
within the motion which is the salary increase? Yes, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just quickly, Mr. Mayor. The career ladder initiative that our
Administrator and staff have come up with accomplish a lot of the things that we’re
looking for to help reward our employees to rise to the top and be compensated in such a
way for their skills, and so that is in place to resolve that. Although it doesn’t resolve all
the problems, staff has done a wonderful job in moving us in that direction.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further on the motion that’s on the floor? Al in
favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
47
Mr. Mayor: Now the Chair will recognize Commissioner Mays.
Mr. Mays:
Mr. Mayor, thank you so much for that courtesy. Madame Clerk, is
there enough within the minutes contained as previously stated that I can do that, that
motion to so effect that particular item? I think it pretty much states what, what needs to
be done in terms of their going to HR and to the Attorney and to get a formative plan
together that would correct that gross inequity and which we need to get resolved. And
obviously, since we’re going to have to vote on it at some point, I wouldn’t want to
restrict them into the specific language of it, but enough there that they’ve got something
and I so move.
where they can get it back to us,
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any discussion on the motion?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I just want to make a comment as a former employee.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Boyles: I appreciate and applaud Mr. Mays for doing that.
Mr. Mays: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. If there’s not further discussion, then all in favor of the
motion from Commissioner Mays please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Now, let’s see, the Attorney advises me that on item 40 I think we’ve
reached an agreement.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
40. Appeal Hearing for Mellow Mushroom Pizza Bakers, 1167 Broad Street
regarding the Historic Preservation Commission’s denial of their request for a
Certification of Appropriateness (COP) to enclose the restaurant’s patio.
Mr. Mayor: We need to take item -- I need a motion to take item 40 off the
table so that we can discuss it.
Mr. Mays: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
48
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion on that? All in favor of the motion then of taking
item number 40 off the table, please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize our Attorney for discussion under item
number 40.
The parties
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission
have met and they can agree to the following: that the denial in the HPC be
reversed with an approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness in this body on the
conditions that new columns at the sidewalk edge of the improvements be matched
to the existing columns on the building and that the retractable roll-up door have
window glass panels separated by dividers either matching the existing divisions on
the glass panels on the side of the front which is where the sign is or wood or wood-
appearing dividers.
Mr. Mayor: All right. George, you concur with that?
Mr. Bush: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, where is the petitioner?
Mr. Shepard: He’s right here.
Mr. Mayor: Do you concur with that?
Mr. Ledford: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: We want to get that on the record. Okay. Gentlemen, we have an
agreement, let’s see if the Commission will go along with it. Is there a motion?
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Motion and a second. Discussion?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, why couldn’t they have done that before it came to us
and we wasted all that time?
Mr. Mayor: Well, you know, it’s the wisdom of the Commission that always gets
these things resolved.
(Laughter)
49
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all in favor of the motion please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. And I want to thank both parties of this for working in a
cooperative spirit. I think we’re going to have a wonderful addition to Broad Street. All
right, in view of the hour, considering we’ve been here for two, the Chair will declare a
recess so we can take a break and come back in and resume our business.
[MEETING RECESSES]
Mr. Mayor: We’ll call our meeting back to order. At this point, the Chair would
like to recognize Heidi Williams from The Augusta Chronicle who is with us today. This
is, ladies and gentlemen, this is Heidi’s last meeting. She is, she’s leaving Augusta.
Mr. Speaker: Yay!
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: We just wanted to, we wanted to thank Heidi for her service while
she was here reporting the events of the Commission to the public.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just gave a statement to her. You say it’s her last
meeting?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Williams: I hope that came out right, the way I gave it to you.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: The Chair would like to recognize Commissioner Mays.
Mr. Mays:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. That was Heidi Coryell Williams? Okay, I
just wanted to make sure that was the same person. Coryell. You’ll still be Coryell,
that’s what your folks say. Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, on an item that was
on the, I guess Mr. Mayor I was kind of waiting on the City Attorney -- let me, let me go
ahead and state it. It’s on item 18. The, both the HR Director and I see Steve coming into
the room now, what I was getting ready to address, Mr. Attorney, Ms. Pelaez had
mentioned it to me during our recess period. The, on item 18, I think it may have been --
and I kind of thought it was pulled, too, but it went through on consent. Ladies and
gentlemen, there needs to be a reconsideration so that you can hear how this needs to be
in terms of the payment to those employees. There’s a slight difference that they need to
I’m going to make a motion for
suggest and it went through under the consent, and
reconsideration on 18, not to turn it around, but so that the source of it can be done
properly.
50
18. Motion to authorize payment for employees who did not report to work on
January 26-27 due to the ice storm and comp time for employees who reported to
work those days. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of reconsidering item number 18, please vote in the
affirmative.
Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We are now considering item number 18. Mr. Mays? Do
we need to hear from Ms. Pelaez or the Attorney, Mr. Shepard? Who? Brenda, you want
to --
Mr. Shepard: Brenda is going to start. It doesn’t matter to me.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: The Personnel Director, the HR Director, your memo, Brenda, and
I approved it.
Ms. Pelaez: Yes. Slight change to the memo, but let me bring the Commissioners
up-to-date. Last week we discussed how we were wanting to compensate those
conscientious employees who braved those icy roadways and came in to work for us on
th
January 27. And there was a suggestion that we pay the employees comp time for that
day. Well, there are some ramifications around simply awarding compensatory time, and
it goes down to when an employee within a reasonable time comes in to ask for it.
Absent of business disruption, we have to give it to them. And knowing some of our
operations that the training department brought to my attention that even though he
would love to give them comp time, it’s just not something that he can do with the
operation of his department at that level that the federal government says that we must do
absent a scheduling problem. So he had indicated is there something else that we could
do, so the Attorney and I met on yesterday to discuss possible resolutions and we had
decided that we would come up with administrative leave to cover those hours. Now on
yesterday we had discussed a full day -- now keep it in mind we had said we were going
to review the financial impact and bring it back to you. And in a brief discussion just
now with the Administrator, he has indicated that we really should not go past four hours
of administrative leave to award those employees. I don’t know if you have that right in
front of you, but the document that we prepared does have a day. But however, what
we’re prepared to do is have the department directors disseminate to Human Resources
those employees that actually reported on that day so that I can get you an actual cost of
51
what it would be to allow those employees to get either four hours, as the Administrator
is suggesting, or the original administrative leave day with pay. That would come back
before the committee so that you can see do we need to scale back that one day to half
day, four hours, two hours or what have you. But we really want to go ahead and make
sure that it was not said that we were going to pay them compensatory time, that we’d be
actually awarding them administrative leave with pay.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me, let me say one thing before the Attorney starts and
other Commissioners ask something, because I want to make sure they get something
clear. I made a statement a minute ago in order to reconsider this to get this on the floor
in terms of the way that you all would deal with the compensation, and I said that I was
making that motion not to change what we had done, but to change the way the
compensation would be done. I don’t think I’m going to be in favor in terms of dealing
with it to wipe that out, and I’m for one am wiling to hear what the new plan will be. But
now if this to change the numbers game in terms of where we’re going, then I’m not
committed to doing that. But I am, if you’ve got a better way that you need to work this
in terms of the, of how you do it, then I do not mind dealing with that. But I think in all
fairness to my colleagues when I make a motion to say to reconsider because you all have
a technical means that you need to change, I need to correct that right away, cause I’m
not going, I’m not going to mislead them in terms of a motion I’ve put on the floor. So
I’m, I’m with you in terms of dealing with the change in the procedure that the
Administrator, the Attorney, yourself may have, but I’m probably not going to back this
out into a whole different formula because it gets to be one of those things, maybe if I
hear it again it might get worse, cause it’s down to a day, down to four hours, and then
you know if it gets any different it may be a sandwich. So you know I just wanted to
state that for the record. I’m not, I’m not changing that to do it. And I, I want my
colleagues to know I’m not trying to be misleading in that manner. I put that on because
I heard the suggestion of how they needed to properly do it, but not in terms of rolling
back what we’ve done to a different degree and magnitude of how that’s done, and I just
need to put that out there for the record.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, thank you, and members of the Commission, the idea
that Ms. Pelaez and I had was that we, that we would come up with a way that didn’t
involve comp time. That seemed to be a problem. And the idea was to use
administrative leave as the vehicle. And then we thought that the appropriate thing to do
was to calculate the cost of doing that so you would know. The only way we can
calculate the cost is to know who came in on that particular day, and so that was going to
be the process. And then we didn’t want it to be a disruptive matter for the departments if
this were approved by the Commission. Certainly you wouldn’t want to have requests
for everyone to take this type leave on the same day. So there would have to be some
thought given to the mission of the department at the time the request was made. So that,
that was the -- basically that’s stated in the last three points of the, of the backup material.
52
Mr. Mayor: Well, I understood that the administrative leave, the credit would
only be for four hours, which would not be compensation if somebody worked a full day.
Did I mis-hear that?
Ms. Pelaez: Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I guess I need to explain
that.
Mr. Mayor: You do.
Mr. Kolb: [inaudible] the ice day, there seems to have been some misconception
as to what that work day consisted of, and it was thought that the City Hall would be
closed until 10 a.m. that morning. So that was not a full day. So they were compensated
for administrative leave from 8 to 10 o’clock, if they were under the impression that they
showed up at 10 o’clock. What we have suggested is that we add to those who did show
up an additional four hours of comp time. But what I think, it was misstated that the
maximum should probably be only six hours if you were going to compensate them for a
full day.
Mr. Mayor: Well, what about the employees who did not work in this building?
Mr. Kolb: If they did not work at all that day, they would get an administrative
leave day.
Mr. Mayor: It would seem to me the easiest way to do this would be that the
person would just get an hour-for-hour credit for what they show, for what they worked
on their time card, they’d get an equal amount of administrative leave for that. So it
would be hour-for-hour as opposed to saying that everybody who came in here at 10 is
going to get four hours, and somebody else is going to be treated differently and get a
different amount of time. It just, you know, your time card shows how much you worked
that day, and just take an hour-for-hour credit for administrative leave. I mean that --
somebody help me. Mr. Williams, you’re good at helping people.
(Laughter)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I was a little concerned about [inaudible] and you
know work for 7-1/2 hour work day, you know, if you going give six hours, you got an
hour-and-a-half, it’s the whole day, how you going justify the other hour-and-a-half?
You say you work an hour-and-a-half and you go home? Or you -- if that’s the way it’s
going to be [inaudible] out.
Ms. Pelaez: If I may respond. We actually, through our conversations, the
Attorney and I, we were trying to do, keep a simple approach. We’re very pleased with
those employees who came in, so we weren’t going to go to the [inaudible], we were
53
simply going to award the one day administrative leave with pay. If approved, the
department director and that individual would schedule at the [inaudible] of the
department. That’s how we weren’t going to get from [inaudible] get the day off.
Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Mayor. I don’t know if that helped you out.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we need a motion of some sort here.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, you can apply whatever formula that’s within the
Commission’s discretion. We started with probably the most generous to the employees.
It could be a half day, it could be calculated by the hour, but at some point the effort in
figuring it out may be, I don’t know -- Brenda, how tedious is the process? That’s what
I’m driving at.
Ms. Pelaez: Actually, the man hours that it would take to come up with that far
exceeds the amount of money that we would be giving them.
Mr. Kolb: We recommend that you give a full day for administrative leave.
Mr. Mayor: Well, let me ask you this, then. Would it be cheaper if we paid them
at the overtime rate, with a holiday rate, for working that rate, and just paid them? The
cost [inaudible] calculated plus the pay, is it cheaper just to give them overtime or
holiday pay?
Ms. Pelaez: That was the reason why I was trying to steer us away from comp
time. Comp time is at time-and-a-half. This administrative leave is at straight time. So
we don’t want to roll over into overtime, which is also at time-and-a-half. So that’s why
we were just going with administrative leave, the one day.
Mr. Kolb: In effect, Mr. Mayor, what you’re doing is giving one additional day,
like a floating holiday. Cause everybody wouldn’t take it at the same time.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I brought the subject up. I’m not clear
on the law that they are stating now about the comp time, cause I don’t have anything, I
don’t see anything, I’m just hearing that according to the law, comp time. And I just, I
don’t know why it’s so difficult. The state government, I worked 31 years and had comp
time and ice time, and I think we then need to look to someone else and see what their
formula, because is the law different for the city than it is for the state?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall is here, we could ask him. He’s come back and visited us.
(Laughter)
54
Mr. Hankerson: I don’t understand what’s the problem in, in giving the comp
time in time-for-time. We know also that the issue was first when we said the people, the
individuals that did not come to work, because they didn’t know whether they should
come or not because they was sent home the day before and the conditions worsened.
But then, then someone asked the question about, what about the ones that came? That’s
where the problem started, of giving comp time for the ones that came to work. And we
were talking about because we did not have a policy in place for inclement weather that
those employees that received the information from the television or whatever could not
come because debris was across the road and they could not travel, that they should not
be deducted time for that, they should be given comp time. That was what I brought to
the floor. The issue about giving everybody comp time, compensation ones that came, I
think we just need to deal with the ones that came since that’s running into the problems
of how much you’re going to give them. They came. Everybody suppose to have come
according to the Administrator but because of lack of communication and a policy in
place, they did not come.
Mr. Shepard: If I could, Mr. Mayor. The reason that the administrative leave was
chosen over comp time was that it was our understanding that comp time could be taken
on demand, which would not really be a situation that would be in the best interest of
management in the future, so that’s why we went with administrative leave.
Mr. Hankerson: That’s the law. Command, on command. I mean that’s, that’s
new to me. I worked 31 years and I didn’t know that. I could have got off some time, I
didn’t know the law was on my side, that I could have taken it whenever I wanted it. I
mean comp time is very popular in government and it seemed though that the employees
are very loyal in not asking for it all at one time or the supervisors are very strict about
when they are going to give it. I thought, my impression was that comp time was at the
supervisor’s discretion. If the government had the amount of employees that they needed
to work, then comp time could be granted. Those business drivers that you were talking
about, they need to address that, I know that everybody sometime or another gets sick or
take a day of relaxation or whatever, and they’re given time off. I think time could be
staggered to give the drivers time off. Employees, I think, would enjoy some time during
the holidays of taking [inaudible] child to the doctor, you need a couple of hours off, you
have some comp time to use, I think it would come in real good.
Ms. Pelaez: Mr. Commissioner, the, the issues that you brought up before the
committee in regard to making sure that those employees were compensated, they will be
compensated. It’s just a matter of changing the language, and so they will be
compensated. That’s the main thing. No one is not going to be compensated that
reported to work on that day.
Mr. Hankerson: I just don’t want us to be frightened by figures, coming back
with escalated, giant figures. And then we decided that no, this costs too much for us to
do.
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
55
Mr. Hankerson: We appreciate the employees that were loyal, that came anyway,
or those that were more convenient for them to come anyway. There were some that
were in rural areas, some that was in areas where there were more trees and debris that
they could not come, other problems, the school buses didn’t run, the kids were home and
the conditions were worsened. You know, we understand that. So I hope that we can
still uphold what we had discussed in our meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I think we’re all on the save wave length.
But I think what we’re looking for is the language in which we need to put this in the
form of a motion and get on with it. And if we can get that from HR, or from our
Administrator, then I think we can deal with this issue and be through with is. And I’d
like to, I’d like to have some language put that we know what we’re doing and be able to
pass it and get on.
Mr. Mayor: Somebody have some language? You have some language, Mr.
Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: I think maybe I can help here. For the period of time during the ice
storm, those employees who did not come to work for whatever reason would be granted
a day of administrative leave. Those who did show up for work would also be granted a
day of administrative leave. So in lieu of having to take a vacation day for not showing
up for work, sick or whatever, they would be paid administrative leave. Those who did
show up for work would be granted an additional day of administrative leave.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, the motion language is in the last three paragraphs of the,
st
subparagraph of the paragraph that carries over under recommendation from the 1 to the
nd
2 page, and I would just say that if we’re having problems with the full one day, you
know, the employees that reported to work on January 28, 2004 will receive
administrative leave with pay in an amount determined by the Commission. Number 2,
the department director will submit the names of these employees who reported to work
to the Human Resources Director. The Human Resources Director will determine the
financial impact of granting this administrative leave to these employees and make a
presentation to the Finance Committee on the financial impact. And then upon approval,
the department directors will approve the employees’ request to take their administrative
leave on a first request basis. And the decision to allow the employees to take this day
will be based on the scheduling needs of the department. That was, that was, that’s the
motion. Or you can make it [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Were we provided with that? I don’t think we got that backup, Mr.
Attorney. Mr. Cheek, let’s go to you while they confer.
56
Mr. Cheek: Just, just for clarification. My understanding of federal labor laws is
that local [inaudible] employees are prohibited or the institutions they work for are
prohibited from offering comp time, in that comp time can only be offered to exempt
[inaudible] employees, according to federal labor standards that both the state and
everyone else operates by. And also that comp time is in other institutions allowed at the
discretion of the management based on business needs. Now here again, I’m not a
professional HR person, but that is consistent with what we’re saying here?
Mr. Kolb: Yes. Administrative leave is at the discretion of the department,
whereas comp time may not be.
Mr. Cheek: Comp time cannot be given to local [inaudible] employees according
to federal labor laws.
Mr. Kolb: That’s probably correct, too, so we’re trying to stay outside the
purview of the law. The other, the other issue is there is not financial impact. The only
financial impact is a person is taking a day off, and you’re just not getting that
productivity. But there would be no additional pay to the employee, just getting an
additional day off.
Mr. Cheek: And just one final comment, Mr. Mayor. I think Commissioner
Mays and several of us have been out in the floods and storms, and this city, since before
consolidation, has a very long history of having people work long hours without them
being compensated for overtime or anything else, and so any compensation we can offer
them to help them for this day I think would probably still fall short of what they, they
are due, due to the years of dedication that they have given this City.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was talking in a sidebar over here with
Ms. Flournoy, who had handled most of our personnel, personnel issues. With your
permission --
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Boyles: With your permission, could I ask her to come to the front --
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Ms. Flournoy?
Mr. Boyles: What she said made a lot of sense to me, so I just thought we could -
-
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Ms. Flournoy: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, it was my suggestion in
my discussion with Mr. Boyles that we grant each employee a day of administrative
57
th
leave. For those employees that didn’t report on January 27, that would be their
th
administrative leave. Those that reported on January 27, they would have that
administrative leave at a later date. And I think that would cover everything and make it
simple.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Anybody want the motion read back to
them? Willie?
Mr. Mays: Um, let me, let me just say this. I think we do need to get to a motion,
because we are out here on a reversal. What I, what I’ve got a problem with is that if, if,
if, if everybody within staff needs some time to do something different, maybe we ought
to allow it, cause from where I’m sitting in the center of this room, we voted on
something on consent, I made a motion to reverse it to get some language [inaudible],
and I’ve heard three people speak over here, I’ve heard one person speak over there.
When one person speaks I see a head shake and it doesn’t go up and down, it goes
crossways. Now I don’t plan on hearing this no more. Now if we need to, if we need to
correct this by giving some time for y’all to get one motion out of here and to do that,
then I think we need to do it, but I think in fairness to us sitting up here, we need to have
some clear language, ladies and gentleman, on where this is going to be, because I think
we all want to do the right thing, we need to get where Don was talking about a few
minutes ago, but I don’t want to see in committee next week where we’ve got [inaudible]
reversal of what we’ve done out here to just simply pay folk for what happened on a day.
I mean if, if, if, if, if y’all need time to huddle up to do that, I can respect that. I think
we’d rather do it once right today and finish this and to a point of us getting a motion and
then we [inaudible]. Whenever I see heads go east and west, it just bothers me from
[inaudible] here. Cause see, that, that, that’s a lot -- anybody going back and forth and
I’m getting confused to a point of what, what it’s going to take to get it done. I do want
to get it done, but I don’t want to do it again.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: My suggestion is, Mr. Mayor, and following what Mr. Mays said,
the HR Director, Ms. Flournoy and I, I’m sure, can come up with some language that is
simple and understandable and maybe we should just put it back on the table and then
we’ll deal with it while we are here and be done with it. We’ve got other matters that we
can go ahead with.
Mr. Mayor: Want to do that, Mr. Mays?
58
Mr. Mays: We can do that. That will give y’all some time. Let’s do that, cause I
think everybody is in the right direction. We just need to do it once.
Mr. Mayor: All right, you want to make a motion to table, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I so move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Questions on the motion? None heard. All in favor of the motion to
table, please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Cheek votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we have some people here for item
number 54, so we’re going to go ahead and take up that item. Madame Clerk, when you
read that caption, we want to roll into it item 46, so we’ll have both these items
considered at the same time.
The Clerk: Item 46 and 54:
46. Communication from the Administrator regarding Pension Property
Appraisals.
PENSION AND AUDIT COMMITTEE:
54. Motion to approve a recommendation from the Pension/Audit Committee
that the Attorney be authorized to begin the process for the sale of the Reynolds
Street pension property to the City. (Approved by the Pension and Audit
Committee February 12, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, would you explain where we are with this?
Mr. Shepard: Well, we had appraisals -- excuse me, Mr. Mayor, members of the
Commission, we had appraisals done on this property in order to help us price it. And we
were in the Pension Committee and Audit Committee the other day and we were talking
about how we could do that, and I think the best thing, since that was just last Thursday
when we met would be to approve the Pension Committee’s recommendation that we
have a process established, brought back to this committee, I mean to this full
Commission, at the first meeting in March, I believe is the deadline we set, for the, for
the sale. There are some, there are some fiduciary obligations we need to consider, and I,
I want to handle those properly, so if this Commission would approve that delegation to
my office to come up with a specific proposal, we know about what we want, we know
there’s an expression that the City control it, and here again, there’s the fiduciary
obligation that we as -- excuse me, that you members of the Commission hold as trustees
of that pension fund. Those all have to be addressed in some detail. So I will have a
59
specific proposal at that time. It’s just that was the suggestion for the time frame in the
Commission committee and I would ask to have that time to bring that back. That’s
about it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Let me just add for the record that in that meeting we
asked Mr. Persaud to identify the source of funding for the purchase, and he replied to
members of the Pension Committee by memo on February 13 and I would ask Mr. Kolb
if you could have this copied to the other Commissioners. It was just sent to the Pension
Committee. I think they all need to see this as part of the backup, if you would. All
right. Mr. Hankerson, you had your hand up?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir, I asked for this to be pulled because I had some
concerns about it. Some of my concerns are, first of all, is why, why are we purchasing
the property, where it could be sold at this amount of $1.7 million to -- if we placed it on
the market. I just have a problem with the property being sold. We’re purchasing the
property at the highest appraisal value. I have a problem with that. $1.7 million. And
the property, we do not have the money, all the money to purchase the property. I think
that you said $500,000 is needed, that we can get that from a, reserve funds from an old
debt. But I think the $500,000, half a million dollars, we can utilize half a million dollars
for capital improvement, capital outlay projects rather than purchase this property with it.
Why not we purchasing the property at fair market value? I got problems with the cost of
this. The property belong to the pensioners, I assume and that’s what I been hearing. It’s
been tax free. It’s tax base, but then when the appraisals came in, it’s being sold to us for
the highest appraisal. I think it should be, we deal with fair market value for it if they
want to sell it. If not, then put it on the market, that it will go on the tax base. So -- I
think our goals are we said we wanted to broaden our tax base, so if this is on the market
for bid, then they may get more than $1.7 million for it, but I just can’t, I don’t
understand why we are purchasing this property, then we have to look for more funds,
half a million dollars to buy it. And it’s, it’s, it’s supposed to be a government entity.
That, that’s my concerns about it. I cannot support it in this nature. I just think that we
should pay fair market value if we purchase it, or it would be better to put it on the
market or put it out for bid and allow someone to purchase it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. The point, Mr. Hankerson, was that we had a fiduciary
duty to our pensioners and we should, we should have a process that looked to that as the
primary goal. On the other hand, the taxpayers are paying for it, and [inaudible] part of
the process that I examined, the duties that that places on you as a trustee of the pension
fund, as well as an elected representative of, of the people of this City. And so I hear
what you’re saying and that’s why, that’s why I asked for the process. It probably would
have, it could have an alternative in there for discussion purposes, but there was an
element -- here again, we have a fiduciary duty to these pensioners that we surely want to
honor, because if we don’t, I think we have, we really will have legal problems. And so
that would be something that would be addressed in the process.
60
Mr. Hankerson: I think that duty has, to me, already been rendered. We do not
collect tax on it. It’s been tax free for as long as they owned it. So we’re being good
stewards about it. It’s no economic benefit to the City to purchase this property for $1.7
million, even though we have some other funds. And I’d like to know how much in that
reserve fund from an old debt. Identify that. How much money is that now that we have
that we have? We always come up with some money that I don’t know about. How
much money do we have in that fund? $1.2 million?
Mr. Shepard: No, sir, I think it’s $1.5 million. We were going --
Mr. Hankerson: $1.5 million? Don’t we think that we can better utilize $500
million, I mean $500,000, excuse me, for some other capital outlay projects? It’s a lot of
things going to be coming up, a lot of businesses and so forth that we use this money for,
that we can use that money for that.
Mr. Shepard: Well, we had SPLOST identified for most of the purchase and this
would be a supplement out of this particular funding source. It was, it was, it was found
and it was for capital needs. We had the Purchasing Director, I mean the Finance
Director’s input, his input that this would be a non-recurring expense. You know, we
really need to deal with this property that we’ve had for a long time.
Mr. Hankerson: I can understand that. I can understand that, Mr. Attorney.
Mr. Shepard: It just happened that this was identified about the time we were
looking for this process, to market this property, so you don’t want to raise taxes and you
don’t want to go into the general fund contingency, Mr. Persaud said this is, this is the
kind of non-recurring expense that you ought to use these type monies for.
Mr. Hankerson: No, I can understand that. We don’t have to raise taxes. The
only thing, we could just purchase the property for what we have. We spend what we
have. Of if $1.2 million were allocated in SPLOST IV to purchase the property, I can to
with that, but the fair, the fair market value of the property, I mean it’s government entity
anyway, but we are saying the highest bid, and then we find the money to do that. We
don’t have the money to buy it but we searching and we finding some money that we
could allocate for something else. Again, I say it does not benefit the City, and I can’t
support in this nature.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, and I appreciate the Commissioner’s concerns, his
concerns about how we, we do some things in reference to [inaudible] have not just
started with this issue. Some creative things [inaudible] to be progressive, he’s been very
forward with that and I applaud him for that. But, but let me just say that, one, and I
think he also knows from serving on that committee, that not only do we have a fiduciary
duty as the Attorney has so stated eloquently, and I won’t go back through that, but there
is a very thin line and it’s almost somewhat of a conflicting fiduciary duty, because in
61
performing that duty, we probably have to do what might not necessarily be the best
business decision if you were only on one end of that. It so happens that the people who
need to be able to own and to control and to develop are the same people who are
entrusted to get the best money for those pensioners. Therefore, I think when that’s done,
you have the first obligation, one, to deal with whoever’s money has purchased it. That
puts us, I think, in the position that you’re going to need to first satisfy the highest and
best interest unless you go to another plan, and I agree, there can be another plan. But I
think if you’re going to go with this one, and I’ll state why I think so for just a moment,
you have an obligation there that even if there are two bidders, that if you’re in charge of
controlling that at least from the committee’s standpoint -- now this Commission, the
democratic [inaudible] wants to, needs to, whatever, but in the position that that
committee is in, I think, one, you have to deal with those higher numbers from the
standpoint that that gets the best yield for those that you’re protecting their pension.
Now, some of us made a commitment, and that’s not to say that that can’t be reversed.
Everybody has an equal right on this Commission to do whatever they feel is in the best
interest of the City. I can remember then Commissioner Shepard from the standpoint,
and we may have been the two that led the effort, along with late Commissioner Beard, in
terms of putting a source together that would allow us for once and a final time to free
this property up and to have it under the control and guise of the City of Augusta,
Georgia, because it was bought with those pensioners’ money and the historical facts of
the old city were [inaudible] that when it was done with the pensioners’ money it had to
be reversed by legal action so that could be in the proper name of those pensioners,
because originally it was in the City of Augusta’s name where it should not have been.
So once that was established and it got into those pensioners’ name, I think this one has a
unique ability about it. There are no [inaudible] and this in only one Commissioner’s
opinion. But there are no best yet still virgin pieces of property that are left on the river.
thth
When I say that, the area between 5 Street and 13 Street. The river has got a long way
to go, but between those areas, that is your last prime piece that’s there. I think what you
do when you open that up to the marketplace and this comes with vision and creativity in
terms of where the City, I think, is going to and it’s good to have people like Augusta
Tomorrow and those, but I think at a point the City has to have some focus as to what we
want to see that goes there in this last piece. I think that the $500,000 is a small price to
pay on a third of the investment to control what may be there for this City’s future and for
that last piece of downtown development. If it was somewhere way upstream, if it was
somewhere down close to South Carolina, I would say well, fine, yes, it’s on the river,
but then to a point let’s just put it out there and let anybody do what they want to do. But
I think where that one is, its proximity and historic district, I don’t think we need to be
put in the position, particularly where Commissions can change, Mayor [inaudible] can
change, hopefully it will be this Commission and this Mayor that will make a decision on
what the development will be in that area, that something will be down there soon. But I
would hate for us to be in a position where somebody buys it on the open market, and it
may be some undesirable developer to a point that you’ve got to turn around and try and
fight that person from zoning and everything else to keep out a bad project once that
property is in that particular situation hands. If it’s in then in control of the City, at least
there is a say-so, even if it’s flipped around and dealt with a developer, it can be one
that’s close at hand. As it is now, owned by somebody else, we cannot participate legally
62
in those negotiations from an arm’s length agreement as to where we can negotiated
properly and to do it. We are over stepping our bounds to a point because we wear two
hats. This is a measure to get it under one hat, get it under the City’s auspices, and then
may even do what Commissioner Hankerson is talking about in terms of deriving a profit.
But I think while you’ve got some happy campers over on the pension side, it gives them
an opportunity to [inaudible] plus interest, take the highest bidder, puts money in their
coffers, also gives us control of where that property goes, and we as the Mayor and
Commission can determine what that last great piece of property on the river can be.
And I think that was the committee’s reason for making the decision that it made. Some
things, I think, do cost us as a City, and as I said probably it’s unorthodox in a business
move, the normal trend would say don’t do it, but this is one, I think where you need to
satisfy the parties that are there and that’s why I can support that measure and I would
kind of be reversing and be hypocritical myself if I had not been on the record publicly
for supporting that this particular piece at some point be put in the City of Augusta’s
hands so that we could control, along with the positive developers, what will go on that
river and not be subject to something that may happen and then we approach it from a
reactionary standpoint. And that’s why I support the committee’s decision in terms of
their purchase.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much, Mr. Mays. Let’s hear from Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Mays 100%. I really do. Because I
feel that property is very important to the City. As I read that, well, I said it seems to me
we could actually leave it as it is or purchase [inaudible], but I would like to see us
purchase that property. So with that I’d like to call the question.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion?
The Clerk: No.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to make a motion?
Ms. Beard: Yes. That we purchase the property.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Motion and a second. A couple of the pensioners are here
today. I see one of them would like to address the Commission. [inaudible], if you’d like
to come up, if you’ll come up to the microphone and I need your name and address for
the record. And then you can, can --
Mr. Beck: My name is James G. Beck, Jr. I live at 702 Westminster Court,
Augusta, Georgia, and to answer Mr. Hankerson [inaudible], we haven’t received any
money from the City as far as interest, and the City has had our money tied up for 15
years. Money market people tell me that we can double our money every seven years if
we pursue it. We didn’t choose to do that. We felt like that the City could use this
63
property to promote the City of Augusta, Richmond County, and go from there. And we,
like I say, we haven’t drawn a penny from the City for interest for 15 years. Thank you,
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I would still like the opportunity to have that alternative and I
would like to have the motion amended so that I could have the process we contemplated
completed. And that was, that was to be back the first of March, the first meeting in
March, if I could, with --
Ms. Beard: Now, will you explain that more, please?
Mr. Shepard: Well, so that, so that I have the time to satisfy myself that we have
touched all our fiduciary bases. That’s all I want to do. And that’s, the problem with just
using SPLOST money is, is less than both appraisals that came in. They came in rather
close, if you look at your backup. One is $1.7 million and the other was $1.639 million.
So that’s why we had to go with additional monies. But I would, I would like -- I thought
that was the thing that we should do in that, just so that I would have time to review the
acts that created it and just make sure that everything is correct.
Ms. Beard: Have we thought of maybe making them an offer? I mean if we can’t
quite meet the appraisal amount? I mean that’s how real estate is normally sold.
Mr. Shepard: Well, Ms. Beard, you Commissioners as trustees are the sellers.
You Commissioners as elected representatives are contemplated as the buyer. And it was
initially, as Mr. Mays correctly said, it was initially bought and titled in the old City of
Augusta as a, as a corporate entity, but it was then after litigation re-titled in the trustees
of that pension act, and here again, I did not do the work with those pension acts
anticipating that I would have until the first meeting of March to read all those old acts
and advise you accordingly. [inaudible] other matters, because the Pension Committee’s
recommendation was time to bring it in not today, but to have the process back to you
with a recommendation the first meeting in March.
Mr. Mays: Commissioner Williams and then Commissioner Sims.
Mr. Williams: I want to go ahead and make a substitute motion that we go
ahead and approve this and give the Attorney the time to go ahead and get with all
interested parties if necessary to bring this back at the first meeting in March,
which be the same Commissioner Beard made, just with that amendment.
Ms. Sims: I second.
Mr. Mays: You have a substitute motion and a second. Is there any discussion? I
hadn’t looked to my left yet, and I’ll recognize -- Don, was your hand up or were you
pointing to --
64
Mr. Grantham: They took care of it.
Mr. Mays: Was there any discussion on either one of the motions at this time?
Let me just ask one question, Steve, in reference to, and I probably will vote for the
substitute. I would have voted for Ms. Beard’s in terms of putting the amendment on it, I
think that takes care of the same thing. But I want to make sure now that we’re still
staying in the same line, that it allows for the purchase by the City of Augusta. Am I
correct on that?
Mr. Shepard: That’s what I was instructed to, at the committee, to do.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Cause what I wanted to make sure and I think for the benefit of
pensioners who would take that back is that if there’s not another option at this time
that’s being considered, I just want to make sure to a point [inaudible] I think that was
Ms. Beard’s concern in reference to how expanded does the amendment go, and that’s
all. I just wanted to make sure that we are on the same page, that when we left the other
day it allows you to do that, but that is [inaudible] do something different, then that
aspect [inaudible] come back, then that [inaudible] to be re -- to be discussed again.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I was just, in the motion I head the original motion and the
substitute, but I heard Ms. Beard say something about, we can explain that again about
making an offer or something. Was that part of the discussion [inaudible]? What did you
say? I heard --
Mr. Mays: I’ll give her the floor to reply. The question was -- did you hear, Ms.
Beard, in reference to, to making them an offer? If I might say this, in fairness in
particularly to the new Commissioners, Commissioner Hankerson, that they may need to
understand that in reference to the offers that have gone back and forth, this is not a new
thing of making offers, so it’s not like we haven’t made some offers. One of the reasons
to move forward was the fact that the offers have been closer than they’ve ever been and
to act of fairness of getting them some amount of interest on the monies that they have
invested, and that was one of the reasons the committee did not hesitate to look at the
difference and to accept the appraisals. The appraisals are lieu of the fact that they have
never demanded interest, so you pretty much have a negotiated tradeoff where the interest
goes in favor of what is done now in the appraisal. That gets them up where there’s a
non-negotiating point. And I think also to a point that if they are allowed to keep it and
we as trustees, if they [inaudible] on the fair market and they sell it to the undesirable,
then we really have got a problem that we have got to deal with at that point because then
we’ve got to fight it probably from a subordinated position in order to do it. So I
recognize you, Commissioner Williams.
65
Mr. Hankerson: Can I follow up on that, first?
Mr. Mays: Sure. Go ahead. And then I’ll recognize you to close it out.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, you were saying that that had been negotiated before and,
and in all fairness to the new Commissioners and myself, I don’t think no negotiations of
making an offer has been discussed in my tenure. That’s why I asked what [inaudible]
saying cause I don’t know whether that, I don’t think so, Mr. Mays, whether we
discussed that of making an offer in the last --
Mr. Mays: Let me, let me respond. I realize, Commissioner, everything,
everything is not discussed every week, but it stays on those pensioners’ minds every
week. It may not have been to a point or where it was an agenda item for each pension
meeting, but it’s been a concern, they sent a representative, and they have wanted to
know. It’s been one that’s been noted in terms of investigatory findings and suggestions
in terms of how fiscally we handle [inaudible]. I think you’re correct from the standpoint
that it may not have passed everybody, but it’s something that has been talked about.
And you’ve also got to remember out of fairness and just to show you how the time has
passed, when we were talking about the $1.2 million and the value of the property, we
were not then giving them any bonus even when we set aside that money. The $1.2
million that was put into the sales tax was an amount in terms of what those appraisals
were at that time a few years ago, so it has jumped from that point and I’m just saying
before we go and get all our business out here today, to a point that while it’s at $1.7
million and you’ve got some willing parties to deal with it, we can vote this up or down,
but at some point it needs to either be settled where we get it, develop it, let them have it,
and they sell it, or it just sits and we face a further demand from them at some point to
give them some money. And I think [inaudible].
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mays, I think that you’re correct. I think then I am kind of
quoting your words that if you brought it to me, put it before me, I’m going to discuss is,
and I think that this probably should have been discussed before it was put on this agenda
out here in a public meeting. We could have did it in committee and then we would have
full understanding, the new Commissioners and myself, in all fairness to myself, I never
knew that offers were made. See all of this is new school, what you’re talking, and it
should have been discussed in committee meeting, then I wouldn’t have had these
questions to ask and my concerns about some of the things you have explained so well.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Let me just say this. I don’t know what’s been discussed in
some cases over the last tow years as it related to the Pension Committee, cause I’ve not
been on the Pension. I think those of you that have been on Finance and former Mayor
Pro Tem Colclough, that’s been his position to be there, but what I’ve done, I’ve accepted
the findings that [inaudible] brought and I have questioned those that maybe I had a
question about and I think you’re only fair in terms of where you’re doing that at this
time. But to a point the Committees have been moving on and I know for the two years
that I was on there, it was an active decision that we talked about and I think the
pensioners can express the fact that I probably led that fight, along with the two other
66
Commissioners that I named, in order to try and get that process moving. Now if it got
dormant after I left, I can’t account for [inaudible] the committee, but it wasn’t as though
it’s new school to me. To a point it’s been talked about for years. It’s just at a point now
I think we need to either do something with it or do nothing with it, but that option
belongs to everybody here. I’m going to turn it back over to the Mayor and
Commissioner Williams was next, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mays. Let me, let me mention that this
has already been before the Commission once. We authorized that the Administrator
enter into a contract, list the property with two real estate companies in this community.
There were some issues they could not agree on, and so contracts were not signed, so the
Commission has voted once to put this on the market. So this is not the first time that it’s
here before us. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Those words was forthcoming. We been
on Finance for the last four years, going to the fifth year now, and still on Finance and we
been talking about this I now for the last four years on, on a yearly basis about what we
going do and owning the property, selling the property, being the custodians of
everything else. If we, if we make an offer to ourselves and the pensioners is entrusting
us to handle this property, which they are the owner of, but we are the guardians over, so
if we make an offer to ourselves, we going to have to reject our own offer or accept our
own offer. I really don’t understand. I think the [inaudible] made a very good point
about not receiving any monies as far as interest or anything else [inaudible] what they
could have done and chose to leave it with this body as a whole. So Ms. Beard’s motion,
I don’t think, and the Clerk can read it back, I don’t think entails -- she did mention about
comparison to, to other offers or making other offers, but I don’t think that was in her
motion, if, if, if it was read back. That was something that was stated. This is an ongoing
process. We got a substitute motion with getting the Attorney to be able to go and to
negotiate with the, the necessary parties as to be able to bring this back on the first
meeting in March when we can finalize this, and get this, get this out of the way. Mr.
Mays done said it all. I don’t want to back through, but that is a prime piece of property
that this City needs to be in control of, as to who buys, what goes down there, and when it
goes down there. That’s the last good piece of property of any size for this City of
anybody have. And I think we all, we as elected officials, whether it change with the
next election or it change with the next Mayor, I think we still need to control that, and
that’s the direction we’re headed. So. [inaudible]
Ms. Beard: I [inaudible] one other thing, and -- the pensioners have been trying
to do something about this for years, and isn’t right for them not to receive anything in
reference to [inaudible]. So we need to make a decision about it or give it to them and let
them do what they want to do with it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. The question has been called. The Chair will rule there has
been adequate debate. Mr. Mays informs me there is a substitute motion that’s on the
floor, so we’ll dispose of that first. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote in
the affirmative.
67
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Hankerson votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: We will go back now to item number 44.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
44. Approve prepaid sterilization charge for adoptions from Animal Services.
(No recommendation from Public Safety Committee February 11, 2004)
Mr. Speaker: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, what we’d like to do
at Animal Services is have the people pre-pay for the sterilization of the animals adopted.
It’s a State requirement that all animal shelters and humane societies have this done. At
the present time, we’re entering into a legal agreement with the adopter, we have to track
this. They have 30 days to get this done after they adopt the animal. If it’s a puppy or
kitten they have 30 days after it’s old enough to get it done. We’ve gotten with five
veterinary clinics here in Augusta Richmond County. They have agreed to do this very
reasonably. I’ve got a little flack from a couple of humane societies and rescue groups
because the veterinarians are going to let us do it less expensive than they are charging
them. We have listed here the fees that they’re going to charge us for this procedure, and
what we will do is handle that the same way we do the rabies. People adopt an animal
now they pre-pay the rabies shot. They take the receipt to the veterinarian and the
veterinarian bills us, we pay the veterinarian. The purpose behind that is Georgia law and
Augusta Richmond County ordinance that all animals be vaccinated, that dogs and cats
be vaccinated for rabies. Secondly, it allows this animal -- we know this animal is going
to get to see a veterinarian. We’re going to still have to track this even if it’s pre-paid,
but most people who pre-pay a service are going to have the service done. If they don’t
have this done right now, we send out the first letters on failure to comply. After the
letter, we try to call them, send them another letter. And finally, if they don’t comply, we
send one of our field enforcement officers out there to speak with them, and it can lead to
a citation and go the Magistrate Court and [inaudible] fine for not having this procedure
done, because it is required. As you can see on the second page here, would be the
adoption fees, the old and the new listed, and this would include a pre-paid rabies shot
and sterilization for the animal adopted. I go to the lowest one here. A male cat, the old
fee was $21. $15 of that was the rabies vaccination. [inaudible] about $6 was what we
were getting for the adoption fee. New fee is $45. Of that new fee, $25 is going to be for
sterilization, $15 of it’s going to be for the rabies vaccination, so you’re still talking about
a $5 adoption fee. We’re not going up on our adoption fees. The only thing we’re doing
is having the adopter pre-pay for the sterilization and the rabies shot. The adoption fees
are remaining the same. Our contention on this, it will be easier to track this. We’re still
going to have to track it, but most people, including myself, if I pay for a service I’m
going to get the service done. It should alleviate some of the problems we have in
tracking this. I would like to add it’s not in the presentation, in the agenda item here, but
68
unless we -- all animals adopted from that shelter, we operate under a Georgia
Department of Agriculture license -- if we don’t track these and use all means at our
disposal to make sure that these animals are sterilized, we’re subject to a $2,000 fine, per
animal. We’ve been real fortunate, we use all our resources and make them comply or
[inaudible]. This is one of the reasons we want to do this, plus the citizens are getting a
very, very good price. Even the humane societies and the rescue groups cannot get this
price. This is a decent -- these prices are only good on animals adopted through Augusta
Animal Services.
Mr. Mayor: Randy, I want to thank you for bringing this forward. Let me ask
you a couple of questions before we get into discussion. Do you have some idea of what
percentage of the animals that are adopted now are not in compliance within 30 days?
Mr. Speaker: No, sir. We have a lady that works full time, she tracks that, she’s
probably spending ¾ of the day tracking it. She has a list. We do pursue it, and we
resolve most all of it. Eventually.
Mr. Mayor: It would just seem to me that it would, it would cost us. It costs us
money to track those people, depending on how many we have to track.
Mr. Speaker: And I’m hoping that this will, will save us some costs, because if
you pre-pay for a service, usually you’re going to get it done.
Mr. Mayor: But there’s no way to include the spaying or neutering as part of the
adoption process itself, it’s only something that has to be done after the fact?
Mr. Speaker: We don’t have facilities to do it there at the present time.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. That would eliminate having to --
Mr. Speaker: Oh, yes, sir. [inaudible] get them done before they leave the shelter.
Right now we have a list of five vets. We have three more that’s willing to get on board,
I think they’re hanging back to see how this works. But they’re all local, they’re all in
Richmond County, and the adopter would be furnished a list of these vets and they could
choose whichever one they want.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Richard?
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir. Does this process go out for bid?
Mr. Speaker: Actually, we sent letters to all the veterinaries in this area.
Mr. Colclough: You didn’t put out for bids?
Mr. Speaker: No, sir.
69
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Speaker: No, sir, we did not put it out for bid.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] backup materials [inaudible] bid process.
Mr. Speaker: It didn’t go out for bid, sir. We contacted these people and --
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Speaker: I have five veterinarians on this list [inaudible] that price.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, it’s a voluntary program.
We would like all the veterinaries to participate in the program, so we’re not selecting
any one vendor. And so we laid out the stipulations of what we would like to do, and
these veterinarians voluntarily are offering their service.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. Other than the agreed-upon fee that we would pay to
the veterinarian for services rendered.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Kolb: They’ve agreed to a reduced cost, so -- and it’s one cost. Everybody is
being paid the same. It’s up to the customer to decide which veterinarian they want to
choose.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask his question another way. If you went to a veterinarian
who was not on the list, you wouldn’t get any credit for the money you pre-paid to
Animal Services?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: You’d be out the cost of two procedures?
Mr. Speaker: Correct.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Does that answer --
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] I don’t want it come back and say, you know, our
Purchasing Department did not do what they were supposed to do [inaudible] bids like all
70
other services. If they’re not volunteers, they’re getting paid. They may charge a
reduced rate, but they are still be paid for services to Richmond County. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: My question is this. Before a pet is adopted, the person pays, correct,
for the sterilization?
Mr. Speaker: Not at the present time, no, ma’am.
Ms. Sims: Could that not, wouldn’t that be more cost effective than someone
having to follow it up every time? Could you not put that in there?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, ma’am. They couldn’t [inaudible] this price is only good
[inaudible]. I can attest that I had my animal, a male dog, done in ’96 and he was under
25 pounds and it was over $100.
Ms. Sims: So why can’t when the pet, when someone comes and says I want this
pet, here’s what I owe, send that pet to the vet, whichever vet they choose at that
moment, and say you pick up the dog from the vet, we’re sending the dog the vet? And
you know that it’s going to be sterilized because the dog’s not going to be picked up or
the cat’s not going to be picked up until it’s done. The person that’s checking everything
is going to have to go back and check. Would that person be able, instead of having to
check, can you transport the animal to the vet?
Mr. Speaker: Well, you’re going to run into the liability. If we don’t own the
animal [inaudible].
Ms. Sims: Okay. Well, can we --
Mr. Speaker: We can impound them if they violate any ordinance or [inaudible].
Ms. Sims: Can you own the pet until the pet is operated on?
Mr. Speaker: And I --
Ms. Sims: You see my point?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, ma’am, I see your point. But you know, what vet do they
want to take it to? We wouldn’t want -- I wouldn’t want them to transport it to North
Augusta. That would involve going through Risk Management, get out of town request,
you’re looking at wear and tear on your vehicles, City vehicles, and the time that your
employees are going to be transporting.
Ms. Sims: I was just trying to help you on the follow-up.
71
Mr. Speaker: I agonized over this and looked at all the --
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I can also add to this. This would add to our cost of our
handling the animal, also. However, in response to what you’re doing, we have
provisions in the animal services shelter for a surgical suite. So at some point down the
road, when that suite is, is completed, we’ll be able to perform the services on site
through the use of voluntary vets.
Mr. Speaker: This is not a permanent solution here. It’s months down the road.
We do have a surgical suite in there. We just try to stay in budget with the allocation for
the animal shelter. It’s just a shell. [inaudible] have some work done on it from grant
money. We’ve got some donations, and we’ll continue work on it this year. Hopefully
we’ll be completing it in the near future [inaudible] private citizens.
Mr. Mayor: The Committee Chairman here, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir, Mr. Mayor. Since [inaudible] is
up there, I want to thank him for his service and the things he do at the animal shelter. I
did not support this when it come out of committee. I need to know, I guess for my own
clarification, is how much advantage money-wise or what’s this going do for the shelter?
Now I hear you talking about the vet, you know, it’s a good price and the vet’s going,
going to do it at a good price and they going get paid, our fee like base is the same.
Besides that person tracking these, the animals that’s going. What initial savings or what,
what, what benefit it going be to the county to do this?
Mr. Speaker: The savings in the tracking it and sending an enforcement officer
out, Commissioner, on the problem cases that we do have to go out on. Postage. Letters,
paper, envelopes, following up, reminding people they’re supposed to have this done.
Actually, there’s not a dime to be made in adoptions.
Mr. Williams: I understand.
Mr. Speaker: Nobody is in the adopting pets. All of them are -- the only people
making money is Petland in the mall, and they’re getting $600-$800 for them.
Mr. Williams: I certainly understand.
Mr. Speaker: But I agree with you. That’s, that’s another one of my objectives, is
to do as much as we can with the money we have and to save as much money as we
possibly can.
Mr. Williams: The Administrator has mentioned about a surgical suite that’s
supposed to be placed in service and do. Every chance I get, I always remind the, the
Commission that we spend $1.5 million that we shouldn’t have spent on this facility
when we had lined up for, for State Corrections to come in and build this facility whose
done built courthouses and built jails, they done built all over the state of Georgia. We
72
still opt to go out and give it to a contractor. I can’t put any more burdens on the
taxpayers. I suffer a lot with this, this, this entity as far as dogs mating and having
puppies and cats having litters and not being -- but I think that’s going to drop our animal
adoption rate down if we mandatory pre-paid a fee where some kid may want a puppy
now for $21 and then you tell them it’s got to be $45 because if you don’t get this male
cat neutered now, you know, we, we, we, we, we won’t adopt it, you can’t adopt. I think
that’s going, you going to build your base more to have to put those animals to sleep
rather than to get them out of there. You in a catch-22, cause if you don’t have them
spayed and neutered, you going have more of them, but you going have more of them
because you not going to have the same number of people adopting and that just my
belief That just the way I see it. I’m, I’m, I’m not in favor but I’m not against either,
Randy, I support what you do out there, but we could have saved some money for the
taxpayers and I’m not going to sit there and put another burden on the taxpayers when we
could have done something different. We could have had that suite right now.
Mr. Speaker: And I don’t disagree with you, Mr. Commissioner, and I did put in
this agenda item that our adoption rate will probably suffer somewhat at the beginning.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to move that we approve the
recommendation from Animal Control.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve that’s been seconded. Is there further
discussion? Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I don’t have anything.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, I’m sorry, I thought you raised your hand. I’m sorry. Anyone
else want to speak? We have a motion to approve. All in favor of the motion to approve,
then please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 6-2-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us down to item number 47.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
47. Discuss/approve budgetary adjustment to Attorney’s budget. (Requested by
the Attorney)
73
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Shepard: I just wanted to make something, Mr. Mayor, members of the
Commission, expressed. I didn’t want weeks or months to go by and there be inadequate
documentation. I was thinking, Mr. Williams, when I was going through something the
other day, and I said I’d apply that same rule to myself if we would memorialize it
somehow. The lowest rate, the lowest partner rate is what we apply here when I’m here,
and I just wanted to make that clear that that rate would apply to preparation time, which
I call it the meetings rate, because that’s where I can see most of the time, but it would be
the preparation time, the time that’s not accounted for at either the litigation rate or the
contract rate, and I just wanted to make that expressed before a lot of time went back and
we all thought we knew what we meant and I told my partners that I would bring that
before you and just so that I was in, in sync with the Commission. That’s the only
reason. I felt I needed to do that. I’d ask you for a motion to approve those rates.
Ms. Beard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor --
Mr. Williams: Sir?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: In my long practice with my attorney, Mr. Shepard, I understand
what he’s saying, but those rates, and I hear those rates, but those rates are without
numbers.
Mr. Shepard: I can give them to you.
Mr. Mayor: They’re in the backup.
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Williams, I didn’t mean to cut you off. When I
submitted my application, I put in $125 as the meetings rate, $135 as the contracts rate,
and $165 as the litigation rate, and then the closings were $250 apiece, and you know, we
said we would take the same situation that Mr. Wall had in reference to supplying of the
secretarial services and the IT services and what not, as budgeted. But I just wanted it to
be expressed that the low partner rate and the low associate rate, which we’ll be having
an associate do some work, just as Jim had, that that would, that would apply to things
just like this meeting -- I don’t think the associate will ever be coming, but he might or
she might, and get that done, but I just wanted to make it expressed that that was our low
rate and it would apply to basically out-of-meeting time when we’re doing something like
in preparation for this meeting. There’s a lot of time that I spend, believe it or not, Mr.
74
Williams, and I’m sure you do believe it, that we, we work, try to work out things before
they come before this board.
Mr. Williams: And to the Attorney, I understand, Mr. Shepard, and when we
voted on the, the, the Attorney for this year and the hybrid situation and all the things, I
was certain that all of that, you know, had been worked out to, to whatever point it need
to be worked out. And now to clarify that as if it hadn’t been, and I’m not opposing. I
just, I just believe in putting everything on the table so --
Mr. Shepard: That’s exactly the same spirit I brought it to you. I discovered it
myself and I put it on the regular committee agenda for discussion last week and we
didn’t have a quorum, so it’s come up through the committees. Not trying to, you know,
hide anything. But I just caught it and I’d be fair to myself, just like I would be fair to
you. My firm, I should say.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. All in favor of that motion, please
vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. The next item is number 48.
The Clerk:
48. Discuss/approve expenditure from capital budget for continuation of
redecoration in the Clerk of Commission’s Office. (Requested by Commissioner
Marion Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had this item put on the agenda because
of, first of all from the media who have had this almost everywhere, I think. And I think
this is something that should have been considered when we done it in the beginning.
But I had this item sent to the agenda to ask the question, and I don’t know who
authorized and who, who, who found these monies or who done this, Mr. Mayor, but I
would like to know why did we not include those other two offices, the Clerk’s office and
the assistant clerks in there at the same time? It really just -- this was something we
could have avoided. This was something that did not have to be in the media, did not
have to be all over. It looks bad on one side and good on the other side. I just wanted to
know why was it done that way and, and, and if it didn’t come through this body, I mean,
how, how, how, how did we get to that point? How did we get like that? Somebody?
Anybody?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I can answer your question. Primarily we’re trying to
do this administratively. We can do it, we can cap costs by doing it that way, and I’ve
75
been in discussions with Ms. Bonner about doing the other side. In fact, she’s meeting
with the decorator tomorrow. But if we, we can do this administratively by keeping the
cost below $10,000, and that’s what we were doing.
Mr. Williams: So, so --
Mr. Mayor: Two separate projects.
Mr. Williams: So we don’t bid, we don’t bid those kind of things out?
Mr. Mayor: We do it as professional services. Just like when you hire an
engineer or an architect.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Mayor, I mean I just, I just thought that was really
handled kind of tacky, the way we done it.
Mr. Mayor: That’s your opinion. I disagree with that.
Mr. Williams: Well, that’s strictly my opinion. I mean I got it from the news
media. I got it in the street. I mean and I’m not the only one with, of an opinion, because
the media have had it out there as if it was, well, I’m going to leave that there, Mr.
Mayor.
Ms. Beard: Do we need to vote on that?
Mr. Williams: Yes, ma’am we need to vote on it.
Mr. Mayor: Well, you can done one, you can do one of two things. You can let
us continue the decoration administratively, which is what we had intended to do, or you
can vote today to -- they don’t have any costs, so I don’t now, you know, what you want
to approve. But we can do it administratively for less than $10,000.
Mr. Williams: How much is the other one cost us?
Mr. Mayor: It was over $9,000 but less than $10,000.
Mr. Williams: Over $9,000 but less than $10,000. So --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I don’t have the exact figure here with me. I’d have
brought it if I’d known you were going to ask the question.
Mr. Williams: Well --
Ms. Beard: I think as long as she has a choice of what she wants, that that would
be the thing. Would that be okay with you?
76
Mr. Williams: Well, I, now I need to know, I need to know a figure value, cause I
really don’t know what all was done beside the carpet in the Mayor’s office. I mean
everybody, that’s, that’s seen, that’s visible. But what else was done in the office? I
mean --
Mr. Mayor: The wall covering and the carpet.
Mr. Williams:
Okay, you did wall covering and carpet. See, I was, I didn’t get a
briefing on what was being done and how many offices been done and how much we
But whoever authorized the $10,000, if it came from the Administrator, then
spent.
we need to authorize up to that amount as well on the, in the Clerk’s office, and I
make that in the form of a motion.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Williams: And I got a second to my right.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, are we utilizing funds for the renovation, renovation
funds that were set aside from SPLOST for this building to accomplish these?
Mr. Mayor: I believe it’s coming out the capital, regular capital.
Mr. Kolb: Capital outlay.
Mr. Cheek: Well, why aren’t we using the renovation funds that were set aside
instead of -- I mean that’s what it’s there for, I would think. I know it’s administrative
choice and I, quite frankly, expenditures under $10,000, I trust you guys to go ahead and
make that decision without --
Mr. Kolb: Sure. We can, we’ll -- we can charge it to SPLOST. I’m trying to
conserve those funds for major types of expenditures that need, that impact the building,
but we can use those funds.
Mr. Cheek: One account or another. I’m just wondering if we were using that
account and drawing it down. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, and we got one item here, and that’s
[inaudible] Clerk of Commission office, but Commissioner Cheek brought something to
my attention. Utilizing the funds up to $10,000, we realize we gave the Administrator
some, some leeway in that. But there are some of those things, and one of them was in
this, this, this agenda item today, and I don’t know whether that will be Commissioner
Mays, germane, to what we are talking about here. But some of those authorities that
77
affect this Commission ought to at least come before this Commission. I don’t know
what [inaudible] and where we at with that, but some of those things that was [inaudible]
we talked about in this [inaudible] was moved out of the Commission who sets the
policy, and it comes up and it’s out of there. We ought to at least have the, the courtesy
to at least know what and when that’s going to be taking place. So you know, that --
Mr. Mayor: I assure you, Mr. Williams, that the present policy was followed in
the work that was done in that office and will continue to be followed with any other
work that is done in that office. It will be done in accordance with existing policy of this
government.
Mr. Williams: But every office is [inaudible], Mr. Mayor, I don’t mean every
office but on that end of the hall, really consolidated with two offices, really. You go to
the right or to the left. And, and, and for that to be done on one side really just looked
tacky, and that my personal opinion, so I just, I just think we going to get it corrected
now. We should have done that as a unified team. We always talking about the team
players and how we need to work together. That had not been demonstrated. So.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion on the floor. All in favor of the motion
then please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Speaker: What was the motion?
Mr. Mayor: The motion was to --
The Clerk: To approve the expenditure.
Mr. Mayor: -- approve the expenditure. For the Clerk’s office.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item on the agenda is item number 51.
The Clerk:
51. Discuss Vassar Drive Project (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams)
Mr. Williams: Resembles me again, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. I just wanted to ask a few questions, and I see Ms.
Smith is out here. On the 11 o’clock news last night for those who may have not seen it,
TV-12 called about some abandoned properties and some houses I’ve been dealing with
on Chestnut Street. And that just a part of the stuff I deal with. But when I, when I got
78
the information on Vassar Drive, I was concerned, Ms. Smith, if you in the building --
can I call Ms. Smith, Mr. Mayor? I don’t want to look over you this time.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to question Ms. Smith?
Mr. Williams: Yes, ma’am. Yes, sir. Whatever.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith? Come to the podium, please. Go ahead, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Ms. Smith, on, on Vassar Drive, is this the City’s right-of-way or
is this private property or what, what, what is this?
Ms. Smith: Part of the work is being performed on property where the City has
acquired easements and on the other two properties it is currently private property and we
will have to acquire easements in order to do the work on those properties.
Mr. Williams: So that means that some of it is the City’s property but some of it
is private property? Cause we have not acquired those easements; right?
Ms. Smith: We, we haven’t acquired those easements yet. Well, all of it, all of it
was private and we went in to do some work adjacent to the road. In order for us to
address the work adjacent to the road, we needed to acquire some additional easements
on private property. When the work for last week was approved, it extended the limits of
the project beyond what we had previously acquired right-of-way for. So we have to go
back -- excuse me, acquire easements for. So we have to go back to two property owners
to try and acquire easements on their property.
Mr. Williams: Well, and, and, and what raised my attention was that I’ve got
private -- I’ve got City’s properties, right-of-ways, that’s been neglected for 200 years,
and that’s no exaggeration. As long as this City’s been here, there have never been any
improvements. And now, you know, and I wasn’t here at this meeting when that
happened. So on Wednesday night I had to leave. Believe it or not I had to be at another
location and this was done after that. But I was upset when I heard about this, that we
had private property we was going on to spend $100,000. Maybe I’m not correct in my
figure, it may have been less than that. Is that price, is that --
Ms. Smith: We were approved to utilize up to $100,000 on the -- for the work to t
be done.
Mr. Williams: Well, and I say again, last night I was approached from the news
media about, about the homes, the detriment in that community, how bad things are run
down and torn up and then I got drainage problems where people can’t stand a ten minute
rain without water coming up on their porch over off of Tubman Home Road. And we,
we, we just made an agreement, we just had something approved today to try to get a
study done. My last question, Ms. Smith, about this, was the engineering work, was any
of this work bidded out for, for any of this on Vassar Drive?
79
Ms. Smith: The original work or the change order work?
Mr. Williams: Any, any.
Ms. Smith: The original work was bid out and the additional work was added on
to the project as a change order. But that separate work was not bid.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I just wanted to bring that to the Commission’s mind, to
remember that we spending money to go on private property when we got right-of-ways
that people have been suffering and dealing with, several communities around this town,
and we had not got aggressive enough to address those issues. And all of them not in
District 2. Ms. Beard, you got some of them down in east Augusta down there, as well,
that have not been even looked at at any time. But I do speak for the people in District 2.
We have not been addressed with those issues.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, in light of the upcoming work session for SPLOST and
the most assured debated that will occur over different projects, I would like to do, not
duplicate the work session, but encourage each Commissioner to review their District for
specific drainage and infrastructure needs and come to the table with a list of those
particular projects in order for us to formulate a plan and perhaps make sure that as the
case has been, that District 2 doesn’t go neglected and other areas that have gone without
for many years don’t go neglected again, that they get a chance to have a place at the
head of or near the head of the line to correct some of these major problems. Public
Works will be working from the list they have. We’re going to have to work together for
emergent needs, compared to the priority list they have, plus the things we’d like to
accomplish. But if we come to the table without the list, without the things our
constituents are bringing to us and bring it, bring it in after the fact, then we’re going to
be doing double work, and so I just encourage everybody. I’m preparing my list and I
hope everybody else will prepare their list where we can all put our heads together and
try to look at what we’re going to be able to do with that $80 million worth of SPLOST
money, that we’ll get $90 million worth of SPLOST money that we’re going to get to
correct some of the problems in this City.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I think a point of clarification, and I know Ms. Smith
indicated that there’s two pieces of property that she said needs to be easements granted
on, and I think we were under the impression that you had easements on four piece up
there now, not just two, but there’s already easements on the additional property that you
needed that was obtained about two weeks ago.
Ms. Smith: It was just approved two weeks ago. So --
80
Mr. Grantham: I’m saying it was obtained shortly thereafter from what I
understand.
Ms. Smith: Okay. I guess [inaudible] you have more information from staff than
Eric and I have, so --
Mr. Grantham: Okay. No, it was not from staff, it was from the people who
called to thank us for getting it done and said that they had granted those easements.
Ms. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Grantham: So I don’t want you to think that we are off on private property
without permission, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Williams, and I feel like, you know, that may
have been where we were going, and I feel like the information that Mr. Williams was
looking for, by putting this on, I hope that clarified that part issue. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was just going to ask Ms. Smith, in the
way of clarification, I think, that after the Masters we approved $1.8 million for the
portion from Berckman Road to Lake Olmstead on Raes Creek, and that project was to be
after the Masters and that was part of the bid process. To go through there, we don’t own
that property, do we, so we have to get temporary construction easements to go in there
and do that, don’t we?
Ms. Smith: We have acquired right-of-way along Raes Creek for those areas that
the county is going to be investing funds for improvements.
Mr. Boyles: So when we deal with creeks, we have to work on the creeks, your
department has to work on the creeks, and we get, we get the construction easements to
do that, so to get that situation rectified, we don’t have to -- it’s still considered, it may be
private property but we’ve got construction easements to go in there and do that?
Ms. Smith: On Raes Creek we have right-of-way.
Mr. Boyles: Right-of-way, okay, thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I’ve got to ask. Do we have right-of-way along Amen Corner? And
I guess since it was from an engineering standpoint brought up from Berckman Road to
Lake Olmstead, how are we going to handle the additional flood capacity through that
historic area without interrupting the existing layout? Sounds like box culverts and
tunnels to me.
81
Ms. Smith: We do not have easements of any type across the Augusta National
property. We have about 50 feet of temporary construction easement that they’re going
to be working with us to provide support for the work to be done in that area. But we
don’t, we don’t have any easements in that area, I mean any right-of-way or easements in
the area, the vicinity of the Amen Corner.
Mr. Cheek: I’m getting away from --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, can you answer that question?
Mr. Doug Cheek: The Utilities Depart owns an easement through Amen Corner.
We’ve got a [inaudible] sewer line [inaudible] Amen Corner.
Mr. Cheek: Is there, and this is something we brought up. When we do
Berckman Road to the property at the Augusta National, we will be essentially pushing a
problem downstream. Has there been any long-term discussion about secondary
underground conveyances that would keep from disturbing that geographic area to allow
the additional water to go through without disrupting and destroying those historic sites?
Ms. Smith: Are you asking about the impacts to the work that we are going to be
doing this year?
Mr. Cheek: I’m just talking about long-term, because you know, if we move --
essentially what we’ve done in Raes Creek progressively is move the problem
downstream, downstream and downstream. What I don’t want to see have happen is
when we do the work below Berckman Road to the Augusta National that the water line I
saw, I guess May or [inaudible] was 17 feet deep there just before it went onto the
property, that we are not liable for the additional water flow that we put through those
areas and the millions of dollars it will cost to restore them if our problems were deferred
to their property.
Ms. Smith: The only long-term studies or broad range studies that have been
done on that area or throughout the county of late is the work that is being done by the
Corps of Engineers with the flood control feasibility study. But they’re not proposing
any specific work to be done in that particular portion of the creek.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Ms. Smith: At the time.
Mr. Mayor: Our agenda item concerns the Vassar Drive project, so let’s try to
limit our discussion to Vassar Drive. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. If we through playing golf, can we get back
on Vassar a minute? Ms. Smith, are you telling me that we needed to go through that
property to carry a project through on Vassar Drive? I mean cause I just heard that we
82
need to acquire the right-of-ways. And if that’s the case, I understand. But do, do we
have a project going through there? Is that what you’re telling me? Because I want to
apologize to everybody, including yourself, for, for, for even addressing this if that’s the
case. Yes or no, Ms. Smith, you know [inaudible] just -- just yes or no.
Ms. Smith: Okay. For the sake of safety, can you repeat the question?
Mr. Williams: Are you saying to me that we’ve got a project that we need to
acquire the right-of-way to go through those properties at Vassar Drive, the one we
talking about, we done left Amen Corner now. We, we, we, we through praying. We
want to know, yes or no, is there a project going through that that you, that the City’s
doing that we’ve had to address that we need to acquire those right-of-way? Just forget
it, Ms. Smith. If it’s taking that long to answer, I know the answer yes. So let’s go on,
Mr. Mayor. It’s already been done, but I just wanted clarification. I mean I get tired.
Mr. Mayor: Perhaps you can call her tomorrow and y’all can get the answer to
that. We don’t need any action on that, you don’t want the Commission to rescind what
it did last time, do you?
Mr. Williams: No, sir. I’m just bringing it to the attention. I got a lot of issues
that don’t get addressed and then we addressing issues like those.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s move along then to item number -- I tell you what,
Mr. Cosnahan has waited patiently. If we can jump ahead to item 55. I know J.T. has got
supper waiting for him.
The Clerk:
55. Motion to approve the proposed 2004 Internal Audit Work Schedule.
(Approved by the Pension and Audit Committee February 12, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: J.T.?
Mr. Cosnahan: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: There’s a copy of it in the backup.
Mr. Cosnahan: Everyone has the copy, and I need to point out one [inaudible]
under item 10, which is for special projects. We left of the Administrator. I apologize.
We left him out. Where it says perform audit service as requested by the Mayor, it
should also be included in there the Administrator.
Mr. Mayor: Well, that’s not, that’s not the way I presented it to you, Mr.
Cosnahan. What I said in the committee meeting was, because you didn’t have the
Mayor and Commission there, was that under the Act that created this government the
internal auditor works for the Mayor and the Commission. He doesn’t work for the
83
Administrator or the Attorney or anybody else. And so if you’re going to have other
projects, perform audits and services as requested by the Mayor and the Commission,
then if the staff wants to develop a protocol so that they can be involved in requesting
these things through the Mayor and Commission, that’s what ought to be done.
Mr. Cosnahan: The reason that we would have the Administrator in there would
be for special things that come up and needs to be acted on in a hurry, before a meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Well, that’s why I say you, if you develop a protocol then you’ve
addressed those instances where you need something done in a hurry. You follow the
protocol, get it done. Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: I missed something, Mr. Mayor, you might need to repeat what
you just said, cause I missed something.
Mr. Mayor: Let Mr. Cosnahan finish and then we’ll [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
Mr. Cosnahan: Okay, the proposal for the schedule -- of course 1 through 9 is the
regular type work [inaudible]. We have met with Mr. Kolb and with Mr. Persaud to
review these, receive their input, and we met with the Pension & Audit Committee last
Thursday and reviewed this with them. Item number 10 is what we’re talking about with
the Mayor, and from time to time there are special projects that come up that needs
immediate attention, that can’t wait until the next Finance Committee meeting or the next
Commission meeting. What we’re suggesting here is that the individual that would be
authorized to call us about these things would be the Mayor, any Commissioner, of
course, the Administrator or the Attorney, to work on a special type project that would be
needing attention before the regular type meeting comes up again. And we have those
from time to time.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, can I ask a question?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Cosnahan, can you give me a example of something that
would come up that wouldn’t be able to wait until the next committee meeting or
something where the --
Mr. Cosnahan : Yes, sir. Last year, as an example, with the Daniel Field [sic]
motel closed, the axe was dropped like on a Friday afternoon, and then we were asked to
go out and look and check and be sure that everything was secure and to be sure that all
the cash was there that was supposed to be there and so forth. And actually, we took
videos out to be sure that none of the inventory was being taken, as far as the food and
things were concerned, and also that, that even down to the TVs and so forth.
84
Mr. Shepard: Bush Field motel?
Mr. Cosnahan: Bush Field motel. Yeah, that at the airport. Thank you, Mr.
Shepard. They’re rare, when they do come up.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can [inaudible] what you’re saying, and I think
that the direction from the Mayor and this Commission still needs to govern and to, to be,
Mr. Cosnahan needs to be responsible to those rare instances and, and, and, and I don’t
think there may be another one besides that one that’s, that’s out there, but that just my
thinking out loud, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cosnahan: Would you like for me to give you another example? For
example, we had a defalcation over at the tag office. It came up. It was determined that
there was something that was not proper over there. We went right in.
Mr. Williams: I don’t think, I don’t think, Mr. Cosnahan, that that would qualify
because of the length of time that went on and when we found out. Had some things
been in place prior to that, the history or the time that it went on, wouldn’t have went on
there long. So I don’t think that one qualified. Just another one of my personal opinions.
So.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you and Ms. Sims has a little confusion over what I
was trying to explain.
Mr. Williams: All right.
Mr. Mayor: The law that created, the state statute that created this government
provides that the internal auditor is an employee of the Mayor and Commission. The
person works at our direction. That’s one reason today you’re being presented with this
work plan for the year. You’ve approving what they’re going to do for this year. But
there will be things that will come up from time to time during the year that will need to
be addressed. But from a protocol standpoint, it’s my contention that the internal auditor
should get that direction for those special projects from the Mayor and the Commission.
Now there may be an emergency situation. Let’s say some employee is arrested this
afternoon for mishandling cash in their office. So we need to send the auditor in there
right away. Well, there should be a protocol developed so that if the Administrator needs
to do that, that there’s a proper notification of the Mayor or the Mayor Pro Tem or the
Finance Chairman or something, and then that can subsequently be reported to the
committee, the appropriate committee next time the committee meets. But it’s just a
matter of getting that authorization in a timely manner when it’s needed for those out-of-
the-ordinary situations. If the internal auditor is going to be the check and balance of the
administration for the Mayor and the Commission, then I think that the administration
needs to come through the Mayor and the Commission to get access to the internal
auditor. That’s, that’s that arm’s length, I think. If that clarifies it a little bit. And that’s
the clarity in the language I was seeing down here for line 10.
85
Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor of the
motion, please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Cosnahan: Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, J.T. Item number 53.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
53. Authorize Public Works and Engineering to request GODT consider
reallocation of construction funds for the Windsor Spring Road Phase V project
(CPB# 323-04-299823786) to right of way for the Windsor Spring Road Phase IV
(CPB# 323-04-2998823766). (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Willie Mays)
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mays: Let me, let me, let me say this. [inaudible] had a chance to talk to the
chairman of that committee. This was something that came up during the course of
discussing, during the Committee, and one of the reasons why we opted to go ahead and
bring it to the Commission as a friendly motion and of getting this on. I wanted to pull it
off and discuss is because I think that at some point it does need to be said publicly that
there is something positive going on in a change of direction that will move us in any
way of getting Windsor Spring Road from a stagnant situation to getting it moving. This
is very important to sales tax program, it’s very important to those cluster of [inaudible],
five of them in fact, that run upon this area, and are moving this, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10, and
I’ve been concerned for some time that, that with 4 and 5, that with the costs have that
risen in there and those numbers, and I’m going to vote for the motion, but I’m going to
ask the maker of that motion to do one other friendly thing. That while we are
authorizing Public Works to do this, that we also re-examine those allocation numbers
that have just, quite frankly, gone out of the roof. Now that could be because of time, it
could be because of some other things, but those numbers just need to be checked, and I
86
said this jokingly a few months ago. You go from $1 million to $2 million. You can go
from $8 million to $9 million. But when you jump from $2-3 million to $9 million, we
need to know what’s causing that to happen. Because this is not the first project, it will
not be the last project. So therefore, I applaud the Director in terms of moving this and
the conversation that she’s had with DOT. But I do think this one needs to get [inaudible]
before anybody changes their mind, because it’s important that -- you can’t get to Phase
V from Willis Foreman up to Hephzibah -- unless you end up doing Phase IV. And right
now, Phase IV has been at a standstill, and I think that needs to get done. We’re on the
verge of talking about what we are going to put on the sales tax list, and if you go
[inaudible] without having some clear direction publicly said about where Windsor
Spring Road is going, those of us who will have to represent that area and everybody up
here will [inaudible] to a point the question where is Windsor Spring Road going? And
what’s going to happen there with those two phases, IV and V? So I think this gives a
clearer direction on IV and I’d like to see that amendment put in to at least we have a
monitoring of those numbers and that this doesn’t stop this process from applying, but I
think somewhere in there we need to relook at what those number are, even going to cost
us in Phase IV. I’m still optimistic, I think we can get a savings out of those numbers. I
think that they are probably very liberal in terms of where they are, but I think that needs
to be done. We don’t need to just move on, we need to move on but at the same time we
need to keep a watch on where those numbers are for acquisition, particularly.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the motion as requested by
Commissioner Mays? None is heard, so the motion will stand as amended. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I want to say this about Phase V. As the economic
engine that Diamond Lakes is to entire south of Augusta, it’s only beginning to realize its
potential, and when in the next round of SPLOST we complete Phase II of the
community center, which will be the envy of the southeast, we will see thousands upon
thousands of visitors to that area, which will stimulate the economy in a way never before
seen in that area. This is an essential project that we need to expedite with all possible
speed and deliberation. I trust staff is looking at every way to do that. I do thank Mayor
Pro Tem Mays for brining this forward in my absence. This is essential to the economic
health, growth, and vitality of the Tobacco Road corridor and will bring hundreds of jobs
that are desperately needed in that area, and it all hinges upon completion of Windsor
Spring Road, which will allow us to have those 25,000 people come to our amphitheater
when we build it at Diamond Lakes.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there any further discussion on the motion? All in favor
of the motion then please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Cheek: Just a commercial advertisement.
Motion carries 10-0.
87
Mr. Mayor
: I’ve been informed by the Attorney that the two items that were on
. If we could have a motion
the table are now ready to be brought forward for discussion
to remove from the table items 18 and 42, then we can move forward with that. Do
we have a motion?
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Mayor: And a second?
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if you’ll clear the board. All in favor of bringing
items 18 and 42 off the table, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The Attorney will -- Madame Clerk, we’ll take up item 18 first. If
you will read the caption just to refresh our memory.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
The Clerk:
18. Motion to authorize payment for employees who did not report to work on
January 26-27 due to the ice storm and comp time for employees who reported to
work those days. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 11, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: All right. Did we not have a motion already on the floor on this one?
Did we have one that we tabled? I think the one was --
The Clerk: For administrative leave. No, the motion was for them to come back
with a motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Okay. Good. I just wanted to get everybody back up to
where we were. All right. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. This is the
motion that was requested and result of the input of Human Resources Director, Ms.
Flournoy and myself, and I think it addresses in a fairly straight-forward fashion the
concepts of how the administrative leave will be applied. I can read it out into the record
or we can just attach the Clerk’s copy. That’s the proposed motion.
Ms. Speaker: Read it.
88
Mr. Shepard: I’ll read it. She says read it, so [inaudible]. And it says that
all employees regularly scheduled to work on January 27, 2004, will be compensated
for the day as if they reported to work. Employees that physically reported to work
on January 27, 2004, will receive one day of administrative leave with pay. The
department director will consider the employee’s request to take their
administrative leave on a first request basis. The decision to allow the employee to
take this day will be based on the scheduling needs of the department.
Mr. Mayor: Does anybody need any clarification of that? Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I move that we accept.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Mr. Mays,
does this give the clarity you were seeking?
Mr. Mays: The answer is mine.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right.
Mr. Mays: Appreciate y’all doing that.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll -- I tell you, the table has been a pretty good place today to get
things done.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: All right. All in favor of this motion then please vote in the
affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next it item number 42. And if you’ll read that caption again,
Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
42. Consider salary increase for the Board of Elections Executive Director (No
recommendation from Administrative Services Committee)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you had some additional information?
Mr. Shepard: I did, and I asked the Board of Elections to furnish me with the
enabling legislation and they did, and in Section 12 of the enabling legislation which set
89
up, for the information, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, it says the
compensation of the Executive Director, clerical assistants and other employees of the
board shall be such as may be fixed by the governing authority. And I just wanted that to
be on the, on the record because that is the enabling statute. There had been some
material furnished in the way of a cover letter that stated that the board below could do
that, but the County is the governing authority, so I didn’t want there to be a sense of two
conflicting sources, and during the tabling of the motion I had this sent up, and that is,
that is within the prerogative of this body.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I’m in favor of whatever the body wants to
do here. I just want to clear up about one point, is the year 2002, July, was the, was the
last raise, if I’m reading this right. Me. Pelaez, is that correct? Cause I was told that they
hadn’t had a raise in five years, seven years, and, and, and, and if 2002 is the last increase
or raise that was gotten, Ms. Pelaez is that correct?
Ms. Pelaez: That is correct. 2002 was COLA and longevity increase.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I just want, want to clarify that. It had not been seven years
that we was first told. I know Heidi won’t be here much after today, and so the next
person will probably get it right. I wanted to bring that to the table.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s go to Mr. Smith and then Ms. Beard. Mr. Smith, you
had a question?
Mr. Smith: Yes. I was going to say that in this particular person we have a real
dedicated person that’s been there a long time, and during election years is under a lot of
pressure and she’s held it well, and I think she’s a real true professional, and I make a
motion that it’s approved.
Mr. Mayor: To approve the increase to $70,000? Okay, is there a second.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Ms. Beard: I had a second.
Mr. Mayor: Right. We’re coming to you next. Okay. We do have a second to
the motion. Okay, now, Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I wanted to know if we have the funds to support this raise.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, can you answer that?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, this would have to come out
of contingency.
90
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: In my opinion, this is a fairly large raise. Could we consider
something other than what was recommended?
Mr. Mayor: You certainly have that option.
Ms. Beard: I mean -- Mr. Persaud, what type percent is this that we’re looking at?
Mr. Persaud: About 20%. Almost 20%. Yeah.
Ms. Beard: Well, I personally think that is -- I don’t know, I’ll leave this to
someone else. But it’s a bit much to me.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I know we had discussed this and we
heard the Board of Elections board come and make their presentation and we have
received the information that Mr. Hankerson requested in our earlier part of the meeting.
It does indicate that, that Ms. Bailey’s increase has only been in the form of COLA in the
period of time that we’ve talked about. I’m going to ask the maker of the motion to
amend this motion to where she receives of pay of $68,000. I know that’s not a great
deal of deduction from the standpoint of what was requested, but I think this would keep
that particular position in line with what we had heard as far as the history of how this
developed, and I would ask, I would ask this board to approve that, please.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is that a substitute motion, then, that raise for $68,000?
Mr. Grantham: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. That’s been seconded. Let’s see, Ms. Sims had her hand up.
Ms. Sims: That was the motion I was going to make.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. And then we’ll go to Mr. Cheek and Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just briefly, we’ve seen a lot of changes in
our, in the way our election structure is run as far as electronics and so forth. The, one of
the agencies that I’ve been most proud of in this City is our Board of Elections, and their
customer-oriented approach to things, their professional attitudes, the way they conduct
themselves, and the way they have modernized the election process to assure the system
works, and it works better every year. We’ve got a great Director and I think she’s
91
deserving of compensation that demonstrates that if you do work hard you can, in fact,
get ahead, and this is that case.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had the opportunity for years and years to
work as a co-department head with Lynn Bailey, and so I’m not talking about Lynn
Bailey. But we made a commitment back in November when our Attorney, who was our
Finance Chairman at that time, that we would be very vigilant of our contingency fund,
and that we would look at all employees, what I think we call the executive pay scale,
that we would look at the mid-year budget review. And it just kind of concerns me that
we would go this early into the year starting into the, into the contingency fund. Because
I’m afraid if we open that door, we’re going to not be able to close it. And I had the same
feelings back through some enterprise funds back with the airport. When that raise
request came in back, I guess, what, October and November, back there. Again, I don’t
know that we would ever have -- she’s one of our outstanding employees and there’s no
doubt about that, but I just have some reservations about it coming out of the contingency
fund. And I’ll let that conclude my comments.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I would like to say that I think this person is doing an excellent job,
too. But when we look at all the employees when it comes up, are we going to give them
20%, too? I think we’re going to have to stop making this type difference. We’re going
to have to come up with something that can be used in 98%, you know, of the situations
here. I just personally agree with Tommy, I think we really need to think about this.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask a procedural question, if I may. If this increase is
approved today, will that increase also benefit from the 2% cost-of-living increase that
the employees are getting later this year?
Mr. Speaker: 3%.
Mr. Mayor: Will it be this increase and then 2% later this year? 3%? I’m sorry,
3%.
Mr. Kolb: It’s 3%, yes. So whatever your salary is --
Mr. Mayor: So $68,000 or $70,000 today plus, in a few months, 3% on top of
that?
Mr. Kolb: Correct.
92
Mr. Mayor: On top of that.
Mr. Kolb: Correct, whatever your salary is as of that pay period.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard, I’ll be with you in just one moment. I just, I’d just like to
add that we have been struggling with a reclassification for months, over a year, and we
have a number of deserving employees who need to have their salaries adjusted. And as
a matter of policy for this year, we have deferred a review of those for the
implementation until later this year, with the intention, funding permitting, that we will
address all of these employees. And we’ve had three employees in here today, got the
Board of Elections, had the soil sediment person, and the D.A.’s investigator was on but
it was pulled off the agenda, and you know, if we keep going at this rate, we’re not going
to need a reclassification cause we’ll address everybody before we get to summertime.
But we made a tough decision to hold off on these. We’re getting close to the deadline to
act on these, and I would just encourage the Commission just to stand fast and let’s treat
all of these people the same. They are all good people, they’re all hard working people,
they are all deserving people. But it’s an injustice to the employees we don’t deal with to
deal with one and two employees at a time when they come before this Commission.
And I would encourage you to act in a spirit of fairness, and let’s try to treat al of our
employees, all of our hard working employees, let’s treat them all the same. Let’s show
them all that same respect.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor, over the years [inaudible] number of employees working
for me, none of them ever got the same amount of money. We didn’t, we didn’t go
across the board and say we’re giving everybody 20% or 10%. But people that really go
all out, and above and beyond, is the people that we always give the largest raises to.
And I don’t think that we need to have to say that if we give her 10% or 18% or whatever
it might be, that that needs to be done across the board. I just think the quality of work
and the amount of work that they do is certainly to be considered. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I disagree. I guess that’s because I worked in a situation where it was
always across the board. And I never knew anything else. And I feel when people don’t
do their jobs, they need to be released. Otherwise, it should be across the board.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a substitute motion that we --
93
Mr. Mayor: We already have two motions on the floor.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I’m sorry, I’m sorry. I was only aware of the motion that --
Mr. Mayor: The substitute motion is for an increase to $68,000. The original
motion is an increase to $70,000. We can go ahead and vote on the substitute motion and
then that would --
Mr. Williams: Yeah, yeah.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: I’d like to -- call the question, like to go ahead and vote cause I’d
like to make a substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see if there is any further discussion. I don’t believe there is.
Surely the Mayor Pro Tem wants to speak.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I mentioned this when we were talking Monday morning
in discussion. And one of the things I think that the Commission is going to have to do,
whether it deals with, with either motion that’s on the floor, I think we’re going to have
to decide, and I have no problem say if we, if we deal with waiting on the reclassification.
But I think when the reclassification period does come up, the Commission, and I’m
going to echo something that Commissioner Smith just said, I think that when the
reclassification period comes up, we’re going to have to make a decision that because the
list is long, it doesn’t mean that everybody on it may get addressed. I think we are going
to have to make a painful decision to a point that what you can do money-wise you’re
going to have to determine some value within a department and within this government.
Now I think you’ve got 2700 valued people. But I think if you’re not able to financially
reclassify everybody that’s on the list, we’ll have to decide within that list that if it’s a
third of it you can do, half of it you can do, 10% of it that you can do. We need to do that
and strive towards trying to do the other necessary things as we move into the course of
the year. Where I see the drawback in where we’re going with this is that we’re drifting
from reclassification period to waiting on the budget. And then we go through the budget
and we wait to delay reclassification. Then we get to reclassification and then we wait on
the budget. Then we get to the budget and we wait to the reclassification. Now for those
of you that are new, this is a merry-go-round that’s been spinning in some cases two to
three years.
Mr. Cheek: Amen, brother.
Mr. Mays: At some point now, and if we going to hold that line tonight, I, I, I
agree my Finance Chairman has made a key point, but I do think, if, if I go that road, I’m
going to have to do something that I lost on. Now when we first did these
reclassifications, I voted in favor and I lost on that round. I don’t win everything down
94
here, in spite of what’s printed sometimes. I lose, too. The point being at some point
we’ve got to go in and carve out some of those and say okay, fine, who is running this
area that we can ill afford to lose? Who is going to be here regardless and make those
hard core decisions and say okay, fine, we’re going to try to do everybody if we can, but
we’re going to have to look in here and say if this person leaves tomorrow, can this
department function the same way and can I replace he or she at the same level where
they are, or am I going to have to go up 20% to find somebody that’s good enough to do
that job if they walk in and do it? I think we’re going to have to make that kind of hard
core decision, if we’re going to wait until June to deal with that and do it, but I can
predict right now if we got another tight budget, we ain’t going to be able to do this
whole list. And I think it’s unfair to have some folk sitting around waiting on something
to be handed just simply because they technically fall in the grounds of being reclassified.
Some point in there you’re going to have to go, as Jimmy said, and get some of the folk
out and say this is what we’re going to have to do. So I can respect us delaying, but I do
think we are going to have to reach that point, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners where if
this summer, I don’t think we can start getting past and going into a fourth season of
waiting to deal with that round to do it. It just, it just will not work in some cases of
where that’s to be done. So I don’t know what the time frame is. I would like to ask
[inaudible] and I’m through, as to whether, if this were June or May, whatever date we’re
waiting on, what, what numbers would we be giving unless the Commission adjusted
something?
Ms. Pelaez: What numbers [inaudible] in terms of [inaudible] salary?
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] going to fall on the reclassification, because we were, we
were saying that before [inaudible] decision and it was taken out of their budget and there
was some concern about us trying to get it done [inaudible], for time being [inaudible]
reclassification, and maybe that needs to be clear. But I need to know what would it have
been, let’s just say, if we rolled the calendar forward, it’s now June 1, and this is the first
one on the list, what would it be?
Ms. Pelaez: It would remain as is, because in accordance with the reclassification
this position was in the correct salary range.
Mr. Mays: So it would have to be a policy decision to raise that salary in there
since, as the Attorney said, the governing body controls where the salary will go?
Ms. Pelaez: That is correct.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, may I just make another comment?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
95
Mr. Boyles: Since David Persaud is here, maybe we could look at, in March
maybe we could move forward our time table to get some sort of quarterly budget review,
see where we stand, and make a decision. As Mr. Mays has said very eloquently, it has
been like a dog chasing his tail, I suppose. We’ve gone from budget to reclassification
back to budget and whatever, and we did get hit with some, some things last July, Mr.
Mays, that we didn’t know about, you know, and that set us back. I don’t recall the exact
amount of the executive salary scale that was given to us, George. You might recall the
end numbers. I don’t. I don’t have that kind of recall. But if we could look at those and
if we feel like our employees are behind the schedule, behind the eight bal -- I met with
some folks today, that’s why I was late getting into Chambers. I met with some other
folks who are concerned about the same thing. And that may have been addressed earlier
with what Mr. Mays wanted to do with having the Attorney and Ms. Pelaez do something
different on our, how we keep the people that we already have on board. So I just
wonder if we could maybe -- how much would it [inaudible] if we waited and got a
quarterly review if that’s possible, David. It may be too soon in the year. I don’t know.
And go ahead and do something towards implementing this thing and make the necessary
-- we’d have to make the necessary budget cuts to do that. And I don’t know how else
we can do it because all of us know we’re going to be looking at a situation with another
industrial opportunity from the Development Authority that’s going to hit us about July
again this year, and if we need to go ahead and implement this and make the necessary
budget cuts, then I have no problem with that. I would like to see that done. Instead of
waiting for a mid-year review, let’s just do a quarterly review. [inaudible] Mr. Persaud to
see whether he might be able to, if that’s possible.
Mr. Mayor: We’re kind of straying from one employee’s salary, but I’ll permit
Mr. Persaud to answer that question for you.
Mr. Boyles: I’m sorry, sir, I didn’t hear.
Mr. Mayor: I say we’re straying. The agenda item is one individual employee’s
salary, and we’re kind of straying from that but I’ll allow --
Mr. Boyles: I think it all ties together.
Mr. Mayor: I’ll allow Mr. Persaud to answer that question. Go ahead, David.
Mr. Persaud: I don’t want to stand here and allow you to be too optimistic. The
funding policy that followed the adoption of the current year’s budget to fund the 3%
COLA requires salary savings from vacant positions and lapsed salaries to the extent of
$4 million. [inaudible] keep the budget in balance, you need to derive $4 million from
savings. Just to keep your budget in balance. At this point in time, it’s too early to
address savings from the first quarter report. I just want to share that with you.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question on the substitute motion.
96
Mr. Mayor: I think Ms. Beard had her hand up. Let me take that and we’ll go
ahead and vote.
Ms. Beard: I, I did not see a recommendation from Mr. Persaud in reference to
this, and I would like to know his recommendation.
Mr. Persaud: Recognizing what I just stated, the fact that you cannot use salary
savings because you’ll be spending it twice, the only funding source is to dip into the
general fund contingency.
Ms. Beard: You do not recommend that, do you?
Mr. Persaud: It’s very early in the fiscal year, and I’m afraid if you start
establishing precedents, you’ll see a lot more coming up and you will have to make some
very hard decisions.
Mr. Mayor: All right. The question has been called on the substitute motion, and
the Chair will rule there has been adequate debate. The question posed before the body
now is the motion from Mr. Grantham for the Election Director’s salary to be set at
$68,000. All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Ms. Beard, Ms. Sims, Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. Boyles and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion fails 4-4-2.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. Mr. Williams, the Chair will recognize you. You
have another motion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I’d like a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams: That we give her the salary of $65,000.
Ms. Sims: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second to set the compensation for
the Elections Director at $65,000. Is there any discussion on the substitute motion? All
in favor of the substitute motion, please vote in the affirmative.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Ms. Beard abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
97
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have on the addendum agenda, we have one item yet to
dispose of, and that’s item number 1.
ADDITION TO THE AGENDA:
1. Clarification from the Attorney relative to directions give to the
Administrator from the Commission. (Requested by Commissioner Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to the board considering item 1 on the
addendum agenda, clarification from the Attorney relative to directions given to the
Administrator from the Commission? Is there any objection to that? The Chair will
object to adding that item, so you don’t have unanimous consent. That takes us down to
our legal meeting. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Cheek: That information or any backup information relevant to that we’d like
forwarded to the Clerk for our work session on Tuesday [inaudible].
The Clerk: February 24.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, it’s my understanding that 52 was not on the agenda in
error. It was omitted in error. It was on the agenda.
Mr. Williams: Exactly.
Mr. Shepard: That’s --
Mr. Mayor: 52?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Where’s 52?
The Clerk: That was an error in the Clerk’s office. Somehow the working agenda
was placed in the book and not the final agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Well, what is item 52?
98
The Clerk: It’s the addendum item on number 1. We feel that that was the best
way to try to get that oversight on our part cleared up. So it was actually on the final
agenda. However, staff placed the wrong agenda in the book.
Mr. Mayor: Well, it’s listed on this sheet as an addition to the agenda.
The Clerk: Well, that’s why, because it’s not on the agenda in your book. So we
thought maybe we could clear it up that way.
Mr. Shepard: And I’d be happy to speak to it, Mr. Mayor, if you’d like, if I’m in
order. Because I had written it in my book as being [inaudible] agenda.
Mr. Mayor: All right. I’ll withdraw my objection to it.
Mr. Shepard: And if I could have the floor, Mr. Mayor, members of the
Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: I furnished to Mr. Williams a copy of what we call the DOR,
delineation of responsibility ordinance, which indicated that there was free access to the
Administrator and the department heads and the assistant department heads by the, by the
members of the Commission, and I marked that part [inaudible]. The DOR ordinance
contemplates --
Mr. Colclough: Can you speak up a little bit, please?
Mr. Mayor: We’re having a hard time hearing you.
Mr. Shepard: I’m sorry. I apologize. Can you hear me now, as they say on
Verizon? My understand was that this was an item that was on the agenda, and what I
gave Mr. Williams in response to that in clarification was a copy of what we call our
delineation of responsibility ordinance that came out of a subcommittee about I think two
years ago. I don’t have the copy, but Mr. Williams [inaudible] exact date. The point of
that ordinance was that Commissioner inquiries could always be directed through the
Administrator, Mr. Williams, or the Assistant Administrators, or the department heads.
And so the process contemplates going through the Administrator. Your question, I
believe, was whether that had to first go through me, and my answer is no. Through the
counsel.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Shepard, and that’s the understanding I need to get
from a request that I had put in earlier through the Administrator and it was forwarded to
you and you was already aware of because you had received a copy of. And I just needed
to get some clarification whether or not we would have to have those items that we
request from the Administrator to go through the legal side or the Attorney side of this,
this, this government before we get a response back. And if that’s not the case, I just
99
wanted to get clarification that that was not. And I understand the legal side as in
violation of someone’s rights or anything else now. And if it’s a legal question, I’m
going to leave the question to you, Commissioner, Attorney.
Mr. Shepard: That’s fine.
Mr. Williams: But I didn’t want to -- I just wanted to get clarification so we
won’t have to have this no more, that when that’s being requested of the Administrator, it
should be given back to the Commissioner or the Mayor, whoever requested it, and not
going to the legal side to say if, if, it meets that approval of the legal side. I think we got
enough sense to understand what’s germane to legal and, and not.
Mr. Shepard: That specific question he raised, but I’m saying that ordinarily the
channel, the main channel is direct through the Administrator.
Mr. Williams: Exactly.
Mr. Shepard: That’s what we provided.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
56. OTHER BUSINESS.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 57, which is the legal meeting.
57. LEGAL MEETING.
??
Pending Litigation
??
Real Estate
??
Personnel
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I request a legal meeting
for discussion of pending litigation, real estate and personnel as set forth.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion?
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Boyles out.
Motion carries 9-1.
[LEGAL MEETING]
100
Mr. Mayor: We’ll reconvene our meeting.
58. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion authorizing the Mayor to sign the
affidavit.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Second?
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None is heard.
Mr. Boyles out.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion to adjourn?
Mr. Shepard: One other motion.
Mr. Mayor: Do you have something else?
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible]
Mr. Grantham: We need to do that.
Mr. Mayor: You want me to do that? We have a request from the Attorney to
add an item to the agenda which is a legal settlement. It takes unanimous consent to add
that item, and so I would ask the Commission for unanimous consent.
Mr. Williams: No, sir, you do not have --
Ms. Beard: To add what?
Mr. Shepard: You don’t have unanimous consent. That’s fine.
Mr. Mayor: All right. So I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Willie, you mean you’ve got something else to say?
101
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] I had asked the Clerk in reference to a vote that I needed to
do this month.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] it was on the last item that we handled, on an extension
that I did that you need to change the vote.
The Clerk: Is that on item 42?
Mr. Mays: Yes, ma’am.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: Yes, ma’am.
Mr. Mayor: All right. The record will be corrected them to record the
Commissioner’s vote.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to adjourn. Is there any objection? We are
adjourned without objection.
[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 17, 2004.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
102