HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-2004 Regular Meeting (2)
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
March 16, 2004
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:06 p.m., Tuesday, March
16, 2004, the Hon. Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Mays, Cheek,
Beard, Sims, Williams and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Harry James, Attorney; Fred Russell, Deputy Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
Mr. Mayor: -- lengthy part of the agenda for recognition, proclamations and
delegations today, so I would ask those of you who are here for other business today to
please just relax and stay with us. We will get to you, but we have some other matters we
need to take up first. To start off the meeting today, I would like to ask the Rev. David
Hunter, who is the pastor of the Lutheran Church of the Resurrection, to please come
forward with our invocation, and then if you would, please remain standing, and
Commissioner Andy Cheek, if you would, please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Invocation was given by Rev. David Hunter.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, please be seated.
The Clerk: Rev. Hunter, on behalf of the Mayor and Commission, we’d like to
thank you for coming in and [inaudible] today on our behalf, and so we will recognize
you as our Chaplain of the Day. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.}
Mr. Mayor: Before we move into our recognitions, I would like to draw the
Commission’s attention, please and ask the Clerk to read the caption on item number 24.
We have a Superior Court Judge who is waiting for our legal advisor to bring a report to
him on this, so we can go ahead and proceed with the bond refinancing. Madame Clerk,
if you’d read the caption.
The Clerk:
24. Motion to approve resolution supporting refinancing of Coliseum bonds.
(Approved by Finance Committee March 8, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
1
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the
Commission. The Coliseum Authority met this morning in a special meeting and
approved a resolution and a contract with this body which will allow them to proceed
forward with the refinancing in the amount of $5,555,000 in Series 2004 refunding
bonds. And they will be refunding the 1993 Series. This body as the governing body of
this county, along with the Coliseum Authority, which is an independent authority under
the bond law had been named as defendants, and to complete the exhibits before the file,
before the Court in the file today, we ask that you approve this resolution. The resolution
is as presented to the Finance Committee, but with the exception of some additional
language about an entity known as Ambac, which will have a role in this, not at our
expense, but to shorten my presentation, I’m going to ask Mr. Bill Johnson from Bank of
America Securities to come give you the salient features of the financing deal. Bill?
Mr. Johnson: Thank you. I’ve put before each of you a presentation outlining the
summary of the bond issue. I’d like to go through that with you quickly. If you would,
please turn to page one in that handout. It’s entitled Augusta Richmond County
Coliseum Authority Revenue Refunding Bonds, with today’s date. The bonds were sold
yesterday morning, between 9 and 12. It was a very good sale. We had a decline in
interest rates over the past week or so and we were able to capture a great deal of savings
on this issue. As you are probably aware, the interest rates have been rising somewhat in
the latter part of last year, but we’ve had a dip in the last week or so, so we’ve been able
to gain back a lot of the savings we had originally anticipated. The amount of bonds that
were issued were $5,555,000. The bonds will be insured by Ambac, which is one of the
large bond insurers in the country, thus the issue was or is rated AAA and Ambac as an
insurer is guaranteeing the issue to be repaid to the buyers of the bonds. Turn over to
page two and let’s talk about the savings. There are quite a few numbers on the page so
let me walk you through the pertinent features. The old bonds that were outstanding
currently have an old interest cost of 5.45%. The new bonds have a new net interest cost
of 2.126%, a dramatic decline over the remaining life of the issue, which runs through
2010. The savings, the total savings the Authority can expect over that remaining period
is $333,553.55. Over the life of that issue. Or in today’s dollars, which is a measurement
that my industry looks at, is $303,000 and change. The savings level is 5.544%, which is
extremely good. Generally with an issue of this type, if you have a 2% or greater savings
you will execute a refunding. This is well above what is to be expected in an issue like
this. The sale went extremely well. The credit of the issue from Moody’s was very well
received and the bonds were, were – sold very well in the market and were over-
subscribed. So you had more buyers than there were bonds, and you had a great deal of
demand for those bonds.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, joining us today is Mr. Holden who of course is
Chairman of the Authority. He wants to report on that meeting this morning briefly.
Mr. Holden: We just met this morning and we approved a referendum to
refinance the bonds and save the taxpayers $333,000. Really, that’s the only, only thing I
had to report.
2
Mr. Shepard: So I would ask, Mr. Mayor, for a resolution as read by the Clerk,
that you would approve the resolution before you today which I have filed with the Clerk
and direct that the Mayor sign it and the Clerk attest it and also that the contract be
entered by our appropriate officials, which would be the Mayor and the Clerk, as to the
contract between the Authority and this body.
Mr. Mays: I move it be approved.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion, any
questions? All in favor of the motion then please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, if I could approach with a couple of
documents when you have a chance.
Mr. Mayor: All right, that will be fine. If you will give us just a moment, we’ll
do this now so he can report these documents to the Court. Okay. Thank you very much,
Mr. Shepard. It’s a little warm in here today. The climate control has not caught up with
the, with the warmth outside, so if you want to take your coat off today, please feel free
to do so. We’ll be a little more casual than we normally are.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I think that extra heat may be generated by the heat from
the Butler High School basketball team.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: We’re going to get to that in just a moment, Mr. Cheek. We’ll
recognize now the Employee of the Month, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
RECOGNITION:
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD
Mr. Raymond Patterson
Public Works Maintenance Department
The Clerk: Mr. Raymond Patterson of our Public Works Department, along with
Mr. Dennis [inaudible] and members of Mr. Patterson’s work force, would you please
join the Mayor here at the podium? Ms. Smith? [inaudible] Public Works Engineering
Chairman. Dear Mayor Young, the Employee Recognition Committee has selected Mr.
Raymond Patterson with the Public Works Maintenance Division as Employee of the
3
Month for February, 2004. Mr. Patterson has worked for the City of Augusta for over 22
years. His duties include supervising and assisting the maintenance of grass along county
roadways and stabilization procedures. He was nominated by fellow employee Catherine
Worley, who states Raymond Patterson deserves the Employee of the Month because he
volunteers to work any hours, weekends and holidays. He is willing to help in the
development process with total quality management concerns. He can be fully relied on
to get the job done. Mr. Patterson is a team player and he employs the team concept in
his correspondence with his employees. The Committee felt that based on Ms. Worley’s
recommendation and Mr. Patterson’s attributes he should be awarded Employee of the
Month. Ms. Worley further states Mr. Patterson volunteered to help with National Public
Works Week by building the handicapped ramp and worked with the National Clean-up
Week. He’s also received several letters of appreciation from taxpayers and has
successfully completed many training seminars. Mr. Patterson is married to Lucy and
they have three daughters, Barbara, Jacqueline, and Bonita. The Committee would
appreciate you joining us in awarding Mr. Raymond Patterson Employee of the Month
for the month of February. Congratulations, Mr. Patterson.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk: Mr. [inaudible], Mr. Patterson’s supervisor would like to make
comments.
Mr. Speaker: Certainly it is an honor to recognize Mr. Patterson for his
achievement. As you heard from the accolades that was just read, Mr. Patterson has been
with us for nearly 23 years. Not only is it a true honor to work along side of such a
professional, but not only does he take care of vegetation, he also take care of the
drainage situation that we have throughout Augusta and is doing a fine job. So on behalf
of the entire maintenance division, the Public Works Department, congratulations, Mr.
Patterson.
(A round of applause is given)
CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION
George P. Butler Bulldogs (Basketball Team)
Georgia High School Association AAAA State Semi-finals
The Clerk: The Mayor and members of the Augusta Commission would like at
this time to honor the Butler Bulldogs basketball team, who were so proud to participate
in the Georgia High School Association AAAA State Semi-finals. Mr. Glasgow,
Channel 6, will do our official roll call. The certificates of achievement read as follows:
for outstanding contributions to the Butler High School Bulldogs Basketball Team, and
competing in the Georgia High School Association Class AAAA State Semi-finals at the
Gwinnett Center, March 5, 2004, the City of Augusta recognizes and applauds your
th
achievement, this 16 day of March, 2004. Mr. Glasgow.
4
Mr. Glasgow: All right, it’s my honor to introduce you to the Butler High School
Varsity Basketball team. No. 11, Fred Johnson, one of the many members of this year’s
basketball team, who helped Butler finish the year 30-3. The Bulldogs became just the
th
4 team in the Augusta area to play for the State title. They joined the Butler team for
1996 and the Josey team from 1995, who also played Westside that year. A team
[inaudible], also a member of this year’s Butler High School team.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Glasgow: Brandon Charles, 6’ junior.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Glasgow: One of five starters on this year’s Bulldog team, Marcus Curry.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Glasgow: Biante Oliver, 6’4” junior.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Glasgow: Ricky McNair, one of six seniors on this year’s squad.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Glasgow: Another starter, Ricky McGee.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Glasgow: Joe Rogers, a 6’1” senior.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Glasgow: No. 25, Austin Steed.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Glasgow: Antoine Kerr, a junior who will be back next year to help the
Bulldogs hopefully return to the State finals.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Glasgow: Brenton Harris, one of two sophomores on this year’s squad.
(A round of applause is given.)
5
Mr. Glasgow: Another starter, Scott Edwards, who stands 6’7”.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Glasgow: Another starter, Lavert Carter, one of six seniors on this year’s
squad.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Glasgow: And last but not least, No. 40, Tyrece Harris.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Glasgow: Now, it’s under the head coaches of this year’s squad who, as we
said, led Butler to a 30-3 season. Head coach Rob Johnson.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Glasgow: He’s joined by [inaudible] Fierce.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Glasgow: Rod Stewart.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Glasgow: And Scooter Tate.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Glasgow: There’s your Butler High School Basketball Team.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Johnson, would you like to say anything?
Mr. Johnson: I’d just like to thank you [inaudible]. It really came together when
we got into the later rounds of the State tournament and supported us, really the entire
city of Augusta. And we really appreciate everything that everybody did for us.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, coach. Andy, would you like to speak?
Mr. Cheek: Absolutely. I’m proud to be Andy Cheek, graduate, 1975, George
Butler High School. Somebody say dogs, please.
(Laughter)
6
Mr. Cheek: What you see before you are a very fine group of young men that
have started this year, some of them on the football team and some of the others in
academics and so forth, that are making Butler become the center of south Augusta that it
once was. I want to congratulate you all, for you’ve made all of us graduates and alumni
very proud of your efforts. Y’all don’t know this, but my son didn’t play football this
year so I adopted Tyrece as my own son.
(Laughter)
Mr. Cheek: And I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that while the
coaches and the players make the difference on the field, the change that is taking place
at Butler, a large deal of the credit goes to Dr. Walter Reeves, who is sitting right here,
who is really making an effort –
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Cheek: -- making an effort to make south Augusta – no offense,
Commissioner Hankerson and Commissioner Smith – but make Butler the No. 1 school
in the city. And we have that personal rivalry. But congratulations, gentlemen, from the
alumni and from all the people in your neighborhoods and your communities. We are
very, very proud of you. This year we knocked at the door. Next year we’re going to
break it down.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Y’all are welcome to stay for the meeting, if you’d like to. Madame
Clerk?
The Clerk:
PROCLAMATIONS:
Mr. Tom Sutherland
The Clerk: Mr. C. Tom Sutherland, Jr., would you please join the Mayor here at
the podium? The Mayor and members of the Commission would like to recognize Mr.
Sutherland.
Whereas, Mr. Tom Sutherland, Jr. gives freely of his time to serve on numerous
community and civic organizations; and
Whereas, he is well known for his commitment to Augusta Richmond County
Public Library, where he has served on the Board of Trustees, among various other
boards and positions; and
Whereas, he also serves as past president for the CSRA Library Association and
the South Carolina Library Association; and
7
Whereas, he is well recognized and respected for his leadership and involvement
in our community;
Now, therefore, I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby proclaim
March 16, 2004 to be Tom Sutherland, Jr. Day in Augusta, Georgia, and urge all citizens
to recognize this day.
In witness thereto, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of Augusta,
th
Georgia to be affixed this 16 day of March, 2004.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk:
PROCLAMATION:
Mr. Dion Grant
The Clerk: Mr. Dion Grant, Mr. Willie Mays, Mayor Pro Tem Mays. In
Recreation, Mr. Howard. Please join the Mayor here at the podium. At this time the
Mayor and members of the Commission would like to recognize Mr. Dion Grant’s
outstanding athletic accomplishment.
Whereas, Mr. Dion Grant is a native of Augusta, Georgia and graduate of
Augusta’s T.W. Josey High School, where he represented the school as a member of the
varsity football team; and
Whereas, Mr. Grant was elected as the first [inaudible] All American, he was the
th
9-rated defensive player in the nation by the [inaudible] News as the result of his
accomplishments on the T.W. Joseph football team; and
Whereas, Dion represented the hometown of Augusta as a member of the
University of Tennessee football team, where he earned [inaudible] All American honors,
as well as recognition as a finalist for the Jim Thorpe Award; and
Whereas, Dion launched his NFL career with the Carolina Panthers and helped
guide his team to complete the Super Bowl XXXIV title;
Now, therefore, I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby proclaim
March 16, 2004 to be Dion Grant Day in Augusta, Georgia and urge all citizens to
recognize this day.
In witness thereto, I have set my hand and caused the seal of Augusta, Georgia to
th
be affixed this 16 day of March, 2004.
Mr. Mayor: Congratulations.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: We’ll go to Mr. Mays, our ringside announcer here.
(Laughter)
8
Mr. Grant: I just want to present, you know, the City of Augusta and the Mayor
this football. You know, without y’all’s support I wouldn’t have been able to finish
college as far as Tennessee, winning [inaudible], winning State Championship and then
going on to Carolina and [inaudible] Super Bowl without y’all’s support. So I appreciate
all this support, with this football.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you very much.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mays: It’s certainly great to have not only a great Eagle back in the house
and back in the city, and I know, Andy, when you saw me with my gold tie on today you
said you finally converted me to be a bulldog. But remember, championship city still
wears green and gold.
(Laughter)
th
Mr. Mays: Stand on the corner of Eagle Way and 15 Street. And there happen
to be three of those basketball state championships that are over there. So anytime
anybody needs to borrow one, we will loan them one.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mays: But in all fairness, all of our kids, regardless of the school that they’re
in, do a great job as student athletes. And I have the honor, every time that I speak to
young people in this community, and in communities that do not even know Dion Grant,
to talk about him not as a High School All American, not on a national championship
team in Tennessee, not going to the Super Bowl, but of talking about the great person that
he is. When he signs that signature and his belief of his John 3:16, that has carried him
throughout his life. And I say to people all the time, when you went down with the injury
on that first day of training camp, many of us – and we were there in Charlotte in
National League of Cities, some of us, and we got the news, everybody just did not know
what to say. And I said to some young people while you were going through that rehab
that whether you ever played a down of football in the NFL, that you would still be a Hall
of Fame person. This City is proud of you, your school is proud of you. Thank you for
never forgetting your roots.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mays: And [inaudible] today and any other day that [inaudible] even when
there is no publicity, going and talking to young people and of showing them what a
positive side of life can be and how it can be successful. I do have to say that when I like
to got mobbed in the Falcons game when you snatched the interception in the end zone,
and I might have been the only person in that whole section that was cheering for
Carolina that day. I was still hoping that somebody in Atlanta’s management was saying
boy, if we get a chance to get Dion, cause if he could snatch the ball away from Michael
9
Vick throwing one in the end zone, we certainly need him on our defense. But he’s going
to still be a great player, but most of all, a great person regardless of where he lands, and
– will you be going to Jacksonville?
Mr. Grant: Yes.
Mr. Mays: Be going to Jacksonville, so when you look up at Seat 111 in the end
zone, I’ll be the only dummy there that’s probably still cheering for the Jaguars.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mays: So anytime I’m a Falcon, but the rest of those [inaudible] games I’ll
have to be pulling for Jacksonville. It’s great to always have you here. We wish you
success in everything that you do and continue to be the young man that you are. And we
also would like to say that Andy, you know, many people talk about his great football
talents, but you saw recently the story in the paper of the rehab and how he played
basketball in terms of reconditioning himself. Coach [inaudible], that other team, your
player, also in the state championship game in basketball. Very few athletes in any
community have had the opportunity to play in a title game, win a state championship in
football, participate in one of the longest winning streaks in this state, 24 consecutive
games, and then play in the title game in basketball, all in the same year. You’re looking
at a young man that did that, and when I see people they tell me, they say how can he do
that with one hand? I say hey, he played a whole year playing with one hand in a cast, so
th
that [inaudible] against Florida, that was not new, he learned that at Eagle’s Way and 15
Street. So welcome home, buddy.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk:
PROCLAMATION:
4-H – Vidalia*Onion Campaign
The Clerk: At this point, the Mayor and members of the Commission would like
to recognize our 4-H Vidalia Onion fundraiser groups. Would you please join the Mayor
th
here at the podium? In recognition of the 13 Annual Augusta Richmond County 4-H
Vidalia Onion fundraiser,
Whereas, as a youth organization 4-H attempts to give our children the skills that
will help them compete in today’s society; and
Whereas, leadership and community service are necessary for their survival in the
future, 4-H offers this training with community help; and
Whereas, the Vidalia Onion was named Georgia’s official State Vegetable by the
State Legislature in 1990; and
10
Whereas, it is fitting to support such an important fundraising activity for our
local 4-H Clubs and to show our local youth we are proud of their endeavors; and
Whereas, all proceeds from the Vidalia Onion sales will be used to ensure the
Augusta Richmond County 4-H Program continues to make the better best;
Now, therefore, I, Bob Young, the Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby
th
proclaim March 16 through April 23, 2004 to be the 13 Annual Augusta Richmond
County 4-H Club Vidalia Onion Fundraiser Month in Augusta, Georgia and request all
citizens to extend a supportive spirit to our local 4-H’ers in helping them to attain their
goal;
In witness whereof, I have caused unto to set my hand and caused the seal of
th
Augusta, Georgia to be affixed this 16 day of March, 2004.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
Neighborhood Health Services Center
Neighborhood Improvement Project, Inc.
Ms. Nicole J. Nickerson
RE: “Clearing The Air” Project (Asthma Health)
Ms. Nickerson: Good afternoon. My name is Nicole Nickerson and I’m the
asthma health educator for the Neighborhood Improvement Project “Clearing the Air”
asthma prevention program. And this is an asthma prevention program that is funded in
part by the Georgia Department of Community Health, and it was established to show a
reduction in emergency room visits, hospitalizations, school absences, work absences and
other related consequences of asthma in Richmond, Burke and Columbia Counties. The
objectives that we want to accomplish with this program is to diagnose and treat those
persons in all of Richmond County with chronic asthma, assist in identifying those that
are at risk for developing the disease, educating the community on the consequences of
asthma through education, prevention and [inaudible] screening sessions, reducing the
number of emergency room visits, and other related consequences of asthma. Some
statistics in Georgia, there are approximately over 200,000 children with asthma. Boys
are more likely than girls to develop the disease. But females are more likely to die from
asthma. African Americans and Caucasians are affected equally by asthma, but African
Americans are two to three times more likely to be hospitalized for asthma. There are
more than 9,000 hospitalizations each year in Georgia due to asthma as the primary
diagnosis. And here in this area, in 2002, out of four of the five hospitals reporting to us,
there were 2,890 ER visits with asthma as the primary diagnosis and of those 420 were
hospitalized. Trying to do outreach in schools, community-based organizations, and
churches, and with your support we are asking the Commissioners in each of their
Districts to help us in spreading the message about asthma prevention. We are also
wanting to work with the Mayor’s office in establishing May 4 as Asthma Awareness
Day for the City of Augusta, and with your support I hope this can be made possible.
Thank you.
11
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you very much, Ms. Nickerson. And I believe if the
Clerk doesn’t already have information concerning the project, if you would make sure
that her office gets it before you leave and we’ll be glad to, throughout the various
neighborhood associations that we have to meet with and whatever assistance we can do
in terms of trying to help from the City’s perspective. And I’m sure in terms of declaring
your date and also working with the Mayor’s office that will be done without a problem.
Thank you for being here on such a very important issue that concerns so many people.
Thank you.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
Metro Augusta Clean & Beautiful, Inc.
Ms. Lillian-Katharine Blanos
th
RE: “Save Fort Gordon” Highway Cleanup – March 20
Ms. Blanos: Thank you, Lena, and everyone. Thank you, Commissioners, for
having me here today to speak about a very important project, not only to Clean &
Beautiful or Pride & Progress and other participating groups, but to the entire City of
Augusta. As you all know and are aware, there is a possibility that Fort Gordon would be
closed in the year 2005. We have had so many calls from people, what can we do to
help? And you know, there’s not a whole lot of big things you can do. You can get out
and support projects that are being sponsored. So we became friendly with the Fort
Gordon Alliance and we came up with this clean-up which will be held this Saturday at
eight o’clock till ten. We will meet at the Regency Mall. We will have refreshments that
are being sponsored by First National Bank. We will have all the clean up supplies that
you will need, safety vests, bags, gloves. We will have a lot of media there. We already
have about 100 people, but we sure would like to have 200 or 300 and we certainly can
use you. We do anticipate cleaning up Gordon Highway from Gate 1 on down. Harlem
and Grovetown will be cleaning up their areas, at the entrances, also. This is a very
special project. I just hope I’ve recruited the two teams that just left, but I want to also
recruit all of you, your neighborhood associations, your friends. It will only take us a
couple of hours to clean this up, and it will be our first annual. So we look forward to
seeing you on Saturday. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Ms. Blanos, for coming. Are there any
questions for Ms. Blanos?
Ms. Blanos: Okay, then I’ll see you Saturday.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Does silence give consent on that?
Ms. Blanos: That’s right.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you again for coming.
12
Mr. Mayor: We’ll take up the consent agenda next.
(Cell phone rings)
Mr. Mayor: Please turn your cell phones off. We have a very strict ban on
ringing cell phones in this Chamber. All right.
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 35. That’s items
1 through 35.
For the benefit of any objectors to our planning petitions, I will read those
petitions, and if you object to any of those, would you please signify your objection by
raising your hand?
PLANNING:
1. Z-04-21 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Flora M. Spencer requesting a
Special Exception to establish a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 3607 Abbey Road and containing 0.26 acres. (Tax Map 95
Parcel 92) DISTRICT 4
2. Z-04-22 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Wayne Schultz requesting a change
of zoning from Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) to Zone P-1 (Professional) with a
Special Exception to utilize the existing structure for residential purposes per
Section 20-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County affecting property located at 1054 Alexander Drive and containing 1.55
acres. (Tax Map 13-1 Parcels 7 & 8) DISTRICT 7
3. Z-04-23 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Eric Melchoir requesting a Special
Exception to establish an inert fill area as a reclamation objective for an active
surface mine per Section 26-1(o) of the Comprehensive Zoning ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 3902 New Karleen Road
and containing approximately 37 acres. (Tax Map 139 Parcel 277.3 and Tax Map
151 Parcel 10.1) DISTRICT 8
4. Z-04-24 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Tim Wilson, on behalf of the Knox
Foundation, requesting a Special Exception to utilize three proposed structures for
residential purposes in a P-1 (Professional) Zone per Section 20-2 (b) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 341 and 345 Walker Street and containing 0.32 acres. (Tax Map
47-4 Parcels 180-181) DISTRICT 1
5. Z-04-25 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Bobby Fields, Sr. requesting a
change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone A (Agriculture) affecting
property that is part of 1412 Clark Road and containing approximately 1.6 acres.
(Tax Map 301 Part of Parcel 15.4) DISTRICT 8
13
6. Z-04-27 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Troy Duckworth requesting a change
of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) affecting property located at 2018 Gordon Highway and containing 0.57
acres. (Tax Map 69 Part of Parcel 8.8) DISTRICT 5
7. Z-04-28 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) a minimum 50
foot setback that is an undisturbed natural buffer on the south and west sides that
meets the requirements of the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance; 2) a
minimum 50 foot building setback on the north side; and 3) emergency access only
to Ashford Drive, protected by bollards or a gate; a petition by Tice Brashear
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1B (One-family Residential) to Zone R-
3B (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property located at 3146-1/2 Wrightsboro
Road and containing 5.38 acres. (Tax Map 42-4 Parcel 14) DISTRICT 5
8. Z-04-29 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Bryant Engineering, on behalf of
Dennis Merritt, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone
R-1B (One-family Residential) affecting property located on the west right-of-way
line of Vera Drive, 190 feet, more or less, north of a point where Dorn Drive
intersects and containing approximately 27 acres. (Tax Map 180 Parcels 32, 32.3, 42,
32.6 and part of Tax Map 167 Parcel 322) DISTRICT 6
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions? You are an
objector? Which item, sir?
Mr. Henry: 7.
The Clerk: 7. Our alcohol petitions, if there are any objectors, would you please
signify your objection by raising your hand?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
10. Motion to approve a request by Mary A. Pope for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Ja Ho Market located at 1770
Kissingbower Rd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services March
8, 2004)
11. Motion to approve a request by Bradley E. Owens for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Hale Tiki
located at 660 Broad St. There will be dance. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved
by Public Services March 8, 2004)
The Clerk: That’s it for our alcohol petitions. Are there any objections to those
alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, would it be possible with the consent of the body if we
could move item number 38 to the consent agenda and if we could move item number 43
to the consent agenda? Is there any objection to that?
14
Mr. Hankerson: 38 and what?
Mr. Mayor: 38 and 43. Any objection?
Mr. Cheek: No objection, Mr. Mayor. Just a request for a transference of item
42C to be deferred to the next Engineering Services Committee agenda.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll get to that.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, that was 38 and –
Mr. Mayor: 38 and 43. 43 is that contract amendment with Fruit ‘N’ Juicy. Any
objection to moving those two to consent? Okay. Yes, ma’am?
Ms. Sims: Mr. Mayor, may I ask, item 36 to the consent agenda?
Mr. Mayor: You certainly may, if there’s no objection. Number 36. Are there
objectors to item 36? We do have objectors? Okay. So we’ll leave that off. Any other
items? Okay. Your wish with respect to the consent agenda, the items read by the Clerk
and added to that 38 and 43? Do we have a motion to approve?
Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and it’s been seconded. Do you wish to pull
any of these items?
Mr. Grantham: 3.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 3. Okay.
Mr. Hankerson: 7.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 7 is pulled.
Mr. Grantham: 14.
Mr. Mayor: Sorry, number 14?
Mr. Grantham: Correct.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, for information, item 16.
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
15
Mr. Boyles: In committee we had asked that a petition be brought back, and Mr.
Scott Lee has that petition and I’d like to enter that into the record of the meeting.
Mr. Mayor: All right, if you’ll present that to the Clerk, please.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, there were 45 homes on that street. Three are vacant.
And Mr. Lee was able to get 40 people to sign the petition. One person was not home,
and one said he would not sign but he did not object. So that gives us a complete, and
thanks to the work of this young man we can make that a reality.
Mr. Mayor: We ought to use him to acquire the easements for the dirt road
pavings.
Mr. Boyles: For right-of-way.
Mr. Mayor: He’s done very well with his petition there. Congratulations.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Scott.
Mr. Hankerson: I have one on the regular agenda.
Mr. Boyles: That’s all I need in 16, Mr. Mayor, is just because that needed to be
entered into the record, I have no need to pull it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I’d like to – just a moment, we’ll go through the
Commissioners first. I’d like to pull item number 18. And –
Mr. Hankerson: 21.
Mr. Mayor: 21, okay.
Mr. Williams: 22, Mr. Mayor. 23. 30.
Mr. Mayor: 22.
Mr. Williams: 22, 23.
Mr. Mayor: 23.
Mr. Williams: 30 and 33, if it had not been.
Mr. Mayor: 30 and 33. Okay. Now let’s see. I’m sorry? Now let me make sure
I’ve got everybody’s items pulled. And this off the consent agenda. If you’re here for
another, if you’re here for the regular agenda, we’ll get to those in a moment.
16
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes? You want to pull something else?
Mr. Grantham: No. Go ahead. I want to get on the record again.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have pulled from the consent agenda items 3, 7, 14, 18 –
Mr. Williams: You skipped 16.
Mr. Mayor: 16?
Mr. Boyles: 16 didn’t – that was additional information. We didn’t pull that.
Mr. Mayor: He just wanted to file a petition.
Mr. Mayor: So we had 18, 21, 22, 23, 30, and 33. Let me make sure I’ve got all
the numbers. Did I leave anybody off, leave any items off that you wanted to pulled?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need some information on 16, Tommy. I’m not
opposing, but I need some information on 16.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s go ahead and pull that then. Okay. Mr. Grantham,
you had a question?
Mr. Grantham: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Did you want to pull something?
Mr. Grantham: No, Mr. Mayor, I wanted to add to the appointment list.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Grantham: I had put an addition to the agenda in front of you, and it’s
appointing Ms. Jane Howington to the Library Board representing District 10, and I’d
like to include that along with item 34 and 34A and that’s already on there for the library,
to consider that as a consent agenda item.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any – cause we need unanimous consent to add it – is there
any objection to adding the item on the addendum agenda to the agenda today and then
adding it to the consent agenda? Is there any objection? All right, none heard, Mr.
Grantham, so the Clerk will add that item.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
17
PLANNING:
1. Z-04-21 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Flora M. Spencer requesting a
Special Exception to establish a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 3607 Abbey Road and containing 0.26 acres. (Tax Map 95
Parcel 92) DISTRICT 4
2. Z-04-22 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Wayne Schultz requesting a change
of zoning from Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) to Zone P-1 (Professional) with a
Special Exception to utilize the existing structure for residential purposes per
Section 20-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County affecting property located at 1054 Alexander Drive and containing 1.55
acres. (Tax Map 13-1 Parcels 7 & 8) DISTRICT 7
3. Deleted from the consent agenda.
4. Z-04-24 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Tim Wilson, on behalf of the Knox
Foundation, requesting a Special Exception to utilize three proposed structures for
residential purposes in a P-1 (Professional) Zone per Section 20-2 (b) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 341 and 345 Walker Street and containing 0.32 acres. (Tax Map
47-4 Parcels 180-181) DISTRICT 1
5. Z-04-25 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Bobby Fields, Sr. requesting a
change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone A (Agriculture) affecting
property that is part of 1412 Clark Road and containing approximately 1.6 acres.
(Tax Map 301 Part of Parcel 15.4) DISTRICT 8
6. Z-04-27 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Troy Duckworth requesting a change
of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) affecting property located at 2018 Gordon Highway and containing 0.57
acres. (Tax Map 69 Part of Parcel 8.8) DISTRICT 5
7. Deleted from the consent agenda.
8. Z-04-29 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Bryant Engineering, on behalf of
Dennis Merritt, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone
R-1B (One-family Residential) affecting property located on the west right-of-way
line of Vera Drive, 190 feet, more or less, north of a point where Dorn Drive
intersects and containing approximately 27 acres. (Tax Map 180 Parcels 32, 32.3, 42,
32.6 and part of Tax Map 167 Parcel 322) DISTRICT 6
9. FINAL PLAT – CAMBRIDGE, SECTION 7 – S-674 - 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 7. This residential
subdivision is located at Windsor Spring and Tobacco Roads and contains 30 lots.
18
PUBLIC SERVICES:
10. Motion to approve a request by Mary A. Pope for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Ja Ho Market located at 1770
Kissingbower Rd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services March
8, 2004)
11. Motion to approve a request by Bradley E. Owens for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Hale Tiki
located at 660 Broad St. There will be dance. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved
by Public Services March 8, 2004)
12. Motion to approve a request by Emily B. Makuch for a Therapeutic Massage
license to be used in connection with Serenity Day Spa located at 504 Shartom Dr.
District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services March 8, 2004)
13. Motion to approve a request by Elena E. Johnson for a Therapeutic Massage
license to be used in connection with Serenity Day Spa located at 504 Shartom Dr.
District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services March 8, 2004)
14. Deleted from the consent agenda.
15. Motion to adopt by reference the International Property Maintenance Code –
2003 Edition with an effective date of April 1, 2004. (Approved by Public Services
March 8, 2004)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
16. Deleted from the consent agenda.
17. Motion to approve the naming of the Augusta Richmond County Detention
Center. (Approved by Public Safety Committee March 8, 2004)
18. Deleted from the consent agenda.
FINANCE:
19. Motion to approve offering the Winfield Fire Department the sale of ARC
Fire Pumper #10 at a cost of $3,000.00. (Approved by Finance Committee March 8,
2004)
20. Motion to authorize to fund $19,420 General Fund for completion of the
LEOP and General Fund Budget Amendment. (Approved by Finance Committee
March 8, 2004)
21. Deleted from the consent agenda.
22. Deleted from the consent agenda.
23. Deleted from the consent agenda.
24. Deleted from the consent agenda.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
25. Motion to approve policy recommendation on settling damage claims
resulting from sewer issues. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March
8, 2004)
26. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 128, Parcel 24
and a portion of Tax Map 139, Parcel 02 which is owned by Lawrence H. James, Jr.
for temporary and permanent easements on Project 50215 – Jamestown Sanitary
19
Sewer Project, Phase 2 & 3. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March
8, 2004)
27. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Norfolk Southern Rail
Crossing #734-144H which is owned by Norfolk Southern Corporation for a
permanent easement for the Augusta Utility Department to run a water main under
the railroad track of Norfolk Southern Corporation in connection with Project
10175 – Groundwater Treatment Plant #3 20” Water Main. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee March 8, 2004)
28. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 150, Parcel 29
which is owned by William R. Jackson for a permanent easement for Project 50215
– Jamestown Sanitary Sewer Project, Phase 2 & 3. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee March 8, 2004)
29. Motion to authorize award and execution of a contract with Zimmerman,
Evans and Leopold to provide engineering services for the Goodrich Street Raw
Water Pumping Station Rehabilitation of Turbine Unit #4 in the amount of
$183,580. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 8, 2004)
30. Deleted from the consent agenda.
31. Motion to authorize additional engineering services to Zimmerman Evans
and Leopold in the amount of $200,000 for the proposed additional engineering
services to support the Augusta Canal Licensing Process. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee March 8, 2004)
32. Motion to approve the proposal from Environmental Services Group, Inc.
(ESG) to design the Highway 56 20-inch water main for the fee of $116,540.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 8, 2004)
33. Deleted from the consent agenda.
APPOINTMENT:
34. Motion to approve the reappointment of Ms. Amanda C. Barefield to the
Augusta-Richmond County Library Board representing District 8.
34A. Motion to approve the appointment of Ms. Ernestine T. Covington to the
Augusta-Richmond County Library Board representing District 4.
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
35. Motion to approve the minutes of the March 2, 2004 regular meeting.
38. Approve authorizing the Mayor to sign a consent letter request from the
Augusta-Richmond County Community Partnership for Children and Families, Inc.
d/b/a Richmond County Family Connection to be a direct recipient of grant funds
from the State of Georgia Children and Youth Coordinating Council.
ATTORNEY:
43. Motion to ratify contract amendment between Augusta, Ga. and Fruit ‘N’
Juicy.
ADDITION TO THE AGENDA:
20
Addendum Item 1. Motion to approve the appointment of Ms. Jane Howington to
the Library Board representing District 10.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda, minus the items
that we pulled. All in favor please vote in the affirmative.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-2, 4-6, 8-13, 15, 17, 19-20, 25-29, 31-32, 34-35, 38, 43,
Addendum Item 1]
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s move ahead to – let’s see, we had some objectors here
for item number 7, so let’s go ahead and take that one.
The Clerk:
7. Z-04-28 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) a minimum 50
foot setback that is an undisturbed natural buffer on the south and west sides that
meets the requirements of the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance; 2) a
minimum 50 foot building setback on the north side; and 3) emergency access only
to Ashford Drive, protected by bollards or a gate; a petition by Tice Brashear
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1B (One-family Residential) to Zone R-
3B (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property located at 3146½ Wrightsboro
Road and containing 5.38 acres. (Tax Map 42-4 Parcel 14) DISTRICT 5
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, can you brief us on this, please?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. A Foundation representing Augusta College is buying a large
tract formerly owned by the Bowles family adjacent to this property and they want to buy
this, as well, if they can get the zoning. The other tract is already zoned to allow for them
to build a dormitory community, which is what they want to do up there. And this tract is
the one that Walton Rehab wanted to build a complex on some time ago, and in order to
access the tract independently of the other tract, you’ve got to go through a small stub-out
known as Ashford Drive, which comes off of Valley Park East, I believe it is. And the
current proposal, since it does tie into the other tract and on out to Damascus Road,
would not have to have access to Ashford Drive. And so the Planning Commission
recommends that you approve it with several conditions. Well, two conditions. One is
that there would be a minimum 50’ setback that’s an undisturbed natural buffer on the
south and west sides. That will be the side toward the lots that back up to this property
from Valley Park and also on the west side, which would be the side adjacent to Ashford
Drive. That would give, you know, a buffer and there – and the second condition is
there would be no access to Ashford Drive. So – I’m sorry, the second is a minimum 50’
setback on the north side, which is Ashford Drive. Third is emergency access only to
Ashford with either bollards or gates to protect it, so there would be no access to Ashford
Drive. There would be a buffer on those sides. They are here to explain what they want
to do, but essentially they don’t think that immediately they would develop this property,
21
but I’m sure they want to have it zoned before they buy it so that in the future if this is
successful then they could develop dormitories on this property as well.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, was there, was there any opposition to these restrictions
from the petitioner? Did they go along with these, Augusta College?
Mr. Patty: A couple of my commissioners asked them if they objected to it, and
there were several folks that spoke on behalf of – and one of those was a realtor that has
the property listed, I believe, and he, he showed some consternation, but I think that the
folks at the College themselves are agreeable to it, and they’re here to answer that
question.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Now we have, let’s see, we have – who is here in opposition
to this item? If you’d raise your hand. Okay.
(1 objector noted)
Mr. Mayor: And we’ve got a delegation from the College. All right, if you
would come up and give us your name and address for the record and then we’ll hear
from the petitioner.
Mr. Henry: My name is Chuck Henry, and I reside at 3166 Ashford Drive. I’m
not in total opposition, but I just happened to see the letter and the concept of the
proposal, and I had a few questions and requests that the Commission could stipulate to –
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Henry: -- to ensure that our residential area would be protected. Based upon
the conceptual master plan, the 5.3 acres is depicted as recreational, as a recreation area
with picnic tables, walking and jogging trails and it’s to be rezoned as an R-3B, and I
didn’t understand as to why it would be an R-3B if it’s just going to be a picnic area. The
other question is there is no stipulation that construction access would be made from
Damascus Road or that ?? Street/Wrightsboro Road area. And I was requesting that they
stipulate that that be a requirement on construction. When they constructed
Summerchase, they used Ashford Drive to bring in all that heavy equipment, and it just
so happened they brought a concrete truck that pulled up in my driveway and cracked the
entire driveway, they ran all the way through the house, and by the time I discovered
what happened and who was responsible I couldn’t do anything about it. So I don’t think
that this street can support any construction equipment to go in and in of Ashford Drive
and in through the neighborhood of Valley Park East. So I’m requesting that they put
that in writing that the construction would come from Damascus Road area. And that’s,
that’s the only things that I would, would like to have stipulated.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. Who, who is going to speak on behalf of the
school?
22
Mr. Brashear: I’m Tice Brashear. I’m president of Brashear Realty, 513 Broad
Street, Augusta, Georgia. And I am here – I represent Dorothy Baker, who is the owner
of the property. Ms. Baker has been a good citizen of Richmond County for almost all of
her life, which is something like 80 years, and she’s owned this property almost all of her
life. She now has an opportunity to sell the property, and she’s very desirous of doing so.
And Augusta State University has expressed interest in building dormitories on the
adjoining property and using this property for perhaps future development. They are
agreeable to the terms that the Planning Commission set forth. I want, I want to speak to
this in terms of what this means to Augusta. This is not just good for Mrs. Baker. It’s
good for Augusta. Augusta State University needs new dormitories and most of you, if
you’ve been by Augusta State University’s campus you know it is crowded. You can’t
find another inch to put another thing on. And it’s very difficult to acquire additional
property in Summerville area. So their only alternative is to move out to the area around
where the golf course is, in that general area, to try to find space. There is not much
developable property left in Richmond County. This would be a good site for them. It
means that they’d bring more students to Augusta State University, more customers to the
businesses who are around there, more jobs to the people who can help build those, those
dormitories. In short, I think it is good for the people of Augusta. It is critical for
Augusta to have a good flagship university right here which can help us attract industry
to Augusta, Georgia. In short, I think this is the right thing, at the right time. They have
been very – Augusta State has been very cooperative in trying to mitigate any, any of the
concerns of the neighborhood. And so – I also have with me Mr. Jerry Woods. He’s got
a plan of their proposed initial development. And I also have Kathy Hamrick, who is
here on behalf of Augusta State University. If you have questions of them, they’re here
to provide.
Mr. Mayor: Tice, let’s respond directly to the questions that came from the
gentleman who lives adjacent to this property.
Mr. Brashear: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: He questioned the R-3B zoning for the area that’s going to be used
for passive recreation. Can you respond to that?
Mr. Brashear: At the current time, they have no plans to immediately do that.
But what they do want is they want to reserve the option to build additional dormitories
there if the demand for the space is necessary. So I mean they’re asking for R-3B for that
very reason that somewhere down the road they may want to expand those dormitories.
Hopefully they’ll have enough students who want to come to school here that they’ll be
able to do so.
Mr. Mayor: Now what about construction access to the site?
Mr. Brashear: I –
Ms. Hamrick: [inaudible] Street.
23
Mr. Brashear: She –
Ms. Hamrick: [inaudible] Street or Damascus Road [inaudible].
Mr. Brashear: Kathy says she’s agreeable to that stipulation that all the
construction vehicles would use the other, the other entrance.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Does that -- you still have an objection to this?
Mr. Henry: No.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve with those stipulations in place.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Further discussion? Yes, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, we’ve got a motion here and a second to approve
something that the sitting Commissioner of that District don’t know anything about.
Mr. Mayor: Do you have some additional questions?
Mr. Hankerson:
And due to respect to my neighborhood association that have
called me and I could not address that, I, I’ve been, you know, I’ve talked to the president
of the college back some time ago, but I can’t answer the questions that the neighborhood
I’d like to make a
association have called me. It’s not objecting or opposing, but
substitute motion that this be postponed until I meet with Augusta College officials.
I’ve got a couple of calls to meet with me, but the calls – the date was already set for the
meeting and I didn’t have a chance to meet. I called back and the secretary – I never did
get another response. So due to that, I’d like to make a motion to postpone this until I get
a chance to meet with Augusta College, and if the neighborhood association wants to
meet with them and they can show the plan that they have to the neighborhood
association, then I think we may feel free to go forward with it, but I don’t – this is my
first time hearing it.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let me see if there is a second to your motion.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion to postpone. It’s been seconded. Mr.
Cheek?
24
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to work from memory on this, but I believe –
correct me if I’m wrong, Madame Clerk – we, we have discussed this some six or seven
months ago, discussed the plan for the use of the property. It was brought before
Engineering Services. We talked about it. If any questions arose at that time, and so
forth, and so on. It’s been discussed before this body and could have been addressed, any
questions should have been, and taken to neighborhoods and addressed at that time. I
apologize that I can’t remember the dates and the times and the locations, but we did
meet on this issue and did talk about it at length, discussing drainage and wetlands and
other issues dealing with the property. Was it a go or a no go, and many of the issues I’m
sure the neighborhood had, probably could have been dealt with if -- the information was
made available to deal with this project before and could have been addressed months
ago and should have been taken to the neighborhoods back then, rather than waiting until
today and acting as if this information is brand new.
Mr. Mayor: Kathy, if you’ll come over to the microphone.
Ms. Hamrick: I’m Kathy Hamrick, Coordinator of Planning at Augusta State.
Mr. Hankerson, first of all I do apologize. My secretary has been playing phone tag, I
think, with your secretary for about the last month to bring you up to date. I remember
one meeting we had set with [inaudible]. I know it wasn’t your fault, but we have tried. I
have also met with Summerchase and showed them the plans and they are very happy
because they are right now having problems with a lot of drainage that we are going to
solve. I was looking around to see if some of the City drainage people are here. They’ve
got a bad problem with the shopping center and having some drainage problems. If we
get this property, we’re going to take that water and solve the City’s – yes, solve the
City’s drainage problem. So we have been meeting with the City a good bit on that. But
I apologize. We should have gotten it before [inaudible]. We’re under the gun because
of trying to get – this is not just dormitories. It’s an apartment complex, so we have to
[inaudible] at the beginning of the year, so we’re sort of under the gun with everything
going cause we’re hoping to open these August of ’05. If we delay very long, it’s going
to destroy the project.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask Commissioner Hankerson if it would be helpful if you
went – and you can use my office – and meet with the people from Augusta State, if that
would be helpful to move this forward today, or if –
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, that would not be helpful.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Hankerson: There is more than neighborhood association over there. This
gentleman here is from Valley Park Neighborhood Association. I have Summerchase.
We keep – you know, I mean I don’t want to bring this as – I’m not acting – as I heard, I
don’t have time to act, but I have to respond to my constituents. And I, I’m not saying
that this is going to be opposed, but here’s something that’s here today that haven’t even
met with the sitting Commissioner, haven’t even met with Augusta College about this
25
plan. This is the first time I saw this plan, even though I hear the Chairman of
Engineering Services say it had been presented many times. But it’s the first time it came
here. This gentleman is here because he saw it for the first time. He’d of been here
before if he’d of saw it. Valley Park is very vigilant of what goes on in Valley Park, and
I’m quite sure this probably will be an answer to the past problem they had when Walton
Rehab wanted to go there. We’re familiar, I’m familiar now with the property where
they want to place it, but I have not met with them and this Commission also have in the
past, if the sitting Commissioner needed more knowledge on it, that, that due that respect,
and I’m asking that the respect be granted today.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Well, I was going to make a comment in regard, Mr. Mayor,
thank you, about, about the number of meetings that has been held, and I’m sorry Mr.
Hankerson didn’t get to attend some of those meetings. But, but this is an issue where
there’s a partnership I think to be formed between the University and, and the City, and I
think Ms. Smith had an opportunity to meet with them and show them the drainage
problems that, that have been created from the Wrightsboro Road area that goes south
into the area that we’re talking about. And so along those lines, I would, I would hope,
feel that Mr. Hankerson can be satisfied to this extent, and I feel like he can. I just don’t
want to delay the situation that, that the University might have, Commissioner Hankerson
because – and there again, we’re not on a time restraint situation, so to speak, but we are
in a position we need to move forward as quickly as we can. And so along those lines,
I’d like to see us take a vote on it. However, I do recognize the fact that he would like it
withheld, and if that’s the case, then I’ll ask the University, if they have no objection, to
us holding it or delaying it until our next meeting and giving Mr. Hankerson the
opportunity to review the plans.
Ms. Hamrick: We have no objection to that. That will be fine. We’ve been
trying to get a meeting with him cause we think this [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: We already have the motion and so –
Ms. Hamrick: I need, before he gets away I need a name of somebody at Valley
Park, because we’ve called – I believe George Patty gave me somebody’s name, that I
kept calling that works at Dixie Cup or whatever it is. They’ve never returned phone
calls.
Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] female.
Ms. Hamrick: If you can get me a meeting with them, I’ll be glad to show them
and go with you. And again, we definitely will get with you before the next meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek?
26
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I have, I have no – I would like to see the project going
forward, of course, knowing that we have covered it on several occasions and been
several attempts made to communicate this information. With full respect to the
Commissioner of the District, I would like to, I would support him in that time if it’s not
going to impact the partnership or the course of this project. I would say this, though, I
did notice at our work session on trash collection, which has been a pretty heated issue,
that there will probably be a long and lengthy debate about certain aspects of that today
that whenever things do come up in Engineering Services or other committees, I do make
an effort to try to stay through all of those committees and get those questions answered
and I just wish that rather than us doing this on the floor out here that we would take the
th
time to attend those meetings and bring ourselves up to speed before it’s the 11 hour.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like for the Clerk to pull the records when this particular
issue here was presented to Engineering Services. I sit in Engineering Services, the last
meeting. I have the first two committees, I could leave after the first two committees.
I’ve sat many times until seven o’clock at night. Now this is the first time I’m hearing
that. And I keep hearing my colleague keeping saying as though I’ve not had any
knowledge and it’s been discussed. But I’d like to ask the Clerk to pull that and show me
where this particular issue came up in Engineering Services Committee, District 5, and
that they had adequate conversation on it. I asked the Clerk that. I didn’t ask the
Commissioner.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, let’s move ahead with the vote. We have a motion to
postpone this item until our next meeting.
Ms. Hamrick: And we have no objection, the University has no objection.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion to postpone, please vote in the usual sign.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Cheek: For the record, Mr. Mayor, if memory serves, this was a presentation
on a proposal that was delivered, not a request for the actual project, but basically a
presentation made by the folks at Augusta State on this project, and it was about six to
eight months ago.
Mr. Mayor: Well, the record pulled by the Clerk will reflect what transpired and
when it did. We have some people here for another zoning item, number 36. So if we
can take that one up, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
27
PLANNING:
36. Z-04-26 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Venessa Rogers requesting a change
of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting
property that is part of 4474 Mike Padgett Highway and containing 0.99 acres. (Tax
Map 234 Part of Parcel 38) DISTRICT 8
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: This property is located south of – where Bennock Mill Road runs into
Highway 56. It’s on the east side, and there’s a tract for sale and I think it’s 16 acres.
The proposal is to build a convenience store on the northern part of that tract, I believe it
would be. I’m sorry, southern part of that tract. And initially they wanted to go on the
northern part of it, but the traffic engineering people went out and the location on the
other end was much safer. Pretty much unlimited sight distance. The location that they
want to build it. You’ve got five lanes in there. Got a center turn lane and there’s other
commercial established in the area [inaudible] land use [inaudible] comprehensive plan
we recommend you approve it. Now there were some objectors and their concerns
seemed to be the development in that area surrounding what was previously an
undeveloped area and some other things that, you know, are unfortunate. But the land
does support it, and the Planning Commission recommends you approve it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is the petitioner here today? The petitioner is not here. We
have –
Mr. Speaker: The petitioner is here.
Mr. Mayor: She’s here? I’m sorry. We have some objectors here. Would you
raise your hands so we can get a count for the record?
(2 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Did you all want to explain to us what your objections are? Give us
your name and address.
Mr. Black: My name is Archie Black. 4619 Black Road, Augusta, Georgia. My
biggest objection is I have, I don’t know these people, have no, nothing against
convenience stores. But when I first moved on Highway 56, which is now known as
Mike Padgett Highway, in 1952 when you could roller skate down the highway and once
every half hour you had to get out of the way of a car. Now it’s one of the most
dangerous stretches of road in Richmond County. The particular location they’re looking
at is approximately 100’ north of the entrance to the Boy Scout camp, which has a lot of
traffic. The Boy Scout camp is used year round, even, they even have a turn lane going
into, off of 56 [inaudible] Boy Scout camp. They’ve had wrecks on that one. People
turning into the Boy Scout camp and people still hitting them. There’s a lot of traffic on
28
that road, and what we’re worried about is they put the particular service station or this
business in this location, that we are running Bennock Mill Road into 56 at that point, and
that is like the Indianapolis 500 coming off of that hill on 56 highway. I’m talking about
between Brown Road and [inaudible] Road. Where the S curve is at, where all the
wrecks have been all these years. So they’ll be coming down that hill doing 75 or 80
miles an hour, trucks, whatever, and that is our biggest concern, is the Boy Scout camp
and the fact that it will make it more dangerous than it already is.
Mr. Mayor: Did you wish to speak also?
Ms. Black: Just to say –
Mr. Mayor: Give us your name and address for the record.
Ms. Black: I’m Janelle Black. I’ve been out there 37 years. But right there we
have plenty of wrecks, as you read in the paper every day there’s wrecks. And the log
trucks and 18-wheelers come down. Not saying anything about the regular vehicles. It’s
just a dangerous area where they’re wanting to place it. It’s in an angle where it’s hard to
see coming out [inaudible]. It’s just the safety of the residents out there or anybody who
travels on Highway 56 at any time should know how dangerous this place is.
Mr. Mayor: You’re the petitioner?
Ms. Rogers: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. What would you like us to know?
Mr. Rogers: Um –
Mr. Mayor: You’re not the petitioner; right?
Mr. Rogers: Well, I’m her husband. Is that okay?
Mr. Mayor: Well, give us your name for the record. We have her name in the
caption, we don’t have your name.
Mr. Rogers: Thomas Rogers. We just don’t see any problem with this problem
whatsoever, and we feel that we’ve been through Mr. Patty so far and so on and we did
even move the actual zoning up on that 16 acres to make it a safer place, where I think
Mr. Patty said unlimited sight distance in both directions when you come out. So I mean
we just don’t see a problem. I think they’re trying to tie in another subject with Boy
Scout camp [inaudible] and our subject today is planning and zoning, and I just don’t see
a problem with it.
Ms. Black: [inaudible]
29
Mr. Mayor: Just a minute, ma’am, you’ve had your chance. Do any
Commissioners have any questions or comments? Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: I’d just like to say that I think you’re looking at progress and there is
going to be speeding, there are going to be people coming up and down. I used to live in
a place that didn’t have many cars, either, but that’s what happens when we continually
grow. And that area is growing. And I think to have something of a good business there,
maybe we need to look at reducing the speed limit or enforcing it. But I just don’t see a
problem with someone building a quality business.
Ms. Black: Have you been out there lately?
Mr. Mayor: Ma’am, direct your comments to the Chair, please.
Ms. Sims: That’s all.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion? Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I’ll make a motion that we’ll approve it
, and I’ll
have a comment in just a moment. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Ms. Sims: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Okay, thank you very much. That’s of course in District 10,
which is District 8 out there, and I feel like the, all of the necessary steps have been taken
through Planning and Zoning and these people have been very cooperative in making the
move that they did as far as the property, as far as the location goes. And from the
standpoint of seeing businesses go in that area, we’ve been talking about trying to
generate business not only in Richmond County or in the city, but throughout our whole
community. I feel like this is one that we can see that’s willing to come and do
something for us, without having to go and beg [inaudible], so I’m all in favor of it and I
hope our Commission will vote in favor of doing this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I heard two things. I’d just like to ask
questions on both. Number 1, when they talked about traffic, does our traffic engineer
get involved when a request such as this is made? Is that a part of the process, part of the
procedure? Do they okay the site plan?
Mr. Patty: Okay. You don’t have a site plan yet. All you’ve got is a concept.
And if the situation appears to warrant it, we call traffic engineering and ask them to look
30
at it. In this particular case, he did, and he’s not here to speak himself, but he did go out
and look at it, the acting traffic engineer, or whatever Dennis is, he went out and looked
at the initial location. There were some sight distance problems there, you’ve got
probably 70 mph traffic out there. He recommended they move it up to the top of the hill
where the situation was a lot better and they did that. We had to re-advertise it, go, wait
another month. They did that voluntarily. When he, when they do a sight plan, the
traffic engineer will have to approve it, from the State Highway, they’ll have to approve
it. Unless you’re not going to allow commercial development on that highway, there’s no
better place to put it. I mean you can see – obviously there’s a hill at some point and you
can’t see over the hill, but it’s way, way back, 700 feet or so. The [inaudible] at 70 mph
would be less than that.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Patty – Mr. Mayor, if I may. Mr. Patty, I heard some mention of
the Boy Scout camp. Have they been a party to this as objector?
Mr. Patty: Yes, they did object at the Planning Commission meeting. There were
several issues. Traffic was one of them. And they were noted and considered.
Mr. Boyles: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Any further comments? We have a motion on the floor to approve.
All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Smith votes No.
Mr. Hankerson abstains.
Motion carries 8-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. All right, is, is Mr. Kuhlke still here? Mr. Kuhlke, are
you ready for your item?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madame Clerk, if you would call, we will combine items 39
and 39A.
The Clerk:
JUDICIAL CENTER SUBCOMMITTEE:
39. Report from the Judicial Center Subcommittee regarding test results of the
environmental assessment of the Walker and 9th Streets site.
39A. Report from Graves Engineering regarding the environmental assessment of
Walker and 9th Streets site. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, you want to give us your report?
31
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, the Judicial Subcommittee met last
Thursday and received a report from the environmental engineer. After that meeting and
the results of the report from the environmental engineer, we had further discussion in
th
regards to the 9 Street and Walker Street site for the judicial center. What I’d like to do,
and I know it’s going to be redundant for a few of y’all because you were there last
Friday, but I would like to ask that we be given permission to go through this
presentation as quickly as we possibly can without maybe any interruptions, and once we
have done that, we’ll open it up for questions and comments. I think it would help
expedite getting through this. So today, we have – Rick Acree will be making this
presentation. Rick Swanson with Graves Engineering Services is here who did the
report. And Jim Wall, who is the counsel that represents the judicial project. So at this
time, I’ll turn it over to Rick Acree. Does anybody not have a copy of the report? Ms.
Bonner, you gave everybody a copy? Okay. We have some extra copies up here if
somebody wants them after we make the presentation.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Before Mr. Acree comes, we had this report, we had this, this, this,
this, this, this same agenda showed to us in committee meeting, and I thought the
committee would come back with recommendation. And I don’t really have a problem
but it’s kind of drawn out to go through all this again, Bill, for the entire board. I thought
the subcommittee was going to bring a report, from what the agenda item said, back to
us, and not, not go through the whole entire synopsis again.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will allow him to proceed. I think he’s got a
recommendation and this is the basis of their recommendation and I will allow it for the
benefit of the Commissioners who were not at the committee meeting.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Mayor, I have no problem. I just think it’s a long,
drawn-out situation, but that’s fine.
Mr. Mayor: Give you a chance to take a break.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, do that.
Mr. Kuhlke: Rick?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Acree: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I’m going to run through this as
quickly as possible so that all of you who have already seen it won’t have to endure too
much of this. The purpose of this study was to provide the Judicial Subcommittee and
the board of Commissioners with an update of the status of the plat being considered for
32
th
the purchase for the Judicial Center on the 9 Street/Telfair/Walker Street area property.
What we’ll attempt to do is define what –
Mr. Cheek: Go back to that first slide. Status on the plat? Wouldn’t that include
some type of soil sampling and analysis and has that been done to date?
Mr. Acree: No, sir, we are presenting the same information that you saw the other
day.
Mr. Cheek: I understand. We’re going to see some of the same points brought up
that were brought up the other day, too. This is more of a historical report than an
environmental assessment of the site?
Mr. Acree: That’s correct. What we’ll do is define what the different
assessments are real quickly and, and some of the terms and items that we will deal with
as part of this report. Phase I assessment is just part of the due diligence that any
property owner should go through when they’re looking at commercial property that has
the potential for contamination. This is no different than a homeowner having a home
inspector check out a house before they make a purchase. I won’t read all of these items,
but there’s a list here of the process that is involved in conducting this study. It’s a
historical study on what operations occurred on the site prior to the time you’re looking at
it, as well as a visual inspection to see if there’s any indicators of activities that need to be
investigated further. Depending on the investigation and what is determined in the Phase
I assessment, the engineer can recommend to continue due diligence, Phase II
assessment, which is a little bit more detailed and in-depth. As a matter of law, the
current property owner may be reluctant to perform any environmental assessment
because knowledge of an environmental problem may trigger a legal duty on the part of
the property owner to report and remedy the problem. A Phase II assessment as I
mentioned is a little more detailed. It does involve testing of the soils and drilling to
determine if there is indeed contamination and what the nature of those contaminants
might be. If the Phase II assessment determines that there are contaminants discovered in
the Phase II, you may have to do additional testing. This data is used to develop a CAP,
which is a corrective action plan. If contaminants are discovered, the property owner
must send a letter to the Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection
Division within 30 days, if those contaminants are in levels are above those permitted by
the Georgia Hazardous Site Response Regulations. As proposed in the environmental
report, the property owner should be notified of the possible need for a Phase II
assessment with amended right of entry, that is the property owner’s permission for us to
actually do the sampling on the property. Okay, corrective action plan is the plan that the
property owner has to submit to the EPD explaining the extent of contamination and the
plan to remediate the problem. This plan has got to be approved by the Georgia EPD,
and the process for this can take anywhere from 30 days to a year, depending on
conditions and the required revisions from agency review. Once the corrective action
plan is approved, then you move into the remediation, which is – if it’s just soil that can
be done fairly quickly. They go in, dig it out, and replace it with uncontaminated soil. If
in fact there is groundwater contamination, that can be a lengthy process because the
33
contamination can spread beyond the boundaries of the property. Once the remediation is
completed, a report is submitted to the EPD about the work that was done and then has to
be approved by the Georgia EPD, who will then issue a “no further action required” letter
stated that they have accepted the remediation under current regulations. Now these
letters will state that there is no further action required at this time, which does not
eliminate your obligation to do further cleanup should there be changes in regulations or
levels of – acceptable levels of contaminants. This slide shows a list of the plats that
encompass the property that we were looking at for the Judicial Center. In reviewing the
status of the plats, we’re going to list the plat under consideration and the activities
required to purchase the plat, and then kind of a schedule of the estimated time required
to purchase. Now this is an estimate only so these could very well change from what we
put on there. Parcel 102.3 is currently owned by First Union/Wachovia. They have not
given us permission for a Phase II, which is a recommended activity. And it could take
well into 2005 before we could get approval on that particular parcel.
Mr. Cheek: Can I ask one more question while you’re in the process?
Mr. Acree: Certainly.
Mr. Cheek: Some of these sites and parcels have had corrective action plans and
actual remediation done on some of them, is my understanding.
Mr. Acree: That’s correct.
Mr. Cheek: Do we have a table of the types and levels of contaminants that were
discovered and then disposed of on those sites, what types of contaminants and what
levels we were seeing?
Mr. Swanson: [inaudible] I have reviewed the corrective action plans as part of
the Phase I assessment, and they did have levels listed in those, but we had to turn those
reports back in to First Union, and I don’t have a current table that has those type of, that
type of information.
Mr. Cheek: Were they, were they [inaudible]?
Mr. Swanson: Lead and arsenic were the primary contaminants on 102.3.
Mr. Cheek: Do you remember the threshold limits, how far above threshold
limits those were?
Mr. Swanson: If I remember, based on my recollection, you had 300 or 400 parts
per million. And the threshold limit for lead, 400 ppm, if I remember correctly, it’s 37
ppm for arsenic. The key thing about 102.3 is they clean it up down to the cleanup
standard but don’t clean it up down to natural background.
34
Mr. Cheek: If there’s trace elements of arsenic or other minerals in the grounds
that may not be achievable?
Mr. Swanson: There’s trace elements of lead and arsenic in every soil sample
you’re going to find.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mr. Acree: Okay, parcel 100.1 is currently owned by Sprint. At the time the
Phase I assessment was completed, we did not have the Phase I entry rights, the right of
access. We do have that, but we have not acted on that because this is a very small
parcel, and depending on Commission decision there is no point in spending money to do
an assessment on that one until we’ve gotten further direction. Parcel number 98, excuse
me, 98 is a parcel that is owned by a Mr. Armata. We have completed the Phase I on that
one. We do, we have been recommended to do a Phase II assessment on that property
and we do have, we have approval from that owner to continue with a Phase II
assessment. Parcel No. 107 is owned by Braye Boardman. That property is also
recommended for a Phase II environmental assessment. We have been denied permission
to perform a Phase II assessment on that property. Parcels 105 and 106 are owned by
Duncan Johnson. 105. 104, I’m sorry, 104 and 105, both owned by Duncan Johnson,
also recommended for a Phase II assessment. Permission to perform a Phase II
assessment on both those parcels has been denied. Parcel 102.2 is also owned by
Wachovia/First Union. That site, they have done remediation on that particular parcel.
They are awaiting the letter from the State EPD on the “no further action required” at this
time. That site would contain with it at completion of the approval process deed
restrictions in terms of the usage, which would be residential, cannot be used for
residential and cannot use the groundwater for drinking purposes. Their approval process
on this particular parcel started in 1995 with their Phase II and we are in 2004 and they
have not yet received that letter, so they’re expecting it sometime this year, so as you can
see, these processes can take a while. It’s not necessarily the case that they would, but it
could be an extended process.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: What were the constituents that required the limitation on not
drinking the groundwater there that were found?
Mr. Swanson: If I recall correctly, I think it was either cadmium or lead.
Mr. Cheek: Again, potentially naturally occurring materials or processed
materials from former use on the site?
Mr. Swanson: No, they did, they did some different types of sampling that, the
second type of sampling limits the amount of trace sediments within the water sample, so
basically the second round of analysis would be a more accurate method of testing.
35
Mr. Cheek: Something like a ??
Mr. Swanson: No, basically they leave the well, after they evacuate the well they
leave it for 24 hours and let all the sediments drop to the bottom of the well and then take
an additional water sample.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. The other question I was going to ask you on that, those
again, do we have data on that as far as what the actual levels were versus special levels?
Mr. Swanson: I didn’t keep any of that kind of data. It’s published in the First
Union corrective action plans.
Mr. Cheek: I don’t remember in the, I’m working from memory here on the
Atlanta Gas Light studies that they did wells and [inaudible] sampling seeing lead or
cadmium listed as two, two of the items listed for remediation or problem areas.
Mr. Swanson: Well, that was we – we were discussing the 102.3, which is the
First Union site. I don’t know. We weren’t privy to any of the Atlanta Gas Light
reporting, which is why we’d recommend as part of the Phase II we do a regulatory file
review and see what they did with the Atlanta Gas Light site.
Mr. Cheek: It would be very useful in that the plume of contaminants from
Atlanta Gas Light typically spreads out and that’s why we’re doing remediation on the
third level of the canal and all is because of contaminants in that area. And water moves
west/northwest, I believe, underground so that would have carried any contaminants from
that site to that area, so. But in any event, thank you.
Mr. Acree: Okay. Parcel number 83 is the former Mayfield Dairy Farms. We
were initially issued a right of entry on that parcel, which was since rescinded as the
property has changed ownership. It is recommended that we do a Phase II assessment on
that property primarily to determine if there has been any offsite migration of
contaminants into that area. Parcel number 84 is the same restrictions, in terms of the
Phase II, Phase I and Phase II assessment. We have not done an assessment on that, but
it is recommended that we do a Phase II. Parcel 282 is also the same owner, with the
same restrictions. In summary, we’ve had rights of entry rescinded, and that was for
Phase II, we are looking for a Phase II on plats 83, 84, 85 and 282. On plat 102.2 we’re
awaiting the EPD’s approval of the clean-up efforts. On plat 102.3 the owner is awaiting
EPD approval of their corrective action plan. They have not done remediation on that
property. On plats 104, 105 and 107 we have been denied permission to perform the
recommended Phase II testing. We have permission from the property owner on plat
number 98. That has been changed since we ran this report. And then on plat 100.1 we
have been given a right of entry to do a Phase I.
Mr. Mayor: Rick, let me interrupt you one moment. Mr. Wall, Mr. Shepard last
week indicated to us, and again yesterday, that he was doing some research to see
whether we could compel entry to the property to do additional testing, for those owners
36
that have rescinded their right of entry to us or denied it. Are you familiar with anything
Mr. Shepard has developed up to this point that would allow us to go onto the property
for testing contrary to the property owner’s wishes?
Mr. Wall: I have not talked to Mr. Shepard and I don’t know whether he’s found
anything beyond what I have found. You can go onto the property as an incident of the
condemnation process for the purposes of doing an appraisal, for purposes of doing an
inspection of the property, but the cases do not extend in my opinion to the point of going
onto the property such that in the event that something is found, you impose cost and a
burden on the property owner. And whether he has found anything to the contrary I’m
not aware of it. And so I don’t know what his opinion is, but my opinion is that you are
subjecting the property owner to a potential liability and therefore the Court would not
mandate or that they give you access for the purpose of doing a Phase II.
Mr. Mayor: Did you have a question about this?
Mr. Cheek: Just a comment. Mr. Mayor, a lot of the areas that we’re excluded
from, typically we could do perimeter wells, core sampling, and other things to determine
if there’s gross soil contamination or transportable contaminants in the water table. That
is something that is accomplishable without cross property boundaries that would let us
know, especially if we were downstream, if there was a point source of contamination on
those sites that was feeding the water table downstream. If you know how clean it is
upstream and the water flow in the north/northwesterly direction, if you see something
down below the property, then you know you’ve got a contributing factor there in
between. If not, then you know it’s clean and you probably have some non-soluble
contaminant perhaps on the surface of the soil or just below that can be excavated. But
we don’t have to go onto every piece of property to determine whether there is
transportable gross contamination below the surface of the earth on every plot of
property. That’s why they don’t do well fields ones every ten feet. I think we had 15 or
so recommended here. I’d like to see about 20 or 25 done. I mean –
Mr. Swanson: Can I speak to that, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I want to apologize, but I cannot hear Mr. Cheek when
he’s talking [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, if you want to respond to the Commissioner. Go ahead.
All I’m doing is – the question was about getting access, that’s all. Go ahead.
Mr. Swanson: The only problem that I would have with doing Phase II testing off
of the property, you would have to qualify the report in that you didn’t do, you didn’t
look for soil contaminants on the particular property. The second issue I would tend to
raise with that is basically if we were testing in the public right-of-way, at that point that
would trigger a duty for the City to notify the State of potential issues on that site in
accordance with the Hazardous Site Response Act. So it, we could respond and do any
kind of Phase II that y’all would want for us to do, but it would be qualified such that
37
some issue wouldn’t, wouldn’t be addressed, like soil contamination on those individual
properties.
Mr. Cheek: It would give us a good kind of thumbprint about subsurface
conditions, though.
Mr. Swanson: It would give you a good idea of whether you had a major
groundwater issue emanating from those sites, yes.
Mr. Cheek: I guess my whole point in all of this is there’s ways for us to do a
basic analysis. This has been blown out of proportion to where – not by your firm – but
by the politics of all of this that we have a potential Superfund site over here that needs to
be cleaned up. And the fact of the matter is that it’s not much different than we’ll find in
a lot of parking lots scattered throughout the city of Augusta with lead and acid and
ethylene glycol and other contaminants that we may have under our kitchen sink.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you have the floor. You have a question?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, sir, I got a couple of questions and a
couple of comments. My first comment, I’d like to know how much money we done
spent on, on this, this study with this firm or any other firm since we been doing this, is
my first question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Kuhlke: $4,000.
Mr. Williams: $4,000.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, that’s the same answer we had in committee.
Mr. Williams: Well, that’s not the same number that I got, Mr. Mayor, but I
wanted to get that on the record. What troubles me, and I asked for a report to come back
from the subcommittee or anybody else, we been dealing with this for such a long time,
now we coming up saying that we got to do a Phase II and coming up that we can’t get
on, on, on, on the property, that we can’t get access to the property. And I guess my, my
question is why hadn’t somebody came back to this body to inform us that we could not
get onto the property to continue to do what we paying folks to do? And, and we paying
people who had to stop for whatever reason. I hope we didn’t continue to pay them while
they was standing still and not working. Now we do a lot of that around here, but I
would think on the outside we would be doing a little different. So my question is, Mr.
Mayor, then how long has it been or when we got the stop sign put on us and why didn’t
somebody come back to notify this body that we couldn’t proceed with going on with the
testing that we supposed to be done?
Mr. Mayor: Well, we’re being informed of that today.
38
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I think at your last Commission meeting is when
Commission Williams would ask for a report and that very day is when we got the report
from the engineer. One of the problems, Mr. Williams, is that we went out in August, I
think, of ’03 asking for right of entry. We didn’t get the right of entry on the Wachovia
property until February of this year. And that right of entry was only to go in and do a
Phase I on that property. It took us that long to get the right of entry. So when we got the
right of entry, it didn’t make much sense for us to go in on the property and do one
[inaudible] and pull off and go back and do another. So we waited until we got that right
of entry. Once we got that and once we got the test results on Phase I, we went back to
the property owners that we were asked to get a Phase II to get another right of entry to
do a Phase II and we were denied by several property owners for going in and doing a
Phase II. So it wasn’t the fault of the engineer. The engineer was paid for the work that
he did. He just was deferred in getting his work started until we could get on the
property.
Mr. Williams: Bill, if you don’t mind, I’d like to get a little bit from the engineer,
the man who actually did the work.
Mr. Kuhlke: Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: I know you know the cement job, but I want to find out a little bit
about some dirt right now. And my question to, to the engineer, to the people doing the
work is that once you obtain the right to go on the property, would you not have obtained
a right to go on the property to do whatever you got to do? Would you obtain a right to
do one phase and not the second phase? If I was going do it, and I’m not in your field,
but I would have got the rights to go on the property, do what I need to do while I’m
there. I wouldn’t want to get one, then go get another one. So maybe Bill kind of threw
me off a little bit. Maybe you can clarify that. Is that, is that what we did? We went on
the property to get one phase, and had to go back to get another, cleared to get another
phase?
Mr. Swanson: I think the delay mainly was the Wachovia properties in getting
the initial right of entry just to do the walkover, which is required by ASTM Standards
for a Phase I environmental site assessment. The – I think the Phase II right of entry is
more of a courtesy when there are potential liability issues out there for the existing
property owners. But as Mr. Kuhlke said, we just responded to – once we had all the
right of entries is when we really started our field work to do the actual Phase I
assessment. So in essence, the work didn’t start –
Mr. Williams: In your expert opinion – my last question. In your expert opinion
from what you found out already, is this property in your opinion worthy of pursuing it or
walking away from it, in your opinion? Just a yes or no answer. You don’t have to give
me, you know, just yes or no.
Mr. Mayor: Give him a chance to answer.
39
Mr. Swanson: That’s a loaded question.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, it sure is.
Mr. Swanson: If you do pursue this particular property, there’s a lot of issues that
could delay the start of construction, that [inaudible] issues.
Mr. Williams: I just want to know, in your opinion, in your professional opinion,
being a professional engineer.
Mr. Swanson: I don’t know if we have enough test results at this time to make
that kind of judgment. Once we got Phase II test results back, you would have more
information to do that. But in my opinion, there are better properties out there and in my
opinion there are worse properties out there.
Mr. Williams: Okay, thank you. That’s all. That’s all. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Let’s let Mr. Acree continue with his report. Are you
going to do that, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Cheek: That was spoken like a true scientist.
Mr. Kuhlke: We’ve got a lot of information, the back part of it. But sort of
bringing this to a conclusion, there are several alternatives that we considered, that the
subcommittee considered, and that was to purchase the property, to condemn the
property, to look at how we could reconfigure the Judicial Center on the properties that
we could get on basically, negotiate a ground lease with the current property owners, and
the last alternative was to be consistent with what the Commission voted on last year,
would be the choose the secondary location, which is to come back to this particular area,
buy the adjoining property, and to add on to this facility. Mr. Williams asked for a
recommendation. And I come back to you with a recommendation from your Judicial
Committee that we abandon the Ninth Street/Walker Street property and that we move to
the secondary location, which is this existing building, and purchase the remaining
property on this block. And that’s the recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much, Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: So we’ll open it up for questions.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sure there are some up here. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I guess question number one, is the same Phase I/Phase
II analysis going to need to be done on the secondary site as we’re conducting over here?
40
Mr. Kuhlke: It will be. We would recommend that, Mr. Cheek, and I think I said
that in the committee. And it really is in this report. I don’t think the County would go
out and buy any new property without doing a Phase I on any piece.
Mr. Cheek: Has there been studies done on the former gas station on the corner
that used to use lead-based fuels to see if those were leaking underground tanks and any
lead based [inaudible]?
Mr. Kuhlke: We haven’t done anything. That would have to come from approval
from y’all. If you chose to move to the secondary site, that’s a recommendation that we
would come back to you with for funding and also to move ahead.
Mr. Cheek: Just in the interest of time and history, this site has been vacant or
seen sparse use for the last 50 years, and unless some accurate accounting of the
environmental conditions is taken, whether it’s the Judicial Center or any other business,
it’s likely to remain that way for the next 100 years, 50 years, or whatever a blighted area.
Again, we have a tremendous opportunity with this site to do some wonderful things,
especially if we can relocate the rail lines and incorporate the aesthetics, the
.
improvements of the third level of the canalI want to make a motion that we authorize
the second phase of the environmental assessment to be done on this property to use any
and all legal means necessary to gain access to these properties to make this assessment
and to come back with a full report, which should include information which should be
public record on the analysis done by Atlanta Gas Light in their remediation plan as it
compares to the property they’re cleaning up on this site.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to the motion. Further discussion?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I yield to Mr. Boyles. He was [inaudible].
Mr. Boyles: I’m so sorry. I’ll yield. But is the context of the motion that we
spend additional money to do another assessment of the sites?
Mr. Cheek: The initial assessment was more of a historical review of known
conditions of businesses, industries, in studies done by EPA, EPD and so forth
[inaudible] secondary study would be actually a performance of analysis on water and
soil. I believe it was mentioned about 15 cores or 20 cores and a price of about $15,000
to $30,000 thereabouts. $50,000? $15,000, which based on being in the business a
41
number of years is a very reasonable estimate. A very reasonable price for the type of
analysis and so forth.
Mr. Boyles: How long? How much time are we talking about?
Mr. Mayor: How much to do the Phase II, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Boyles: How long? How long a time, Jim?
Mr. Wall: Well, you’ve got two parts of that. And I’ll let Rick indicate how long
it will take after you get access, if you get access.
Mr. Boyles: If you get access to the property.
Mr. Wall: And when we talk about pursuing all legal means, I mean I think that
you are going to have to initiate a petition in Court to force entry on there, and I think that
you are going to subject or be subject to the potential liability of cleanup in the event that
something is found. Now another option would be to condemn the property, but then you
clearly have bought the liability in the even there is contamination there. I don’t know
how long that process would take and I would hate to venture a guess because you could,
you could win, or regardless what the decision is made at the, at this level, there could be
an appeal by either side. So you conceivably are talking about anywhere from nine
months to a year before you have a final answer by the time you go through the appeal
process.
Mr. Boyles: Can I follow that up a little bit?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Boyles: If we come back to this site, how long will it take to do the
environmental assessment needed here?
Mr. Swanson: Typically in our proposals we recommend anywhere from two to
three weeks after we receive right of entry and chain of ownership records from the
owner’s representative. So once we get the right of ownership and chain of ownership,
we’re looking at two-to-three-week turnaround time for a report.
Mr. Boyles: After you get right of entry?
Mr. Swanson: After we get right of entry.
Mr. Boyles: Some of this property on this street does not belong to the City of
Augusta.
Mr. Swanson: From what I understand, yes, that’s correct.
42
Mr. Boyles: Well, I was just concerned – one final comment, I guess, Mr. Mayor.
When I came on this Commission two years and some months ago, a few months ago, the
Judicial Center was a very urgent item and we’ve treated it that way. And now we have
bounced to five or four different sites from this one, and now we still don’t know where
we’re bouncing to. And I thought in my conversation with the judges that this was
extremely urgent that we do something. And so if we’re going to make another study or
property we don’t even know we can get on to – maybe my term will be up when it’s all
over with.
(Laughter)
Mr. Boyles: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: I know mine will be. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I want to yield to Mr. Grantham. His left hand was up
before mine.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I know that it would be tough to follow
your act, and I’m going to have to just make a few comments, and that is that based on
the information that we already have to do a Phase II, we are being denied entry on
certain pieces of property. And I think Mr. Wall just answered part of my question as to
how long it might take to get that done. Along those lines, I just, I just see us spinning
our wheels and Mr. Boyles, we might all be gone before this thing gets built. But it
bothers me somewhat that if we ask a Judicial Committee to come back with a
recommendation and they come back with a recommendation that may not be pleasing to
some people, it may be pleasing to others, but we’ve asked them to do that, and if we are
going to continue to spend the time of not only ourselves on this Commission but the
people out there in the field that are doing the work for us, you know, I think we’re being
maybe a little over anxious to try to get folks to work for us and that’s why we get turned
down when we do ask for volunteers to come do things. So I’m hopes that maybe we can
move forward and at least find a Phase I study on the additional property next to this
building and that’s not to always say that we can’t go back to this piece of property if we
have to. And so I’m going to support the issue of abandoning that property and moving
in.
Mr. Mayor: Is that a substitute motion?
Mr. Grantham: That would be.
Mr. Mayor: All right, is there a second to the substitute motion?
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: The motion has been seconded. Okay. Mr. Mays?
43
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor. Well, I know one person that will definitely be
gone.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mays: I got the shortest term and the new Bill says I’m like Bill Kuhlke, I
can’t come back. So I definitely be gone at the rate we’re going. The Judge, Judge
Fleming and I, we definitely agree on one specific thing. He’s sick and tired of waiting,
and I’m sick and tired, quite frankly, of us having to deal with it. I want to see us move
somewhere. Now I think both motions have merit and I’m going to change the climate
just a little bit. I’m not going to get off on something, Mr. Mayor, that’s not germane to
either motion that’s there. But let me just say this. I think that actually they could be
included for a particular reason. I’m a little disturbed that when I hear the denying of
access, and I’m all for dealing with property rights and of the individual, but I think
though that in looking at this whole thing of testing and in that area, everything from my
own church’s property and moving out, litigation with the gas company, the
contamination that’s over and around the canal. The Judge and I have also agreed to a
point of how much area along the canal that’s probably contaminated. But what’s very
puzzling about all of this is the fact that I’m wondering what role do we play as public
officials, both the judiciary and this Commission, to a point that if there is a danger of
that much further contamination being in that area, then it seems to me whether you build
a judicial building down there or not that somebody ought to be interested in whether or
not it’s contaminated. Now if we’re dealing with millions of dollars, we’ve just dealt
with a bond project a few weeks ago that would add to the City’s contribution, I believe,
$6 million to $7 million to complete the canal work in this channel, along with what the
gas company is doing with the clean-up. Now it should, it should have, if nothing else,
[inaudible] the building for just a second. Let’s, let’s take it and maybe go back to my
old site, which I know y’all are not going to do. But let’s just look at the point of there
should be some interest in the government as to whether or not it’s contaminated or not.
Now if there’s a stall and delay tactic to a point of wanting somebody over there on it, I
hope that I didn’t cause the delay, Mr. Mayor, but stepping into the Wachovia situation of
which they were unfairly charging our employees for [inaudible] people cashing the
checks. So maybe it’s a little bit of political payback, Bill, to a point with the bank that if
it’s a get back with me and the employees, then maybe they ought to say that, too. And
there’s a way to cure that, too, in reference to the money. But let me, let me also say that
I think that if you’ve gone through this and if there’s charges floating around town that
this is a problem, then it should concern us whether a judicial center or a chicken coop
goes over there. That if you’ve got that much contamination supposedly or may be there,
it ought to be cleared up one way or the other period. At some point in time. Because I
would hate for another mayor or another commission a decade later to come down and to
say they spent millions of dollars, the gas company spent a lot of money cleaning up, and
yet they had a contamination minefield right next to it. If that’s the case then we ought to
deal with it. If it’s not, then we ought to shut up about it. Now there’s an opportunity
still, and I’m concerned about coming back to this site, as I always have been, it’s not any
secret. We had delegations here today. There was basically nowhere to park as it is, just
in this building, just to come to a meeting. Now we’re going to add another building next
44
to this building and to a point the last time I checked, there was not a lot of plans to do a
lot of knocking down to put any type of buildings up to just deal with parking, so we’re
going to deal with two structures here. I’ve heard a lot, Mr. Mayor, about the railroad
and it’s so funny about the railroad. You know, one place the railroad is, is, is the devil.
Another place, it’s ignored. Another place, it’s an angel. When we were going to go to
the riverfront with the Judicial Center, it was an angel. Nobody had a problem about it.
We were going to go up a two lane street on one side and a place with a bridge incline on
the other side. But yet there were some folk ready to put that out there, too. So Don,
while I respect what the committee said, that also came to us and we had to turn that
down, cause it was a crazy decision. We also turned around and said okay, about the
railroad out here. Come back to this building, guess what, I got news for you. The
railroad is still going to be out here. Doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes and a rocket scientist
th
to figure the fact it’s still going to run up 6 Street. So you still going to deal with the
railroad. So now if the railroad is a problem over there, it just means that you’ll be
somewhere else by the railroad. Now for those who have been to the Sloppy Floyd
building in Atlanta, it’s so strange how MARTA and the railroad can run through the
center of a building and the tracks, folk can get on it, don’t go outside, and move along.
And the same construction folk we got have got the technology to basically do anything
if they want to. But I think, gentlemen, that the stall and delay tactic to a certain extent
has worked very successfully. Now we are going to be put under pressure to a point that
it will be another year, another two, and we’ll fight in court, so you know, this darn thing
has had more delays than a North Carolina four corner offense under Dean Smith before
you [inaudible] clock. So I mean it’s worked very successfully. You can just go around
all day [inaudible] tip off and never shoot the ball because hey, you just continue to
delay. So I’m looking at it to a point I don’t really see anything beautiful about, about
really coming back here. Now I’m about ready, and I committed to a downtown location,
I’m getting all this off my chest, Mr. Mayor, at one time. You know I committed to a
downtown location trying to deal with the legal community and trying to say how we
would do. I even made the statement folk, you know, me and Harry could get good
exercise if it was over there, you know, at May Park on the property we own, the biggest
piece that the City still has and we still own property that we bought during the time we
were going to buy the first jail, Don. It’s still down there. Bill, you chaired that
committee. That’s the biggest piece of property we got and I joked one day, I said who is
going to object to a point when you got prisoners on one side of it and you got the
cemetery on the other? I don’t think you’re going to have a real objection to a point of
dealing with it. It’s still the biggest and it’s an opportunity to move May Park, it’s an
opportunity to put it on something that we really own and still be able to have – condemn
the streets. They still do belong to us, I think. I don’t think we have to get access to go
on that property. That’s one place. Or we can turn around and do what Commissioner
Hankerson had said on the first meeting, we can turn around and move it to the center of
town. We can put it right at Regency Mall and stick it there in the center and make
everybody happy. So I mean there’s some other options to deal with. So I think that both
motions you’ve got out there to a point testing does need to be done. Whether you’ve got
a building going there or not. Cause I’m concerned to a point I don’t want to throw away
$7 million a few blocks up the street on a canal project that this City has spent and then
we got neighbors right next to it to a point where you say you can’t get on and to do it.
45
So I think something needs to be worked in that situation, Mr. Mayor, because I think if
anything that’s a waste of taxpayers’ money it’s to go two streets over, spend that kind of
money and of working with the canal and then we turn around and we don’t want to
what’s there, so I think this has opened a whole different box to a point of where we’re
going. And so I’m, I’m, I’m just really ready to bring something to a conclusion, I think
we probably need to deal with [inaudible] testing on this property simultaneously with
the other, because if we are going to have to come back here, what the motion said, we
are going to have to still deal with the testing. So if y’all find a way to work them into
both motions to deal with the testing, maybe some that I can vote on, or if y’all keep
tossing this football around, maybe you’ll come back to the other proposal of where you
got the most land, the least objections, and the property you already own, and that might
make some sense after you keep tossing it around, and maybe y’all will do it after I’m
gone.
Mr. Mayor: All right, is there anyone who hasn’t spoken yet who wanted to
address the motions? Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor, I feel like we’ve got recommendations from the experts.
We’ve got recommendations from the Committee. And that’s what we were looking for.
And I don’t see the common sense to keep talking about it any further. It doesn’t mean
that we are going to put it on this site, it just means that we’re not going to put it on that
site. But there’s still plenty of time to decide where it’s going to be put.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, did you have your hand up?
Mr. Shepard: I did, Mr. Mayor. It’s my opinion that the owners can refuse a right
of entry. And I do not believe we can condemn a right of entry, and I’d like to address
some of these other issues about public duty in the legal session.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I could clear one line on something. As probably the
person who has voted more times against condemnation of folks’ properties, Jim Wall
will attest, cause I have been condemned before, so I fight for those rights altogether. I
never had ventured to a point of with this Commissioner voting to condemn, to do that
for the purposes of dealing with putting a building, but I think that some measures need
to be sought from the sake of the environmental sake of this City and from its financial
stability to a point that if there is a refusal to do that and if it’s going to be spread out
about town from every piece that I read and even from parts of the judiciary that it’s
contaminated, then I think that’s a challenge upon this government, Mr. Attorney, to at
least seek to a point to see what’s there. Doesn’t mean you build a building, doesn’t
mean you have to condemn, but you ought to want to know what’s there before you
waste money all around it that the taxpayers have spent. I think that’s prudent that you
do that.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair, the Chair recognizes Mr. Cheek.
46
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just, I’m going to get it off my chest, too,
Willie. I’ve never seen a better case of us denying the use of a piece of property because
it wasn’t the preferred site of a few people. The truth is this is an opportunity to bring
tremendous economic development to that area that it won’t see in the next 50 years.
There, we were just over at the canal. We saw the industrial development that occurred
in the last 200 years in the city of Augusta, and this entire city has got a rich industrial
history, which with it came certain elements of industrial processes like arsenic and lead,
which used to be in every gas tank and every car that all of us drove, that has found its
way into our water tables and different things. As far as experts are concerned, it just
about provokes me to profanity but these are the same experts who pointed out that we
needed to put it on the river as the site of choice when you had the main rail line coming
th
in, the 5 Street bridge that was about to be condemned because it’s not suitable for
vehicular traffic, with Reynolds Street over there. That was the first expert
recommendation. We need to find out what’s on this soil and quit playing here and there.
I have no problem with checking both sites. I bet we’ll find out when we do an historical
review of the sites adjacent to this facility that there’s other industries and things that
have taken place over the last 100 or so years that may contribute to the same types of
contamination we’re concerned about over here. By and large, though, what you’re
going to find over here primarily are things from the rail cars that used to be there, a
couple of businesses that used to be there, some coal tar byproducts that came from the
Atlanta Gas Light plume underground, but by and large you’d have to eat a handful of
this dirt every day for the rest of your life to get cancer. I mean let’s get realistic about
the levels of contamination we’re talking about. Parts per billion. Parts per million.
There’s more contamination in your tackle box and lead under the hood of your car than
you’re going to find, that you need to be more worried about than the level of soil over
here at this site. But the bottom line is we need to go in and check this site, to see what’s
there, and have it cleaned up for future use. I don’t see, I am for keeping and in fact I
supported Commissioner Hankerson when we wanted to go to Regency Mall and a lot of
our predecessors have wanted to do that for years, but we were ignored. It would be a
negative impact for us to move the Judicial Center out of downtown. It would be a very
negative impact on local business, so it needs to stay here. That area is in desperate need
of help. I’m more concerned that we seem to be able to get access to site entry and other
things more expeditiously when it, when it’s, it favors certain people than we do with
others. This area here, I’d love to see us level it from Greene – from Walton Way all the
way back to the back of the judicial property that we’re looking at and create a big green
belt with the Judicial Center on the banks of that newly-improved third level of the canal.
It’s time to get the vision, to get the blinders off. And the blinders are on right now, we
don’t want that site and we’re going to find any dad gum excuse in the world not to use it.
And that’s a perfectly good site. Any expert that tells me I can’t build a building, I don’t
want to build a building there for aesthetic purposes because I’ll be looking out the
window at a parking lot. Parking lot, parking lot. Go the big cities. Parking lots all
around big buildings. I’m just sick of the petty excuses. I’m sick of the halfhearted – I
mean there’s people on the committee that don’t want this site for whatever reason, but
there’s more good reasons to put it there. If you haven’t noticed lately, that area has been
vacant for like I said 50 years. It’s time for us to do something with it. We are having to
47
address building a parking deck here, which we would have to have if we expanded this
center. We haven’t addressed parking in the city at all. But to write this thing off now
because the experts have said so, all I’ve got to say is go back and read the presentations
and you will find so many contradictions in there if you look that you will, you will
seriously doubt the credibility of the so-called experts.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, you know, I’ve been where you are
and I understand what you’re talking about and I voted for that site when I was on the
Commission. And I agree with what Andy says, I’d love to see that site be clean, I’d like
to see us redevelop that particular area. But the committee looked at, at what reports we
got back from the engineer. And you know, we’re not just looking at the site clean-up.
We’re looking at the buildings over there that we’ve got to take a look at. We are
looking at possibly lead paint in those buildings, possibly asbestos in those buildings, so
we looked at the consequences of what we would have to go through. We looked at the
potential time it would take. Now I tell you, I started working on this Judicial
Committee, I think maybe Willie appointed me a few years ago, and I had brown hair.
And I don’t know whether I can take it much longer. But anyway, to go back to do the
testing, which would be fine, maybe it would work, but there’s only one site over there
that has given us permission to do testing on. And that’s site number 98. That’s it. And
the Attorney has just told us we can’t force these folks that don’t want us to go in and do
a Phase II to do it. So you know, and if you go on that one site, which is fine if that’s
what you direct us to do, we will do that. If you find contamination over there, then
where do we go from there? We can’t go over there and buy it. We don’t have enough
property to build a facility. So all we can is to come back to you with I hope an honest
recommendation that at this point, if we going to move ahead with the Judicial Center,
that’s, that’s not the site to do it in a timely fashion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s have the final word from Mr. Williams and then
we’ll move ahead with the vote on the motions. Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to talk to the professional again,
the engineer.
Mr. Kuhlke: I’m a professional.
Mr. Williams: Yeah, but you’re the wrong one today, Bill.
(Laughter)
Mr. Williams: I just want to, I just want to for my own understanding, and I hear
Bill talked about asbestos and all this other stuff that could be and it probably in there,
and if we can’t ever get rid of that it’s going [inaudible] always. My question to you is, if
there, the second level or the third level or second level of contamination is there, how
much will we have to remove to clean it out? I mean and I’m asking a everyday
48
question. I’m not an engineer, so what I’m thinking is that if it’s contaminated it can be
removed, though, if it’s in the soil.
Mr. Swanson: If it’s in the soil, it can be removed fairly –
Mr. Williams: Okay. And if you going to build a building of any magnitude the
size of this one, and I’m, I’m in disagreement with building anything this size. I keep
saying we ought to build a building that we can use for the future. Ought to be at least 16
to 20-something stories. There’s no skyline in here except the old bank over here. But if
you going to build a building of this magnitude, would not you remove all of the
contamination that you would possibly come in contact with to put a building of this
magnitude on it?
Mr. Swanson: I don’t know if the building is – I haven’t seen any site plans that
show the building covering the whole site.
Mr. Williams: Okay, but I’m talking about the area that you going to build on,
and you going to build a eight story building or ten story building, you would have to go
at least how far in the ground, cause you can’t just build a building on top of the slab.
You going to have to dig to remove or to move out. Is that right? I mean, cause –
Mr. Swanson: Most likely you’re going to have a deep foundation.
Mr. Williams: A deep foundation. So if you got a deep foundation – and thank
th
you for that. That, that, that’s 9 Street talk. I can understand that. A deep foundation.
If you going do a deep foundation, would not you remove any contamination? If it’s
more than what you remove to have a deep foundation, then this whole city’s in danger;
is that right? If it’s more? If it’s more than you going to get out digging a deep
foundation?
Mr. Swanson: I’ll give you an example from MCG Children’s Medical Center.
They drilled 16” diameter [inaudible] piles to support that building, but 16” diameter hole
is not going to cover your whole site. There’s another issue on this particular site, and
the MCG Children’s Medical Center brings this one into play, too. When they dug the
basement level for the Children’s Medical Center, they had to pump and de-water the
basement area. On this particular site, you may be restricted from being able to pump the
groundwater that, that’s under that site. So there are a lot of issues on that site.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And we going to say everything is even, though, we going,
we going assume that everything is across the board. So we going to assume that it’s not
there, cause it could be, but if it’s an average, if it’s normal –
Mr. Swanson: Well, we already know that it is on 102.2 and 102.3, and it’s not
going to be remediated by Wachovia. So we know the risks that are associated with
those properties. We don’t know the risks that are associated with 104, 105, 98.
49
Mr. Williams: Okay. My, and my last statement, Mr. Mayor. We, we, in this
town I seen people go in buildings and take records from people and take them out and,
and, and, and, and even have them filmed doing it. But we can’t get on the site to tell
whether the property is condemned or not. Something wrong. I think, I think we got the
horse before the cart. Something wrong. Now my attorney on the end, Mr. Shepard, he
just advised us that we cannot have people to, to, we can’t condemn that property to, to
see whether it’s condemned, whether it’s contamination or not. But there ought to be
some way of protecting the citizens of Richmond County if that property is so awful bad
that we could have some testing done so these people in this city would know that that’s a
bad area, don’t let your dog walk on it, don’t let your children go around it, don’t even fly
over it in an airplane if it’s that bad. But we have not had that level of participation or
concern from this government, and I agree with Mr. Mays, something wrong with that
picture. And I think it just a ploy to keep us from going on that site. Now I’m ready to
vote on Regency Mall again. I done heard four votes for Regency Mall, so if we wanted
to keep it downtown, the lawyers had to be downtown, everything had to be downtown,
and we tried to do that. That’s the best place for it. But I think we, if we get two more
votes, we ought to be able to take it to Regency Mall, cause we sure, we surely will not
be able to put it in this location with the congestion and stuff we already got.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s go ahead and we’ll call the question on the substitute
motion, and that is to accept the recommendation from the committee. All in favor of the
substitute motion, please vote in the affirmative.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Cheek, Ms. Beard, Mr. Mays, Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Colclough not voting.
Motion fails 4-5.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the, that takes us back to the original motion,
and that is to do the Phase II environmental on the preferred site. Any questions on that?
Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just a note from history. The Russians had problems building
turbines for their jet engines and the English took them on a tour of their Rolls Royce
plant and they wore gummy shoes and picked up the shavings from around their, their
end lathes. The next time y’all walk on these sites, maybe you ought to wear some
gummy shoes and do some soil sampling while you’re walking.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the original motion, please vote in the affirmative.
The original motion is to do a Phase II on the James Brown Boulevard site.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, can I offer another motion at this time?
Mr. Mayor: Let us finish publishing the vote, Mr. Cheek.
(Vote on original motion)
50
Mr. Grantham, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Smith and Ms. Sims vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion fails 5-4-1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to offer a motion that we conduct a part II on the
original site selected, and do a Part I on the secondary site as a backup plan and a
contingency should we have to relocate to that site.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Mays: I’ll second that for the purpose of getting it on the floor, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there any discussion on the new motion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I need to ask –
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: A point of clarification. Andy, you kind of died on me in volume in
the last part of that motion. And the motion, I’m thinking it was the same motion I was
going to make to, to proceed with the study and actually of both sites. Is that your
intention?
Mr. Cheek: That’s, that’s correct, Commissioner Mays. Is this better, y’all? But
I would encourage all of us to keep our eye open and make sure there’s no foot dragging
when it comes to site access on these other properties. And we need a report back
probably I’d like to see weekly or every two weeks a report on where we’re at with site
access and exactly where the road blocks occur as far as us being able to gain that access.
Is it in the court system, with our Attorney, EPD, you know, where the road blocks are
that are prohibiting us from making progress toward accessing these sites.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? If I might respond to Mr. Cheek. The reason why I
seconded that motion is to point that I see what’s going on, but at the same time I don’t
want to tie our Attorney’s hands or the committee’s from the standpoint that I think they
need to be able to, you know, move, and that’s why I wanted to see, while not
committing to a point of moving, I wanted to commit to go ahead and dealing with the
testing and the full testing on this particular site since that’s what the original motion was
to deal with this whole programming. That gets us back to this testing. What I’d like
from them, and probably some of this has to be dealt with in legal, is a point of how do
we take a direction, not so much from a building standpoint, but from a community
standpoint, on what ground do we deal with in reference to moving and allow the
Attorney to discuss that with us from the standpoint of testing on properties that may
have this potential. And now if it was clear, if it was by itself, I might not even feel like
dealing with this, but to a point of this being so close to where we have had years now
51
and of dealing with contamination clean-up, then I think that there should be some
process of doing it. And this is not to punish people who own property. I think to a point
it may be that the contaminants who were responsible for dealing with other forms of
contamination before this whole thing is gone, they may have, if they have contaminated
other properties that are in that area, then maybe the people who are owning the property
or not the folk who are responsible to a point of what may be there. But I think if you
allow this closure to take place fully, this has opened a different door in this whole box.
And Jim, you know where I’m coming from. I’ve said long ago that everything over
there, our park, every piece of vacant property along those canal banks, everything that
we do, needed to have been tested, every piece of public domain over there and I was
said to be environmentally crazy, but it just seemed to me every time we go up along the
th
canal route or every time we dig on everything from here to 13 Street, that we’re finding
some form of contaminant that’s down in there. So I think it makes some sense to deal
with the testing, but I don’t want to lock the committee, nor our legal folk, into just doing
one thing, and that was my purpose for seconding the motion and getting it on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, any further discussion? Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My question along those lines is we
already know that we’re not going to gain access to some of the properties, and the
Attorney has alluded to that that we cannot go in and condemn. Are you saying, Mr.
Cheek, that we need to simultaneously inspect these two pieces of property, and if so,
does that delay Phase I of the secondary location from being inspected? Do we wait on
Phase II if entry can be gained in order to get a report on both pieces of property?
Mr. Cheek: My intention -- thank you, Mr. Mayor. My intention that we, we
move simultaneously with trying to seek access to these properties and do the assessment.
Just Andy’s opinion, of course, and not being real knowledgeable about environmental
monitoring or anything, that we‘re going to find lead contamination and all from that gas
station that used to be on the corner and its leaky gas tanks and we’re going to be finding
a whole lot of other things. Then we’ve got the big white house. I don’t know if it’s a
historic structure or not. That we’re going to have to relocate. So you know, by and
large I’d like to see us move simultaneously with both efforts, but I will say this, and this
is the point where this Commissioner is at, is that, that we have know, us Commissioners,
and our legal staff, about contaminated sites in this city that are as bad as Goldberg that
we have ignored and not done a thing with, that, that will make the levels of
contamination at this site that we’re bickering over now pale in comparison, that if we
want to [inaudible] this out and we’ll see how much the public wants to see just about
how concerned we are about their health and the conditions that exist around here.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would request the Commission table this
matter until after legal and then take a vote, if somebody would so desire to --
Mr. Mayor: Let me --
52
Mr. Shepard: -- is inclined to make a motion to that effect.
Mr. Mayor: Let me hear first from Mr. Kuhlke and then -- just a moment, Ms.
Beard. Let me -- he had his hand up and then I’m going to come to you.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to make a recommendation. Give some
guidance, let’s say. If we can’t get right of access to the other properties over there, if
Andy’s motion is for us to do testing on, on the site we do have right of access, which is
98, I think, and in following up on that, at the same time that we’re doing that we do a
Phase I on the adjoining property here. I think that’s what you said. The other question
is, is if that’s the decision of the Commission then we need to have authorization to spend
the necessary funds to go in and do that and the permission for the Attorney representing
the Judicial to do what he needs for right of entry. So that’s just, that needs to come back
to us so we know where we are.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: And it’s my intention that the funding be from the account that’s
already established for the Judicial Center.
Mr. Kuhlke: I think we pretty much exhausted what y’all initially gave us. We
may have to go back in. That’s in the SPLOST account, and -- but initially we had, I
think we had up to $50,000 when we started way back, and Rick, do you know where we
are on that?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Acree, could you prepare an agenda item for the Finance
Committee meeting next week that would address the funding?
Mr. Kuhlke: We can do that.
Mr. Cheek: Quite frankly, I promise not to be politically correct and I’m not. I
think the fix is in over here unless we take legal action that certain property owners are
not going to allow us to have that site because people don’t, some people don’t want us to
build there.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’d simply like to say I have toured the area and it’s the
most dilapidated thing I’ve ever seen in my life. It’s one of the worst looking pieces of
property you could seek. But we’re supposed to be about revitalizing our community,
and if we are, we in my opinion, we should be able to look at this piece of land and see
what it could be if it had this Judicial Center on it. You know, it bothers me when I hear
things like oh, we didn’t quite do the Civic Center right, so now we need a new place,
something just a little larger. Well, I’m like this. When I put my money into something,
I want to study it thoroughly, know what I’m doing, and prepare that it be here thousands
53
of years, not a few years. If we are intent on, on improving our city, then we want to
improve the entire city, and that’s a part of it. Now only is -- I was very impressed with
Leadership Augusta’s Vision 2020, because for so long we felt we could not cross the
railroad track. There’s always been this thing about good land and bad land. There’s no
such thing. This is our city. All of it is good. We need to work with it and we can and
when we spend our dollars we want to spend it for something that’s going to be with us a
long, long time, and we want to do it right. And if there’s something wrong with that land
over there, and I’m not an engineer, but it needs to be cleaned up and we need to move
forward to improve the entire city.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Just for the Commission’s information, I forwarded a
copy of the Phase I which pointed out some issues with the dilapidated buildings and
accumulation of trash and other debris on those properties. I forwarded a copy of that
report to our building inspection department for code enforcement and asked for a report
back on that. So hopefully those issues of obvious eye pollution can be dealt with --
Ms. Beard: May I add one thing?
Mr. Mayor: -- independently of the work we’re doing. Yes, ma’am?
Ms. Beard: I, too, toured the Augusta Canal today. Went through the museum,
went through Enterprise Mill. I’d like for you to go look at both of those properties. See
what is where we want to put that Judicial Center. Then look at Enterprise Mill and see
what was done there. And I think you, too, will agree that you want your entire city to
look that way. And it can be done if we take our projects and put them in the, in places
that can help to revitalize things.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles:
Mr. Mayor, I think our Attorney had recommended to us something
And I’ll put that in the form of a motion based on the
that we talk about in legal.
information the Attorney has given us, that we table this issue until after legal.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Mays: I’ll second that one, too.
Mr. Mayor: All right, motion to table is non-debatable. All in favor of, all in
favor of tabling this item please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right. In view of the fact that we take up these legal issues later
in the meeting, is it the Commission’s desire that Mr. Kuhlke remain with us until our
legal session or can we excuse him? Can we excuse him subject to call?
54
Mr. Mays: I’m so glad to have him back until I think, Bill -- look here, I’m going
to cut this sandwich I got in half. You can’t go nowhere.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will declare a five minute recess.
(Brief recess)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, what we would like to do now is to, if we would go
to the last page of the agenda, the item on Whitehead Drive. If you’ll read the caption on
that, we’ll take up that item next.
The Clerk:
45. LEGAL MEETING
??
Discuss the use of the residence at 552 Whitehead Drive as a daycare
facility for mental health patients. (Deferred from the Public Services
Committee March 8, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the
Commission, with the consent of the body, this was in the legal part of the meeting but
we were able to address it last week. And with the consent of everyone here, I’ll go
ahead and discuss this matter on the record. Is that okay with the Commission? Because
right now it’s in the legal session if there’s no unanimous consent, and I can’t bring it out
here.
Mr. Williams: What item is that, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: The top of the last page.
Mr. Williams: Under legal?
Mr. Speaker: 45.
Mr. Mayor: There are a number of citizens here who want to be heard on that so
we’ll just go ahead on that one.
Mr. Shepard: It’s at the top of the page. So if you want to discuss it in legal, fine.
But if you want me to do discuss it now, it takes unanimous consent for me to continue.
Mr. Mayor: And you’re asking to move forward now because there are a number
of people here in the audience who are here for this item?
55
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: And we don’t want to keep them here.
Mr. Hankerson: I think they just left because they thought it was going to be in
legal and it was going to be too long. So.
Mr. Cheek: Some of them are still here.
Mr. Speaker: They’re here.
Mr. Mayor: The neighbors are here, the property owner is here. So all the parties
are here.
Mr. Hankerson: The people I’m talking about [inaudible], her son.
Mr. Mayor: Her son is here.
Mr. Speaker: I’m [inaudible] and I own the property.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Okay. I know Ms. [inaudible] came up and spoke to me
and said she was leaving. Okay.
Mr. Shepard: Would the Commission like the record to be developed by the
parties before I rule, before I share my advice with the body? That would be fine with
me, or I can share what thoughts I’ve developed to date on this property.
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t you take us through your thought process?
Mr. Shepard: I’ll be happy to do that.
Mr. Mayor: And then we can proceed from there.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I think that there’s precedent, and George Patty and some of
the other Commissioners will remember when this issue came before this Commission in
the subdivision of Brynwood. And that was similar to this because we had to look into
the both the zoning issue and the issue presented under the federal Fair Housing
Amendments of 1988. And what I understand the facts to be in this case is that Mr.
Richard Swann owns the property and he rents it to his brother. His brother has two
lodgers. When you consult the definition of what constitutes a single family dwelling
under our zoning statute, our zoning ordinance, it’s a family, family unit with up to two
lodgers or boarders. And so in my opinion, if that is the fact, and you apply that zoning
category to it, it is, the use is not contrary here to the zoning. You have a documented
ownership. We were furnished a lease when we met with Mr. Patterson I think a week
ago or the last Commission meeting, so therefore under those facts it does not appear
there’s a zoning violation. And then further, if this property is operated under the
56
authority of the federal Fair Housing Amendments of 1988, as it was in the case in
Brynwood, then the legal was not a legal remedy. The zoning is in compliance and the
amendments of the statute, the amendments to the statute at the Congressional level
would preclude any activity on behalf of this board in terms of enforcement. So that, I
don’t think is, it may not sit well with everybody, but that is, that is the ruling of this
office, and again, I have consulted with Mr. Patty on the matter and I think he’s of the
same opinion since he deals with the zoning from day to day. If you’d like to hear from
him, he’s here as well. So I give you that, I give you that benefit of my opinion.
Mr. Mayor: If we may, the Chair would like to hear from Mr. Patty, hear your
comments.
Mr. Patty: Well, the only thing I can add is that when this came up -- I preface
what I’m going to say by saying that when this came up before I lived on Sussex Road
and one of these homes was three houses, three or four houses down from me. But in this
case, it’s an occupant, it’s a primary occupant who is a renter and two boarders, is my
understanding. And so that complies with the zoning. And the only real issue is that
they’re handicapped. And the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988, the former
Attorney and I went through a lengthy process of learning, learning the law and learning
what case law is pursuant to the law, and you know, one of the main provisions of the
Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 is that you’ve got to make special
accommodations, called Special Accommodations clause or something like that, and here
what you, what you’re being asked to do is say that while that basically non-handicapped
people could live in this house, handicapped people can’t, and that just flies in the face of
the federal law and the cases. You know, I just don’t see how you could take any action
against them. Now they may be getting contract services, there may be somebody that
comes in and provides medical services for them or something like that or there may be
something beyond that, and if there is, you know, some form of, you know, supervision
or attention or something then maybe that’s a different issue. But if it’s just simply people
that come in to provide contract services, anybody could do that. I mean you could have
a nurse come to your house and take care of your elderly mother or something. I mean I
just think this is a pretty clear-cut case. While the neighborhood may not like it, it
appears to be legal.
Mr. Mayor: Now I understand that our zoning enforcement department has been
out to the property and observed. Is Mr. Sherman here? He’s not here? I think he
previously reported to us that he did not observe a violation of the ordinance out there,
that’s my recollection. Is that, is that, do you recall that, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: We’re consulting the Public Services, Public Services minutes from
the last meeting. Ms. Bonner suggested that. Bear with us.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayo, I can answer that question.
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment.
57
The Clerk: [inaudible] read Mr. Sherman’s statement.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Go ahead.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Sherman stated we received a complaint about this property in
December, and our inspector went out and did not find any activity there. I contacted the
owner’s wife and she said it was rented out to her husband’s brother and two other people
who are mentally challenged. She said it was not being used as a daycare facility. I went
by there Friday and found one of the residents there. We found that basically it is being
used as a rental property, has three people living there, and is in compliance with the
code.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Now I think we’ve got some of the neighbors here who
wanted to speak. All right. Come up and give us your name and address again for the
record.
Mr. Patterson: My name is Brian Patterson. I live 559 Martin Lane, and my
property backs up directly to theirs.
Mr. Mayor: Would you pull the microphone up and speak directly into it so we
can hear you? Thank you.
Mr. Patterson: Brian Patterson. I live at 559 Martin Lane. My property backs up
directly to the house at 552 Whitehead Drive. The house at Whitehead Drive, there’s no
issue with federal Fair Housing Standard. Everybody deserves somewhere decent to live.
These three gentlemen need somewhere to live. They just so happen to need 24 hour care
and the State is providing that care. We had no objection to that at all. Every one of us
seated here today may need that kind of care once we get up in age or tonight, have a car
accident, need this kind of care from the State or private care should we be able to pay for
it. We don’t object to that. What we do object to is at eight o’clock in the morning the
State DHR vans roll into this residence. This is approximately a 1600 square foot
residence. They roll into this residence, and it’s not just one van. 15 passenger van.
They’ll come in starting at eight o’clock in the morning and transport persons into this
house. These persons get out of this van with pillows under their arms and enter this
home. And they remain in this home until 3:30, four o’clock in the afternoon. Now
there’s upwards of ten persons in there at times. And there’s one caregiver there caring
for these people. If this is not being operated as a daycare facility, I don’t know what
qualifies as one. That’s what our objection is. The traffic in and out of this house is just
ungodly. All because of this home. These three men need somewhere to live, and where
they’re living at is great. It’s a wonderful neighborhood, we want to keep it a wonderful
neighborhood. There’s one way in, one way out. That’s why we live there. There’s no
commercial business that can be operated. We don’t want a commercial business being
operated. It just so happens that Richard Swann has rented his house to his brother and
two other gentlemen. The two other gentlemen, as Richard tells is, carpool with the State
vans that pick them up in the mornings and take them elsewhere. If they are gone during
the day, who are these other people who are coming and going from this house all day
58
long if these three gentlemen are at work? That’s what our questions are. Why does the
caregiver have to be there 24 hours if these men are not at this home as they’re saying?
That’s what we’d like to know.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to call Ms. Estelle Duncan. Since he brought that up,
cause it’s the first time I heard about that, these, the amount of clients, I guess you call
them clients, when I was working for the State, but that’s what I mean. These individuals
that’s coming in, then that may be something that Mental Health don’t know about, cause
he’s saying ten people getting out of van going in, and that’s a different issue. Would
Ms. Duncan, would you mind if Ms. Duncan --
Mr. Mayor: Let me, let me -- I’ll be glad to recognize Ms. Duncan. I’d like to
ask the Attorney a question first, though. If there are ten people or any number of people
that come there on a regular basis during regular hours during the day, would that, would
that use be considered a daycare as it was described by the neighbor?
Mr. Shepard: Well, here again, if it’s, if it’s being used that way, I’m of the
opinion that we’re preempted by the federal statute. So I, I would like, I think we ought
to have the record developed on that because Ms. Duncan is here. I think that’s a point in
dispute.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: But I’m afraid we’re going to have show, in terms of, of doing
something I think we’re guided by the sets -- our zoning and the federal Fair Housing
Amendments of 1988.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Shepard: But I think if the Commission could hear from Ms. Duncan.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Duncan, would you come forward and give us your name and
address for the record, please?
Ms. Duncan: I am Estelle Mulherin Duncan. I live at 707 Woodgate Court. I am
the Director of services for people with mental retardation at Community Mental Health
Center. And I am involved and knowledgeable of the three gentlemen who live at this
home. It is their home. It is not a daycare center. All three of these gentlemen do attend
various day programs, and they do receive transportation. None of them can drive, and
so they are dependent on staff to come, and because they go to different locations each
day to work, there may be more than one vehicle coming to get them. But we do not
have people coming to be taken care of during the day at this particular site. Now, there
59
are times just like you and I would have where, you know, I invite people to my home
and people may come to eat dinner, they may come to socialize, they may come for other
reasons, but we are not --- you know, there is not a daycare center being operated at this
site. These three gentlemen do require some staff assistance during the times that they
are there, but as someone referred to earlier, any of us may need that level of care at some
point in time during our life.
Mr. Mayor: Anybody have any questions? Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Is this a regular basis, Mr. Patterson?
Mr. Patterson: Yes, sir, Mr. Hankerson. The, the State’s issue that they say that
some need some level of care and there are times that anyone would come in and just
visit, you know, an argument is being posed by Richard Swann, the property owner, that
st
the gentlemen have a 1 Amendment right to have people come over and visit, and all of
us have people come over and visit. However, Mr. Swann has accused me and every
other neighbor in the neighborhood of running daycares because we have children. In my
house, it is my wife and I and my eight-year-old son. That’s it. There’s no one else there
during the day to operate a daycare center. Otherwise at the Whitehead Drive address
these men are brought in and out during the day. There’s problems with cars parking in
the front yard because there’s not enough parking on the street for the 15 passenger
Econoline vans that come, the green Chevrolet State trucks that come and maintain the
property. They come at lunchtime and apparently they’re enjoying lunch at this home
also because there’s a parade of vehicles that pull in there at lunchtime, all of which at
times these gentlemen that are renting this house are supposed to be at work. According
to Richard, these men go off to work at eight o’clock in the morning. Well, I’m asking
who are these people that are coming there after these men go off to work in the
morning? The State will not call it a daycare center, but ask any man driving a State
truck coming over there to work on it, and he’ll tell you exactly what it is. It’s a State-
sanctioned daycare center. That’s the way it’s being operated.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, have you took any pictures or video?
Mr. Patterson: Yes, sir, video.
Mr. Hankerson: Numbers of these trucks and identified to find out whether --
Mr. Patterson: Video tape.
Mr. Hankerson: -- whether they’re there legally or whether they’ve just --
Mr. Patterson: No one will return a call for me out at Community Mental Health
or any State agency. Nobody will call me back. I’ve not received a telephone call as of
yet from anyone. The State trucks, I’ve got those on video tape, where they park in the
yards. The vans at times can’t get out of this driveway so they just sit there and squeal
the tires trying to back up out of this driveway. The residents that live across the street,
60
they’re seated here behind me, they can’t park out in front of their home because of the
amount of traffic that the vans generated in and out of there. I mean it’s ungodly.
Mr. Mayor: It’s my impression from what the Attorney has told us that we really
have no standing to effect any action with respect to the activity at that home because of
federal law that precludes us from acting. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, the reason I asked for the facts to be developed, Ms. Duncan
has said they are not operating such a home, and you’ve asked for a responsible party. I
think the last time this was here, Mr. Patterson, we talked to Mr. Swann and we tried to
develop some facts, but I think today we have the program official in the person of Ms.
Duncan, and she’s saying she’s not running a personal care home out of there. I think it
would behoove both of you to get together since you now -- I don’t think you need a
phone call now --
Mr. Patterson: No, I’ve got her in person.
Mr. Shepard: I mean you’ve got an office visit. And I would think it would be
appropriate for these parties to get together and we receive this as information today.
That would be my recommendation. But if there is some sort of unauthorized activity
that Mr. Patterson reports, I think Ms. Duncan would want to know about it. A daycare
then, there may be a solution that lies not in the courts but in the management of the
program. I’m thinking that you might want to take this time to confer with her.
Mr. Patterson: Absolutely. Any conversation with Richard Swann, the property
owner, has always ended with take your best shot, take your best shot.
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t you, why don’t you and Ms. Duncan attempt to engage in
a dialog here, and if you’ve got pictures you want to share with her, I’m sure you keep
trip logs of your vehicles and where they go on certain days and times, and manifests for
who is in it and where they go. So maybe you all could compare notes then.
Mr. Patterson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: And then we’ll be here for a little while longer, if we need to
reconsider this issue. If there’s some new information that’s developed. But the
Attorney recommends that the best we can do is just receive it as information this
afternoon.
Mr. Shepard: And I have some materials that I could give to Ms. Duncan and I’ll
be happy to do that.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: I would move that we receive this as information.
61
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second. Any discussion?
Mr. Hankerson: I have another question to ask Ms. Duncan.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Hankerson: Ms. Duncan, do you have any information or any responsibilities
for the residents of this property?
Ms. Duncan: Yes. We as an agency provide staff assistance to them. The three
gentlemen living there rent the house themselves. We provide the staff support to them
in the form of transportation, training, things like that.
Mr. Hankerson: Then you know, then, as far as from mental health concern, what
vehicles is supposed to be there at what times? I mean as he said --
Ms. Duncan: Yes. I don’t have that with me today.
Mr. Hankerson: Ten people get off a van with pillows --
Ms. Duncan: Right.
Mr. Hankerson: -- I mean those ten individuals have to come from somewhere.
Somebody has some supervision of them, too. If a vehicle or a State vehicle goes
somewhere, I mean somebody is recording where that vehicles goes --
Ms. Duncan: Correct.
Mr. Hankerson: -- and whether they are legal where they are going.
Ms. Duncan: Correct.
Mr. Hankerson: And if the citizens are complaining about such traffic congestion
there, those particular times, does, do, does it mean those amount of visitors from the
State, cause he’s saying State vehicles, he’s not saying just my car coming up there and
get out, but State vehicles are coming in there, then I think that’s something you need to
look at. If State vehicles are coming in at times they shouldn’t be there.
Ms. Duncan: Right. And, and not everybody goes to work from that site or other
sites at the same time, and it may be if someone has a doctor’s appointment or some other
thing occurring during a day that they may be going at a different time than your normal
leaving out between eight and 8:30 and arriving back home somewhere between three
and four.
62
Mr. Hankerson: But not that many people that it would cause a nuisance to the
community.
Ms. Duncan: It shouldn’t be, no, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: That many vehicles, you’d have to have physical therapists and
recreational therapists and everybody going in the same time to cause that kind of
nuisance. So I, I think you ought to get together on that timing, and as the man said, and
that’s reported back when you see this group of people coming in, for somebody to
identify that this is a State vehicle coming in with this amount of --
Ms. Duncan: Right.
Mr. Hankerson: -- of individuals on it, you know, not personal cause he can’t
control who [inaudible] has at his house in a private vehicle. There’s no control over
that, but State vehicles, there should be some kind of follow up of where those vehicles
supposed to be and who’s on those vehicles at all times.
Ms. Duncan: Right.
Mr. Hankerson: I learned that from 31 years with the State.
Ms. Duncan: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We have a motion to receive this as information. All in
favor of the motion --
Mr. Mays: Let me ask a question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, go ahead.
Mr. Mays: While we are receiving as information, is anything to be contained in
that motion regarding the Attorney’s recommendation? And is that in terms of what he
has found, that there’s no violation of the law? Now I think if they’re going to talk, that’s
all well and good if there’s something in there, but I think as far as this body is
concerned, there needs to be some resolution of it. Now if there’s a violation of the law,
there’s something going on wrong, then I think this is still America, the petitioner or
anybody else can come back. But I think from a comfort zone, you know, there needs to
be some finalization with it. I mean the Attorney made a recommendation and I think it’s
on the issue as to whether or not we have any enforcement capability in terms of what’s
there. And I think if the Attorney has made that out here in public to a point and stands
by that, if you’ve got License & Inspection you sent over there, if you’ve got Zoning you
sent over there, now if somebody comes back and they deal with that, but it’s kind of like
one of those things you send in Zoning where you send folk off to meet, and then it
63
comes back, it comes back, we can always still come back. But I just think that there
needs to be some finalization one way or another. And then if there is something wrong,
there is nothing precluding anybody from being back here again. But I think that’s a
different issue. [inaudible] the issue that was here as to whether or not it’s one that’s
being run in a certain way. Now if we’re saying we’re not through with this, then we
ought to say we’re receiving it as information and we ain’t through with it. But I think to
a point that if the Attorney makes a recommendation then we ought to say we’ve got
some finality to what’s before us today. And that if they’ve got a problem that’s outside
the bounds that may not involve the three people, but may be a problem the neighbors are
suffering, something that can be cleared up internally, then I think that’s an issue that
they can work out to a point of where they are talking. But I think there needs to be some
finalization as to whether or not there is a problem. I think the Attorney has stated that
out here today. Now if we moving that back or off the agenda then we need to say that,
but I think we’ve got a little bit more out here than information.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, my thought was to share what I had received from Mr.
Patterson with this Director, Mr. Mays, and I don’t see that there’s anything that this
body has before it that it can do today. But here again, Mr. Patterson says, you know, he
can’t ever talk to anybody, and I was making the simple recommendation that the person
he would want to talk to is standing right before him in this chamber. And I know he’s
furnished me some information that I think she might useful in terms of management of
her program. And she can do with it as what she may. That may solve the problem. I
mean, that, you know, we’re here to help folks if we can, and send them -- if they can
settle disputes among themselves, then God bless them, they don’t have to go to court or
come here. I mean that’s what I say. That was the spirit in which it was made.
Mr. Mays:
And I agree. I have no problem with that cause I think if there is
something continuing with it, that it may be out of the bounds of the three people who are
there. My concern right now is to a point you’ve got residents with a complaint, you’ve
got three people to a point that are, that are trying to live as best they can in a situation in
which they have, have, have come into the world, and I think to a point that the question
that I thought we were dealing with is whether or not this was a place of illegal use or
not, and I think that, you know, it was so stated that it wasn’t. Now, I think if somebody
is abusing one of her vehicles through there and is doing something to cut some time or
to do something else, then I agree, that does need to be dealt with. But I’m saying to a
point -- it’s kind of like Henry Brigham used to say -- do you throw out the baby with the
bath water? To a point, do you get the folk who are in there to be victimized? If she got
somebody she needs to jack up, then I think that evidence needs to be dealt with with her.
And I agree, they need to talk. But I think some resolution to a point where you’ve got --
and I’ve, I’ve known, and I’m not talking about Richard, I’m talking about his brother,
I’ve known him for a long time, and that has nothing to do with it. I know, I know, I
know that gentleman [inaudible] everybody that’s up in [inaudible] but I think you got
two different issues. One to a point that I think needs to be resolved on their part,
because they don’t drive, they don’t bring anybody there, neither one of the three of
them. Now she’s got a problem [inaudible] in the agency, then I agree with Rev.
Hankerson, that needs to be dealt with and I think that’s something that, that, that this
64
gentleman can give and that y’all can share that with each other and that somebody’s belt
needs to be tightened up. But I think from, from a peace of mind and comfort zone of the
person living there in the home to a point, you know, I mean I have not seen him for a
long time. He came over for me to read his letter that he had and was there. And I mean
it’s best that he could communicate and to deal with that. And I think to a point that of
getting in this kind of setting, something needs to be done to deal with resolving that part
of the issue. Now if she’s got some problems over there that need to be dealt with, it may
be where it’s not just in your neighborhood. It may be in somebody else’s. But to a point
that shouldn’t upset the living conditions of the three people who are there and who are
dealing with a situation that is legal and that I think is what was brought to us to
determine whether or not they were there in an illegal setting. And you’ve got an
Attorney who stated that, you’ve got a Director of, of enforcement on one side that’s so
stated it, and you’ve got a Planning Director. Now I don’t know how many bureaucrats
you’ve got to bring together, you know, to make that part of it work. I just thought it
ought to be more extensive than just receiving as information. I think that’s a good start.
In fact, I’m going to make a substitute motion that it be received as information and
the actions of the Attorney be accepted for the record.
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a substitute motion with a second. Is there any
further discussion on the matter before us? If not, we’ll proceed to vote on the substitute
motion. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Colclough: Madame Clerk, I have to recuse myself. That’s my place of
employment.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair would like to recommend Mr. Grantham with respect to
item 44A. I think you wanted to ask for unanimous consent to take that off the agenda
today, Don?
44A. Discuss Vassar Drive Project. (Requested by Commissioner D. Grantham)
Mr. Grantham: Yes, thank you. Mr. Mayor, I’ve had some discussion with
the Public Works Director and my question has been satisfied so I’d like to remove
that from the agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection?
Ms. Sims: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear that.
65
Mr. Mayor: Item 44A, Vassar Drive. There has been a request by Mr. Grantham
to remove this from the agenda today.
Ms. Sims: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: No objection heard, so Madame Clerk, we’ll delete that item. Mr.
Cheek, you had asked that item 42C be deferred?
42C. Consider request from Judge Herbert E. Kernaghan, Jr. regarding the Rae’s
Creek Sewer Line. (Requested by Commissioner Andy Cheek)
Mr. Cheek: Deferred to the next Engineering Services Committee and also
add to the next Engineering Services Committee “Emergency Repair of Transite
Pipe in the Warren Road Project area”.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to deferring Item 42C to the next Engineering
Services Committee? None is heard, so we’ll move it to committee.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, as a matter of personal privilege I’d like to make a
comment.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Cheek: We have, we have an emergent problem on the Warren Road project
where there is transite pipe, which is technically in common terms called asbestos pipe.
Anyway, it’s broken five or six times in the last couple of weeks, which in the past has
constituted the declaration of an emergency repair. We feel that we should move forward
with this in an emergency nature due to the construction where we don’t have to dig that
road up, so I’ve asked Mr. Goins to pull that information together, and if we’re able to
pull it together within reasonable time it may facilitate a change order in the contract and
some additional funding to cover repairing that before they pave Warren Road in that
area.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much for that, Mr. Cheek. Let’s see, Mr. Shepard,
you had an announcement of interest to the pensioners?
Mr. Shepard: I do, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize the Attorney.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My office is in the process of a, in the
process of developing a process for the sale of the pension property, and that is not ready
today. I think I did indicate that I’d have it at this meeting. It is not ready. Also, there’s
an issue about increased benefits, which I think we decided in the Pension & Audit
Committee to wait until the actuarial data was obtained. Mr. Persaud, I believe you
66
indicated, sir, that the actuarial evaluation of the plan, which we’re presently using a
January of 2002 actuarial evaluation, that there would be another actuarial evaluation
available as of January 2004?
Mr. Persaud: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: We do not have.
Mr. Persaud: It’s in progress.
Mr. Shepard: And it’s in progress and we need to make sure that that has been
ordered so that we can have that to analyze the claims for additional benefits.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Persaud has ordered that. He sent me a copy of the letter.
Mr. Persaud: That letter has been transmitted to the actuary.
Mr. Shepard: And I think the pensioners, Mr. Mayor, would like to see a copy of
that letter.
Mr. Mayor: Sure. Mr. Persaud --
Mr. Persaud: I’ll get you a copy, Mr. Attorney.
Mr. Mayor: For the pensioners.
Mr. Shepard: And that would be the announcement of the status of both of those
matters. If the pensioners --
Mr. Mayor: Welcome to stay.
Mr. Shepard: Welcome. Exactly.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s move on now with our agenda, and we’ll start with
item number 3.
Mr. Colclough: Item what?
Mr. Mayor: 3.
3. Z-04-23 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Eric Melchoir requesting a Special
Exception to establish an inert fill area as a reclamation objective for an active
surface mine per Section 26-1 (o) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 3902 New Karleen Road
67
and containing approximately 37 acres. (Tax Map 139 Parcel 277.3 and Tax Map
151 Parcel 10.1) DISTRICT 8
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham, you asked this one be pulled.
Mr. Grantham:
Yeah. Mr. Mayor, thank you. My point in asking this is I see
here we have another inert landfill request, and I know that it had been approved by the
Planning Commission. But it’s my recollection that there’s still some problems with
and I’d like to ask this be removed until we can get
previous landfill similar to this,
some satisfaction as to the inert landfill that we have a problem with right now
before we go further with approving additional ones.
Mr. Mayor: Is that a motion?
Mr. Grantham: That’s a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the motion?
Mr. Cheek: Second that, with some discussion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We will have some discussion. Mr. Patty, you’re poised to
pounce on the podium. Did you want to say something?
Mr. Patty: [inaudible]. It’s 37 acres. It’s an area that’s been mined for -- it’s got
good quality sand clay, it’s been mined for years and years and they’re getting toward the
end of it, and they’d just simply like to bring inert material in to help with the
reclamation. Once again, inert material, we’re talking about concrete, stumps, dirt, rocks,
cured asphalt, and that’s about it. And you know, the State regulates it, State rules
require it to be covered, I believe it’s every week. And you know, I can’t tell you how
often they inspect these sites. You know, what they want to do appears to be a
reasonable request.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve been working on this one for four years.
This is a site that has failed continuously over the past four years to follow the site
remediation plan for soil recovery, revegetation. The State finally forced them to do this.
Within the last two years they’ve undercut banks far within the reach of that. There is
water runoff problems. In fact, during the flood of ’90 we lost several homes to breaches
of containment devices down at the bottom of this area. While the soil there presently is
not suitable for growing vegetation, there is requirement under State law that it be
revegetated as certain percentages of that area is cleared, which hadn’t been done in four
years. I concur with my colleague from District 10 that this be deferred until we get a
more defined plan in place as far as inert landfill. The [inaudible] subdivision and Sand
Ridge, which both back up to this property, have had this as a plague upon their
neighborhoods for years. It has not been addressed. We finally had to force the State at
68
State level with the Director of EPD to get his people off of their rear ends and get
involved with forcing the revegetation. We were promised two years ago that the State
had agreed to put trees and so forth back in this area, that this dam and other things at the
bottom of this hill would be corrected, and before we approve any kind of inert landfill
[inaudible] those $150,000 homes in Sand Ridge and those paid for and clearly nice
mobile homes and so forth in the [inaudible] subdivision, I’d like a little more detail.
This is a place where they raped the earth and now they’re attempting to, apparently put
trash back into it. Although I don’t represent that area, I’m very proud to say we moved,
we were able to do in two years what hadn’t been done in 40 years as far as forcing this,
so I would like the EPD to report back on it, as far as them being in full compliance. And
if necessary, I can get the same pit bulls we had following it to follow it up. But this is
one that’s been a blight on that entire area and I am strictly [inaudible] to say no to this
one because they didn’t follow the plan from Square One. In fact, it cost the City several
hundred thousand dollars to repair the roads and the detention ponds and other things
constructed downstream as a result of the failure of the containment devices [inaudible]
50 or so acres of clay that runs downhill towards these people’s homes, because it wasn’t
properly maintained.
Mr. Mayor: One of the issues we discussed -- the Mayor Pro Tem, the Attorney
and the staff and myself when we met yesterday morning -- was the potential for
requiring operators of these inert landfills to post some, have some sort of a bond or
insurance policy so that there would be some money available if they did not comply, and
we could go back on an insurance company or bond to cover the costs of repairing
damage to the site, and the Attorney was going to research the potential of doing that.
Yes, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Shepard: And I have not done that been yesterday and today.
Mr. Mayor: I understand that. I just wanted to brief the Commission.
Mr. Cheek: I will, I will, with the permission of the Administrator, discuss this
with our code enforcement folks and our State folks that have been following this and
compare it to the plan and the promise, and if those things aren’t up to standards, then I
think we should seek legal action.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m, I’m wondering why the License -- I
mean Planning & Zoning did not have this information that Commissioner Cheek has just
presented to us today before it got here. This should have been caught in that realm,
George, if that’s -- I mean I don’t understand how [inaudible] data not being transferred
or being shifted over with all the technology we’ve got in this government. That, that,
that should have been brought.
Mr. Patty: I talked to the code enforcement officer, you know, this morning, just
to double check that they didn’t have a problem with this, and she told me that this
69
location was fine and was in compliance. That the adjoining tract, which there’s an open
landfill basically being conducted on that site which is, you know, grossly out of
compliance with all of our rules, was the problem. It was not this site. Now that’s all I,
that’s all I know.
Mr. Williams: Well, if, if this is not the, the same people, not the same site, I
would not want to punish somebody else for something somebody else have done. Is
there any way we can get a report to find out whether or not this is the site, is not the site?
I mean I, I, I’m with Commissioner Grantham and Cheek. I like to see something, some
kind of plan, even if they are not they ought to have some kind of plan. I was in Planning
when this came about and I heard the gentleman state it was not their property, it was
another piece of property similar or next door or somewhere. But with all that been said,
I just wondering why are not talking, why we are not sharing information before it gets to
this point.
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? Can you address the question about the
property in compliance?
Mr. Melchoir: Yes, sir. The property is completely in compliance.
Mr. Mayor: Would you speak into the microphone so we can hear you? Thank
you.
Mr. Melchoir: The property is in compliance. The State, they just checked it
again approximately three weeks ago. I mean everything, all banks are, are in [inaudible]
shape. There’s no water problems. What I want to do with the property is build it back
to the way it originally was. When I purchased this property, it was an abandoned sand
mind. It had probably been mined for I would say 20 years before I purchased it. It was
a rough piece of property and now when we did have the flood, as I believe Mr. Cheek
was speaking about, I believe it was ’90, the big flood of ’90, we did have a problem as
county retention ponds and everybody else had a problem. All that’s been corrected.
Everything is piped. The State regulates it strictly. The Department of Natural
Resources, Environmental Protection Division in Atlanta, they constantly come down and
keep checks on it. We have pine trees plants, slopes. I don’t know what else, what else I
can do. I mean as far as a water problem, it would seem to me that there would be more
of water problem if we leave it the way it is, rather than to build it back the way God
originally created the property. I’m not trying to bury anything that’s going to be any
kind of a contaminant. It’s just inert material. It’s not going to pose a threat to anything.
It’s not going to smell bad or anything. But as far as I know, there’s not even a place to
carry this except for one other place. I believe the county landfill was taking some
recently when we had the ice storm. They helped people out. But other than that, there’s
one other location which is the same, the same thing that I have. I have a surface mine
that’s toward the end of its use. I mean there’s plenty of cover material out there but I
believe it would be a lot better to build the property back up the way it originally was
than to have [inaudible] holes. You know, it would be more of a water, a future water
problem to leave it the way it is than to rebuild it, I would think.
70
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. The, the motion I made was to
defer this decision and not to reject. And I think that’s what we’re looking for, is
information. And if he’s come into compliance under State regulations and we can
receive that type of information, then I don’t think we’d have a problem. But you know,
we’ve got some conflicting information now. It may have been prior to your acquiring
this land, and if that’s the case then certainly we want to right the wrong that may be
done. So we don’t want to reject it. We’d like to defer it until we can get that type of
information that you can provide for us.
Mr. Melchoir: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I’d like to offer a friendly amendment -- and I must say, we’ve talked
before, you have worked out there and done an awful lot [inaudible] neighbors --
Mr. Melchoir: [inaudible] last four years.
Mr. Cheek: -- from the neighbors and all that. But I do know that there is going
to be from Sand Ridge and from [inaudible] a great deal of outcry if we don’t touch base
with those neighborhood association and at least let them be aware of what’s about to go
in. I agree with you as far as that soil is not good for anything and replacing it. But you
will have to admit before this body we had a real kind of start/stop relationship getting it
where it needed to be.
Mr. Melchoir: Absolutely.
Mr. Cheek: And I haven’t seen any final reports. Who was the code enforcement
officer who was out there?
Mr. Melchoir: [inaudible], State Department of Natural Resources in Atlanta.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. I’ve got Susan’s number. Who locally was out there?
Mr. Patty: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] Something else now. And they were happy?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible], yeah. Those were the two pit bulls I was talking about
and if they’re in, if they’re happy with you, then I feel a lot more comfortable about it.
71
Mr. Patty: Just for clarification, [inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: And also as a friendly amendment to the motion, if the maker
will accept it, that we at least make an effort to contact the Sand Ridge, which I
believe Sammy [inaudible] is the president, and I’m not sure that Great Lakes
subdivision has a neighborhood association actively right now, but -- so that’s one
that we’d have to research -- the residents on Lake Ontario would be the ones we’d
have to poll. Those are the ones most affected.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the motion? None is heard, so the
motion will stand as amended. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I would just like to follow up on Andy. I think you really need to
meet with the Sand Ridge Neighborhood Association.
Mr. Melchoir: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: And those other people before we go forward with this so you
can have some sort of smooth sailing. Cause if you don’t, you’re really going to have
some problems out there.
Mr. Melchoir: Okay.
Mr. Colclough: I would suggest you call Sammy [inaudible] over in Sand Ridge.
Mr. Melchoir: Can you give me the name?
Mr. Colclough: I’ll give it to you before you leave here. You can contact him
and [inaudible] neighborhood associations over there [inaudible] what you’re doing out
there, because if you don’t, you’re really going to have some problems.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough, your colleagues down here at the other end are
having a hard time hearing you. If you could speak a little closer to the microphone when
you speak.
Mr. Colclough: I just made a suggestion to the gentleman that he needs to meet
with the neighborhood associations out there and let them know what’s going on.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion? We’ll take a vote on the motion.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I have no problem with the, with the motion and the amendments, but
something that was mentioned in the, in the course of this conversation that didn’t
72
involve this gentleman, and I was just going to say, it doesn’t have to be in the form of a
motion, but I think to a point of enforcement if, if the State’s monitoring him, and I do
think it’s a good, a good measure that you meet with those folk that are over there. That
will help in terms of getting to where you need to go with your situation. But what I
heard was there was an existing situation that’s out there that doesn’t belong to him.
Now if you’ve got one out there that’s adjacent to it that’s out of compliance, it seems
like to me that we need to be getting some direction to somebody to go and deal with that
rather than in terms of saddling him up with a thousand different directions. I think it’s
still good for him to meet with all the parties y’all have put on the motion and all the
amendments, but I think if you’ve got somebody out there that’s out of compliance,
[inaudible] one out there that probably needs to be jacked up or we need to jack the State
up to say hey, you’ve got something over in here that y’all need to deal with. I think
that’s something that, that we need to be about dealing with within our confines of doing.
Because if it, if it doesn’t apply to him and it’s to somebody else, then you know, I agree
with our representative on Planning, Mr. Williams, he shouldn’t be penalized for
somebody else’s situation. But then if it’s one there that needs to be dealt with, then I
think that needs to be dealt with, and I think separate and apart from what we’re asking
him to do.
Mr. Mayor: And Mr. Russell will look into that first thing in the morning.
Mr. Cheek: As a, Mr. Mayor, as a follow-on to that, too, somebody has thrown in
a road and it looks like they’re attempting to sell lots for mobile homes across the top of
that old [inaudible] pit area at the very top of the hill. And I don’t remember anything
coming by our desks about that happening. But there is a road and there is at least one
mobile home there.
Mr. Mayor: We have an amended motion on the floor. Anybody need the motion
read back? All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The next item, the next item we have on the agenda,
let’s see, I believe is item number 14.
The Clerk:
14. Motion to approve an amendment to a lease agreement between HWS
Baseball, LLC (Augusta GreenJackets) and Augusta, Ga., extending the Lake
Olmstead Stadium lease for ten (10) additional years through 2014 and name of the
ball field – Ty Cobb Field. (Approved by Public Services March 8, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, I will present to you a letter that was given to me by
Dr. Mabin, if you would just make that as part of the record. I think all of the
Commissioners have a copy of that.
73
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I was the one that asked this to be pulled. To me, this
is a two part motion. And I’d like to see them separated because I do not have a problem
with the lease agreement, as far as the ball field is concerned. But I do have a problem
with naming of the ball field, renaming the ball field now, after Ty Cobb. I think there
needs to be some more discussion in regard to a new name on the ball field. And it
would do us justice to make, I think, a recommendation from a local standpoint that
people who have been involved in baseball around this community for years and years,
and that we could recognize them instead of recognizing Mr. Cobb.
Mr. Mayor: If you would like to make a motion to approve the lease amendment,
you can do that.
Mr. Grantham:Then I will make a motion that we approve the
All right.
lease agreement and that we withdraw the name of the ball field Ty Cobb Field.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: It’s been seconded. Okay. Discussion? Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: I was seconding the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, you did, I’m sorry. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The reason that I originally added the
request to name the ball field and not the stadium after Ty Cobb is because the man today
is still recognized as one of the greatest ball players of all times on the ball field. I think
it’s probably well known that he didn’t like black people, he didn’t like white people, he
didn’t really like anybody. The reason this was on here, and I understand that we have
several challenges coming before us, but Augusta apparently has always tried to find that
perfect person to put up on a wall. Well, A. L. Williams, who helped initiate efforts to
bring semi-pro ball to this city should be recognized somewhere in that stadium. But
also, we have a decision coming up in a few weeks deciding on what to do with Mr.
Brown’s statute. I would hope at some point that we put aside the personal lives of some
of our citizens and start looking at their professional accomplishments and what they’ve
done, being from Augusta, on the field of sports or in the field of entertainment or
academics or art or whatever that may be. We are going to have to get to a point to
where we realize that there are just as many black folks that don’t like white folks as
there are white folks that don’t like black folks. And at some point in time, those of us in
the middle that have gotten beyond that are going to have to pull together and take this
great common heritage we call America and work together to make it a better place by
74
living with our differences, celebrating our differences, allowing each one of us to have
our own different heroes and people we look up to, but not holding that against each
other. Ty Cobb was a redneck. I have been accused of being a redneck and I have kin
folks that are certified, card-carrying rednecks. But God has shown a lot of people
different ways. That doesn’t mean that I celebrate him for being a bigot or a racist or any
of the other things he did in the negative way, but the fact that he started his professional
career here in the city of Augusta and has still, still holds places very high in the record
books, and I would hope that when anyone steps onto the field to play the Augusta
GreenJackets that they have fear in their hearts, just like if Ty Cobb were in there
sharpening his spikes, that when you come to Augusta we’re going to play you as hard as
we can play you. And at some point, that we walk down on Broad Street and there’s a
statue of Mr. Brown and what that message would go out to say to the people is if you
come to Augusta we’re going to entertain you, entertain you in a way that the Godfather
of Soul entertains you, the hardest-working man in show business. Let Augusta be the
most competitive, the most dedicated and the hardest working city to win people’s hearts
and minds. And this is an effort to begin the process of building a bridge where we can
have differences of opinion, we can let history rest where it lay, but then we start
recognizing our own citizens that achieve greatness in their own fields for that greatness.
Not their personal lives, cause there’s only one perfect man to walk this earth, only one.
And they nailed Jesus to a tree. None of us could stand up to scrutiny where we are held
up and none of us are perfect. Other cities capitalize on that and I’m sure New York City
hasn’t written Babe Ruth off. And I’m sure if you look in the records of many other
people that they don’t have clear careers or clear personal lives. But Mr. Cobb, for all of
his negatives, was one of the greatest ever for what he did on the field, just like Mr.
Brown, and I’m hoping at some point that we can all start celebrating the successes and
the greatness of those that choose to call Augusta home or were born here, and not try to
judge people based strictly upon their personal, their personal lives. And I accept the
removal of that at this time. We are not ready for that, that fight.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I want my fellow Commissioner to know, you know, that
I’m very proud of him and I think he does an excellent job. However, we do differ here.
And I did receive a letter from –
Mr. Grantham: We can’t hear you down here.
Ms. Beard: I did receive a call from Mr. Mabin last night in reference to Ty Cobb
and I feel his letter should be read at this time. And I, I personally try not to dwell on
race, but I’m black and I’ve had a lot of things to happen to me. Now what I try to do is
really compartmentalize it and go on with my life. That’s what my husband and I tried to
do. So this is something we don’t dwell on. But life has been difficult. There hasn’t
been a time in my life when I haven’t had things to happen in reference to race. You
know, I can remember being asked to go to the back of the bus. I can remember when I
couldn’t go to Kress’s to have lunch. I can remember when other people were given 5%
loans. They said no, not you. You will either, you can either allow us to get you a
75
contractor and pay more or you will have to take a 20% loan. I have purchased property
where they said this property should not be sold to blacks. And so I’m saying wouldn’t –
so it’s rather difficult for me to vote for Ty Cobb. Now let’s look at Sheriff Webster. I
had no problems voting for him because he was a wonderful man. He was a wonderful
man to all of us. He was white. James Brown, yes, he’s done a lot, but he’s done most of
it to himself. But even with him, I sort of think maybe we should have waited, and I
think I told the Mayor here, you know, until he’s deceased or something, because we
want our city to be represented by those things that are good. And I just think – and I
think about this race all the time, and I’m hoping our situation is going to be much better
than it’s been in the past. But it’s going to be different because we come from different
situations. And I want to mention one other thing. You know, we have this EEOC, EEO
whatever coming up. And I know many will not be able to understand why we feel we
need someone to work with our employees. You know, we don’t understand why Human
Relations can’t do the job. But all of these years, and I don’t want to just say blacks are
the only ones who have problems, all of us have problems and it’s going to be here for all
of us. But for years they have gone to Human Relations and have not been given any
assistance whatsoever. So you know, for them to think – so what, and we’re also saying
that job is too important until – if you don’t get the right person, then you don’t have
anything. It’s just that important. But I want you to know that I think we have, maybe
it’s always been this year, but we have a fine group of Commissioners here, and for the
most part we work together and we think together. But there may be times with this,
when this race thing comes on, that makes us go back – see, I can identify going back to
when Ty Cobb played ball. It wasn’t a good situation for us at all. That’s when we were
being hanged. Okay? Don’t forget that. So at this time, I’m wondering if we could hear
the letter from Mr. Mabin.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, you want to read the letter from Dr. Mabin? He was
here earlier.
The Clerk: (reading) Dear Mayor and Augusta Commissioners: Many of us in
Augusta are diligently striving to foster better relationship between the races through
organizations and private face-to-face contact. I believe naming the Lake Olmstead
Stadium and/or Ball Field after an outspoken racist is an insult to many African
Americans and some white citizens. According to Al Stubb, Tyrus “Ty” R. Cobb
biographer, Cobb had a reputation as a vigilant racist, his hatred of Negroes causing him
on one occasion to even beat up a black woman. In The Parable of Ty Cobb by Travis L.
Quartermus, he stated that “The Peach” was a horrible racist who once choked a black
waitress for bringing him the wrong order. Quartermus further stated the “Georgia
Peach” was so hated that he retired and tried to buy his way into professional baseball.
He and his millions were blackballed by all the owners, even those who were strapped for
cash during those Depression-era years. As an African American, I oppose renaming
Lake Olmstead and/or Ball Field after a racist. Sincerely, John R. Maben.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Bonner.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
76
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. I have a couple of questions about the contract. I
don’t know who -- whether Mr. Beck is going to answer these or the Attorney. In
paragraph 2, the last sentence, it talks about the annual rent payment of $25,000. And
then it says “shall in addition perform all capital maintenance as provided in paragraph 18
of the lease agreement.” How, how are we going to verify that all capital maintenance as
provided by the lease agreement has been performed by, by the team? What, what is in
place to ensure that maintenance is being done and to record it and quantify it and so
forth, when we’ve just come through a year when they haven’t paid us any rent? Nobody
has collected rent from them. So I – who is watching, who is monitoring the contract?
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, it is our responsibility to
monitor the contract. As to the rent situation, myself, Attorney Wall, and Administrator
Kolb started negotiations on the lease extension by the fall. They actually –
Mr. Mayor: Well, I understand, but they went all the way through, January,
February, March, through the whole year with no rent payment at all, and waiting until
fall to realize something’s missing here in the equation is kind of late. So what – my
concern is, in addition we’re amending the contract. We’re not responsible for the
maintenance now, they are. So who is going to be monitoring and verify that the
maintenance is being done up there?
Mr. Beck: It will be our responsibility as the Recreation & Parks Department.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, and how will you do that?
Mr. Beck: We will perform regular inspections, as we do anyway. The stadium
has been under our control and under our management ever since it was built, as far as
watching shop over the lease. Now the repairs that have been done to the stadium have
been done through our department, through coordinated efforts between the GreenJackets
and ourselves. The stadium is in good condition. We have seen to that. And we will
continue to do that as part of this agreement.
Mr. Mayor: I’m just concerned that we have a, a tremendous asset for this
community and we need to make sure that if they’re going to be responsible for the
maintenance, the capital maintenance, that the capital maintenance gets done in a timely
manner and done up to our standards.
Mr. Beck: That will be our responsibility.
Mr. Mayor: The other issue is with respect to the SPLOST money that’s
mentioned in here, and that we would be asking the voters to make an investment in the
stadium that would provide for revenue enhancements. Now what specifically does that
mean?
77
Mr. Beck: Specifically, areas of revenue enhancement would be such as
corporate suites, luxury boxes, something that’s not there now where new revenues
would come in. Parking improvements that aren’t there now. Something, anything new
that would bring in new revenue would be new revenue enhancements, where the 25%
would come into play.
Mr. Mayor: All right, now it goes on to say that “as such revenue enhancements
are completed, the team will pay us a premium based on stadium attendance above
175,000.” What is the annual attendance now?
Mr. Speaker: Around 150,000 to 170,000.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Beck: [inaudible], general manager of the GreenJackets.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you. I just, I’m not asking these questions because I’m
against the contract. I don’t have a problem with it, but I think we need to clearly define
some of these things we’re talking about if we’re going to put it in a legal document so
there’s no, no question or possibility of omission down the road. We don’t need to get
snake bit. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mayor, I had marked the same concerns. I think it would
probably be useful to state what is provided now as a revenue so that when we come in
the future we could identify – quote/unquote – new revenues. And I’m not against this
contract either, but I know it was a matter that was finished up by Mr. Wall, I think
probably ought to run through my office for just, just for the reasons that you’ve said, to
improve the definitions of new revenues and to make sure we have ascertainable
standards about capital maintenance. I don’t think that’s really all that difficult. But I
had marked that and I know Mr. Wall had worked on this. I want them to continue to be
in a successful program, too, but if we take a little bit of time now to make these things
clear we won’t have to have clarification later.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Shepard: Clarification now, not clarification later.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles? And then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I was just going, as far as the contract goes,
certainly be in favor of the contract. I would like to make a comment that about five
hours ago there were six of us on the Augusta Canal, and on the editorial page of the
paper, either Thursday or Friday, they talked about who was John Olmstead, and some
very minor, miniscule person that probably no one would hear about again, but if he
hadn’t of dammed Rae’s Creek, we probably wouldn’t have – and created Lake Olmstead
– we wouldn’t have probably the Augusta Canal to work into that. And I can recall
78
seven, eight years ago, maybe not the same members of this Commission, we thought
about the naming of it then. And Lake Olmstead, after John Olmstead seemed to be the
way that we needed to go. I can look at Tom Beck out there and I can remember when
the Pittsburgh Pirates wanted to come here and we had to take an existing baseball field
in an awful condition and turn it around, and it proved successful. And later on, it caused
the City and the County to go together and build the stadium as it now exists. And the
feeling at that time, Lake Olmstead was the perfect, perfect name for it. And this has not
been that long ago. Six, seven years ago. And if we want to talk about Ty Cobb, now I
got to remember, he’s from Royston, Georgia. And we can talk about James Brown, he’s
from Augusta, Georgia. And I just, those are comments that I had and in a way I wanted
to bring that up because I kind of resented the editorial that was in there and I realize the
person who wrote it only came to this community a couple of years ago. But he doesn’t
know and didn’t know the background, and to downgrade a person who was as important
to the canal system, to the overall retention system as John Olmstead, I just wanted to
take that opportunity to make that comment. And I have worked – when I was still
Recreation Director, I worked with Chris, I worked with the Pittsburgh Pirates, I saw the
Boston Red Sox come in. They have been a first class organization. They have met their
responsibilities. They have let numerous church groups, kids groups of all colors and
races go to that park. And I think they’re a very valuable asset and I encourage all of you
to vote for the contract, even though the Attorney might want to revise one or two
sections of it. But I think they should be commended for the job that they’ve done here.
I know there are several cities throughout the Georgia-Carolina area that would love to
have them. And we certainly can’t afford to lose that. So that’s just some opinions I
have and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to say so.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m in support of the contract, as well, but
Steve, you know we at the office when we talking and at the law firm we talk about these
contracts. And I got a serious problem when we approve stuff and then come back after
we done approved them and then we find the loopholes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for
pointing out a couple of issues. One, Tom said they was responsible in Recreation to, to
see that things are carried out. I’d like to see in that contract there that a quarterly report
be brought back to us, you know, and, and, and show what is going on, whether it’s good,
bad or indifferent. But I think that’s something that should, should, should be in place
where we would know and be abreast of whatever is going on. I don’t know how we are
going to eventually get the point of doing contracts, bringing to committee so we lay
everything on the table. We can either vote it up or down when we get out here. But too
many times we get to the floor, then we find out about some things that we didn’t know
previously. So I’m hoping that with out new Attorney, which is really not so new but
he’s really not so old either as an Attorney, and hopefully we can, you know, can get
those little things laid out on the table, not just with the small contract today, Tom, but
some of the bigger issues we got coming through here with contracts and whatever we
do. But I just like to see that in that report that we do have a quarterly report coming
from Recreation.
79
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just in closing, it’s never been my intention to elevate a
racist to any position above that of what they area, just to bring recognition to an athlete.
I will say this, two things in closing. One, as Commissioner Beard has said, and I
remember as a child, things were very bad, but by the preaching in the churches of
forgiveness and Dr. King preaching non-violence, this country would be enjoying the
same type of civil unrest that they have in Ireland today, were it not for those two
individuals. And that I hope that as we talk through these things, I think as we’ve all
found out as Commissioners, we have a lot more in common than we have different, and
a lot more in the way of vision and hopes for our city that include all of us working
together. And just to add one final thing of a personal hero of mine, who has always been
a personal hero of mine, after reading his story, is a gentleman named Medger Evers.
And so should we live our lives and the causes that we fight for, that we’re willing to
give them up in the cause of what’s right. And if by bringing that in has caused offense
or heartache to someone as a result of that person’s behavior, I do apologize. Again, it
was simply the same thing with Mr. Brown, to recognize the greatness of those who have
lived in or grew up here, strictly for their accomplishments.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, let me get back to your comments for just a minute.
You know I don’t like leaving money on the table. Let me ask a couple of things before
we move on. I’m not banging on the contract, but now you, you, you opened another
door that I’d like to see us bring some closure to, and it may already be done, but since
it’s out here in a public meeting it needs to maybe at least be talked about. And maybe
the Attorney and the Administrator can answer this. Since there was a long period
without pay on the rent, has a plan, program or check been sent to deal with the money?
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir?
Mr. Speaker: I’m Chris [inaudible], I’m the vice president of the Augusta
GreenJackets. What we said in committee is our intent, once this amendment goes
through, not as a condition, but we would come up to date with the $31,000, whatever the
number is. I think what our intention and what our view of it was is that in our discussion
when we were dealing with this amendment to the lease agreement was the number
actually changes because of some of the capital improvements that we’ve already made
prior to this discussion. So once the amendment is signed and Michael Savat and Jeffrey
Savat, the owners of our ball club, send back the documents there will be a $31,000
check with it. So it will be brought up to date and I think the other thing that we did
discuss is providing documentation for all the capital improvements and maintenance that
we do at the facility. I think that’s something that Tom and I can work closely on to give
an update, whether it be quarterly or every year, tell you what the GreenJackets have
done to the facility, and how we’re keeping it up. That would be no problem whatsoever.
80
Mr. Mays: Let me, let me say this. I think it’s been a very good relationship and
I’m not, I’m not knocking that at all, but I think I’d be less than prudent if I didn’t ask the
question, because I was at committee the other day but at the same time, whenever
there’s a situation and particularly in going into a new contract situation, I would say it
whether it was with the stadium or any person that we were in a partnership with. If we
were entering a new contract then I think there are provisions of the old contract or
existing contract that spell out some responsibilities and duties in it. And that’s why I
was just asking the question if that has to be done. And I’m not saying that has to be
done before we vote here today. I have no problem with that. But I do think that there
should be some, there should be some understanding as to how that’s taken care of before
you start on a ten year contract and you’ve got existing monies that are out there.
Beautiful relationship. I think I’ve lived long enough, in fact I may have signed the first
one. Probably when I was County Commission Chairman. So I remember the first
agreement that we went in on the stadium. So you know, we, we, we’ve done well
together. But to a point, and I think this is only just a new thing that’s in here now. My
second question, though, would be this: I think that the positives are there, because I
know you all want to do some other things that are there and how that works. But now
I’m, I’m, I’m interested and I didn’t have my 250’s on when I went through that contract,
Steve, but now I’m looking at when you talk about maintenance that’s in there and how
you equate that and back that out of rent, now I guess what I want to know in short, I
know if you build boxes or do other things of that nature, I guess what I’m wondering is
how much of that backs out of any expected rent if you all are now to deal with all of
those things directly, as opposed to what has been done in some cases in house within the
contract by Recreation & Parks?
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mays, that’s why I suggested that we have some sort of
ascertainable standards written in to the contract so that we would know what the value
of those, those maintenance items were. In terms of collecting the back rent, it could be
passed with the condition that this body receive its check. It’s sort of like a closing. You
go to a closing, one party shows up with money and the other party shows up ready to
sign a deed. And you don’t leave the room until, you know, the check and the deed are
both negotiated across the table. So I think there would be adequate protection for the
government to collect its back rent if you made that a condition of the execution of this
contract. And here again that’s why, when I read through this today, I thought that there
might be a little more tightening up that could be done in terms of what’s been done,
what they intend to do – that’s why I suggested to define new revenues by defining what
they have out there now. Therefore, you could define what are new. To give some
examples, for example luxury boxes. I know that’s not out there. I don’t know that we
want to limit what new is. The best thing I think to do would be to say what old is so that
when they brought something that is creative and innovative we would know that it
would – a 25% payment would attach. Does that help you?
Mr. Mays: It helps me. I know we’re delving, cause, one, with major
improvements they do of that type, which is all positive. Number one, you’ve got a,
you’ve got a better stadium when they make those improvements and such, and I think
81
that’s well understood. But I guess what I’m looking at is to a point you’re going in to
ten years and I’m looking at what’s defined in to a point of it being new. And even to a
point I know where there are some options where, where improvements are done in cities
and you’re talking about bigger, bigger, bigger deals that may be where a lot of your rent
is absorbed in terms of in exchange for what some things, you know, are done. That’s
not uncommon. But I just thought it needed to be, you know, to be clear and maybe I
missed something in there to a point of where that, where that is.
Mr. Shepard: I don’t think you missed the point. I think, that’s why I said it
needs a little extra, extra attention to these details.
Mr. Mays: Well, then, well, my next question would be, I guess, Mr. Mayor,
then, does, is there something then that the Attorney needs to fine tune to, to his own
satisfaction then? Because I mean, we’re, we’re, [inaudible] defer to your law partner
down on the other end with the other part of my tie on. Whether or not, you know, we
need to, to do that or not. Cause I want to be very fair to them. Because I think we got
an excellent relationship and I’m thinking to a point what I don’t want to see is I leave in
21 months as the Commission changes and to a point that there’s – this agreements has
worked very well and I think to a point that if, if, if you’re talking about where say maybe
rents aren’t derived because there’s say not a clear understanding about what goes into
maintenance, what’s not there, and of what, how you determine the value. If all that’s in
there, then I have no problem with it. But I’m just simply asking question. I was not at
the committee meeting. I think to a point that when you talk about a contract that goes
past the length of how long a Mayor or any Commissioner can stay in office, then that’s a
binding agreement that expands upon a decade passed today. And while the relationship
may be between two parties who, who like each other very much, it just needs to be sure
that when you’re moving with it in contract form. That’s the only thing that I, that I’m
saying there. And I was just asking those, those questions. I can, I can vote for it if the
Attorney’s clear, I can, I can go. But I just want to make sure that, cause, cause, you
know, the Mayor got 12 months past me and he can’t come back, I can’t come back, and
a bunch of y’all be gone. It just needs to be where it’s work out not just for the
Commission and the City, but also for, for good business partners. Because somebody
else comes along in three to four years and say [inaudible] this and then try to force a
situation of where we got a good tenant and a good partner and they think it’s another
way. And I don’t want that to happen to them, either. And that’s why I, I’m asking the
question now.
Mr. Mayor: Let me, let me follow up very, very briefly on what Mr. Mays
brought up. The $31,856 is a payment for calendar year 2003.
Mr. Speaker: Right.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’re 2-1/2 months into 2004. How much, tell me about
the payments you’ve made for calendar year 2004 on your rent.
82
Mr. Speaker: Well, basically what, when we were discussing this we are coming
up with the numbers, we’d hand you, just like you said –
Mr. Mayor: I’m talking about 2004.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that but we –
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] 4166 April, May, June, July and August and be paid up
at the end of August during our season, and one of the recommendations that we thought
is because we are a seasonal business that we do it during the months that we actually
have games and income and things like that, that it would, if that can be – I don’t think
there’s any stipulation on, on, you know, it’s got to be paid during the calendar year.
Mr. Mayor: I think that’s the point.
Mr. Speaker: But if we can do something like that, that would be great.
Mr. Mayor: The point I’m making is perhaps if the Attorney is going to tweak
this, we ought to put a payment schedule in there.
Mr. Speaker: Yeah, and I think that’s what we would like to see.
Mr. Mayor: Put that in there, Steve.
Mr. Speaker: We’d actually be behind in January, February and March, but we’d
be ahead at the end of August.
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Mr. Speaker: But it does fit our cash flow situation.
Mr. Mayor: And you can reflect that in the schedule.
Mr. Speaker: Seasonal cash flow?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, and basically keep our normal 4166 payment but during April,
May, June, July, August and September, you know, for six months.
Mr. Shepard: But my understanding is you want to pay, pay when you have cash
flow, is that –
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir. Our season is from anywhere from the first week of April
to the middle of September.
83
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Shepard: I think I can get that.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mays brought up a couple of issues
and a couple of points. I just want to be clear on something here. We talked about the,
the maintenance and the new things that’s coming to the, the field. And am I
understanding that the partners with the city would determine what new things, Tom,
that’s going to be put on the, on the, you know, on the field, like the boxes you talking
about? Who’s going to determine whether they put A, B, and C or just A? In other
words, who, who, who’s going to have the say to say whether or not that the partnership
would maintain and put on X amount of –
Mr. Beck: You will. You will have the final say.
Mr. Williams: That would come back to this body?
Mr. Beck: Absolutely. It will be a part of stadium improvements that should the
SPLOST V referendum pass with stadium improvement monies in it, then any
improvements to the stadium would come back to this body for approval.
Mr. Williams: Okay, that, that’s something I wasn’t clear and I thank you for
that. And the other thing, the maintenance, you talking about the maintenance
agreement, and that’s just the upkeep of the facility as in the condition that it’s in now
would be overseed by Rec?
Mr. Beck: Well, as in the lease agreement now, they are responsible for the daily
upkeep and general repairs to the stadium. That is in the lease now. That wouldn’t
change. What changes is this, that in the old lease, the old lease called for a $50,000 rent,
but the City was responsible for $25,000 per year in capital repairs. That was an
obligation in the lease.
Mr. Williams: If they were needed?
Mr. Beck: Well, if they were needed, but also, but I mean it was an absolute
obligation, the City will provide $25,000 for repairs to the stadium. So because – for
example, last year the City spent $6,800 of our monies through City purchase orders
toward that obligation. The GreenJackets, through verification of new things that they
put out there, new improvements that they made to the stadium such as the Fun Zone and
other improvements that they made to the picnic area, for example, they provided well
over $25,000 in other improvements. So in this negotiation, what, what we did as a
group and that’s what we’re bringing to you, is to give credit for the capital
improvements they already made and that’s how we arrived at the figure. So I hope that
answers your question.
84
Mr. Williams: Yeah, it kind of does but that lead me back to the, the first
question, though.
Mr. Beck: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Had that been brought to this board or to this body as to what they
was going do, whether it be $25,000 or $30,000 before, since they done those things –
and what I’m hearing, Tom, I might be hearing it wrong, but what I’m hearing is that,
that they had done those improvements so now we are adjusting the contract because they
had done those improvements.
Mr. Beck: That’s, that’s basically correct.
Mr. Williams: Okay. So had that been brought to this body before they done
those improvements, we could have said yea or nay in doing them, I guess is, is, is, is, is,
is my point.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Williams, there was a couple of issues to where under the
capital improvement, in the lease, to where we had to go through the bid process and get
two or three bids or to get something done at the facility, a capital improvement. Well,
some of these dollars were actually irrigation ruptures and water main breaks and things
that we couldn’t get bids on and it was kind of, handcuffed us in getting things done that
needed immediate attention. In this way, if there are any problems, that we can go get a
contractor, get whoever specializes in whatever needs to be done, that we can get that
work done immediately. So there were some issues that kind of fell through the cracks in
the original agreement to where we spent $7,000 or $8,000 just in water repair, water line
repair last year. So that was something that was kind of confusing for me. It’s hard to
get a bid when you don’t know what’s wrong underneath the ground. So.
Mr. Williams: Yeah, I kind of understand that. Like I say again, I think
everybody in support. I don’t think nobody’s against. I think we trying to be clear and
talk about those issues so we’ll know.
Mr. Speaker: The only reason I brought it up, that wasn’t something that I could
come to the board to get approved. That’s what I’m saying. We had some unusual
circumstances with this.
Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Let, let, let me just say this since I won’t be around when the next
contract’s renewed. I think that there was some questions that, that needed to be asked.
The Attorney on his end that represents us is ready, I think some things needed to asked, I
think they have been answered adequately. I also thin that this may not be in the
contract, ladies and gentlemen, but when some things occur, and I look at the investment
85
that at the time it was City and the County but it was the government period, that made an
initial investment to, to do that park and to monies up to deal with it. I think that some
little things that may happen, while they may fall under the repairs that you all have to
end up doing at some point to deal with that, I think some things that may happen in
terms of the fact that we can at least internally assist with, and I think there is a
relationship there between Rec & Parks and GreenJackets that has existed and it’s
worked well. I think it also needs to exist, though, within other departments if called
upon. Because that still, even though it’s been a beautiful relationship, you all are there,
but the initial investment, you know, was ours. It’s still – we’re partners in that, and I
look at it as, as a City place still from the standpoint of how it was done originally. And I
think that, that sometimes with those issues that involve infrastructure and of doing that,
we probably need to be able to respond in a, in a partnership effort, even if later on it’s an
expense of the stadium where you all have to deal with it and do, but I just think some
things like that, you know, of calling upon us [inaudible] and I’m sure between the
Administration and Rec, if it deals with utilities or some other area, then, then it needs to
be done. But I’ve, I’ve asked the question and got an answer on it. I think if their
payment schedule to a point helps within that cash flow period with good relationships,
good partners, if that works well when you paying, when you got your money, it means
we got ours. It means we at times we a little bit ahead and sometimes it’s not. But that
answers my question, so I hope you understand why I asked it, but I thought it needed to
get out and be settled to a point and you’ve, y’all have done a good job of that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the amendment to the lease agreement
with the GreenJackets. Is there any further discussion? All in favor of the motion then
please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, are we going to charge me to make the detailed
changes? That was the drift I was getting.
Mr. Mayor: I think so. And just report back to the Commission on what you’ve
done. Madame Clerk, would you publish the vote, please?
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Could I request that we go ahead to item 40 and 41?
Mr. Mayor: 40 and 41, which are --
Mr. Speaker: 42.
86
Mr. Boyles: And 42.
Mr. Mayor: I want to defer those for just a moment, if we may. We’ve got a few
things, I think we can sail through here fairly quickly. The next item is item 16. If you’d
read the caption for 16, we’re going to sail along here. Now that I know what you want,
you’ll work fast and hard to get there. Okay.
The Clerk:
16. Motion to approve the installation of temporary speed control measures
(humps) on Crane Ferry Road with administration identifying a funding source.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee March 8, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: First of all, there’s no backup in here, so there’s no funding source
identified. You need to do that for us, Mr. Russell. And Mr. Williams, you had a
question about this?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I had this pulled out for the funding source. I wanted to
know where it was, the funding source.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Williams, we had two options. One was to take it out of
contingency. That would not be my recommendation. My recommendation would be to
have Mr. Thompson find it in his budget. I think he can do that. His operations budget.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Thompson, can you address the mike and let us know whether
you’ve got some in your budget or can you do this? I’m not opposed to it. I just want to
know where the funding is going to come from.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I don’t see it.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if I may offer --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, you want to offer up some money?
Mr. Cheek: What I want to offer is I think the original figure was about $12,000
to do this. Ball park.
Mr. Grantham: How much?
Mr. Mayor: $12,000.
Mr. Cheek: Was that about right?
Mr. Thompson: That was in the agenda item. [inaudible] substitute item that’s
about $6,000.
87
Mr. Cheek: The -- I’m not sure of the width of the road, but in the safety
magazines I get they’re eight foot sections at $300 apiece, and they temporary and I
thought this being a pilot project that would be ideal to have OSHA approved specifically
designed speed humps that were about $300 a section versus the $1100 or $1200. I think
that’s certainly a reasonable alternative. They are also portable. And they can be picked
up and moved to other locations.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I was charged, too, to look at the other programs and legal
authorities for this area. My associated has brought me memo about what is being done, I
believe, in Roswell, Georgia in this regard. And I would like to share it with the body.
But it’s still a little rough. I’d like to either return it to the next Public Safety Committee
or the next meeting of the Commission. I’m, I think there’s -- the point of what he’s
discovered there needs to be some program set up from this, from this body and he has
not finished all of the, all of that, so that’s probably my fault not having this ready today.
Mr. Mayor: Well, Mr. Shepard, this was brought to us by Mr. Boyles, and this is
really an emergency situation on this road for those neighbors now that Warren Road is
closed. And if there’s not a show stopper in your research that would preclude the City --
Mr. Shepard: There’s not.
Mr. Mayor: -- from putting these out there, perhaps we can move forward with
that while you --
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: -- you think we need to have a policy?
Mr. Shepard: A policy that could be used in other situations where we could have
other types of speed humps. But the work is essentially complete but I, I didn’t have a
chance to review his memo today.
Mr. Cheek: And you can buy these temporary [inaudible] that you can screw into
the ground for about $390 a section. We should be able to do the entire width of the road
for about $2,500 and see how they work. If we like them, build permanent ones and
move the temporary ones to a new location. These are rated for emergency vehicles and
everything else.
Mr. Mayor: Somebody want to make a motion?
Mr. Boyles:
Mr. Mayor, if that can’t be taken from, from Mr. Thompson’s
then I move we take it to contingency.
budget,
88
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that since we didn’t -- we decided we didn’t want to do
traffic calming during budget year. I think this is an adequate funding source for a pilot
program such as this, and this will give us a good baseline and data base on how well it
works.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Cheeks. Mr. Cheeks did.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, the only discussion that I would like to initiate is those
folks out there, as you saw, turned in their petition of 40 names, just, well a few hours
ago now, but when are we going to do this? How quick can we move?
Mr. Cheek: You can -- these things are ordered. You can order them UPS, you
know, next -- how quick depends on the catalog you order them out of and the kits for
installation and all that comes with them. It’s just a matter of how you align them on the
road.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, can Mr. Cheek get those references to me?
Mr. Cheek: I’ll have the catalogs. I left one out at Diamond Lakes this weekend.
They come in all the safety catalogs.
Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Thompson may have that.
Mr. Boyles: The traffic engineer certainly should have all that information.
Mr. Thompson: If I could, I’d like to get wit Commissioner Cheek to make sure
I’ve got some of the same catalogs he’s referring to, because I, I still haven’t seen the
$399 cost.
Mr. Cheek: Per section.
Mr. Thompson: Right.
Mr. Cheek: And they are six or eight foot sections, but yes. We’ll do that. We’ll
get approval for this today. What did we ask for dollar-wise? $2,500?
Mr. Boyles: I think the cost of the project I mean I don’t think there was ever --
the figure $12,000 was thrown out and it was thrown out. Then we looked at some other
numbers, but I don’t think we ever had --
89
Mr. Cheek: Can we say $5,000, not to exceed $5,000, which certainly should be
cheaper, and we’ll look at those magazines and come back with a recommendation to the
body ASAP on the cost of those?
Mr. Boyles: I have no problem with that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if you give us those kind of limits you might trade
[inaudible] with trying to get the project done. If you’d let us go with the original
$12,000 and let us find the best deal for that and come back here, I think that would make
the process run a little bit quicker. In addition to that, from talking with Mr. Thompson,
there are some fundings available inside their budget that we could deal with, so with
your permission I’d like to [inaudible] with funding internal if possible and contingency
as a last resort. Don’t want to touch contingency more than I have to, up to $12,000.
Mr. Boyles: I agree with that. You know.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I want, I want to cast a vote that, that helps, but let
me, let me ask a question first of, of Mr. Thompson on one issue. And I’m not putting
you on the spot with this, [inaudible], in terms of numbers, but it might be one we have to
look back on. While y’all were searching for funds, I guess what I’m looking at, if this
problem has been caused by the closure of a situation on Warren Road, is there any
contingency or is there any money left in the Warren Road project itself? Because I
mean a certain amount of money was allocated on a project that’s a long time [inaudible]
right now, and what I’m looking at before you set the precedent of taking -- even though
it’s a small amount out of, out of general fund contingency, would it not be better to look
into the specific project contingency? I hope, I don’t think y’all have eaten all of that
money down to 100% in that one road project. And what I’m saying is I would much
rather see, even if you have to borrow it from contingency with the stipulation that it be
put back out of the project in Warren Road. I think it’s just a better fiscal precedent than
to a point of coming in to deal with. I think it’s very good and I think you ought to get
some help. Now the second thing I want to say before you answer that is have y’all
called the Sheriff? Because I think to a point that, that, that, that last, last, last -- I’m not
[inaudible] now but I’m going, I’m going hit back in here a little bit -- the last time we
eased up on some [inaudible] public safety -- the Sheriff’s my friend, but I think, too,
there needs to be something. While you ordering something they need some help that’s
over in there and I think in the stopgap measure before you get temporary stuff put in that
there probably needs to be an increased patrol situation that you’ve got in there. And I’m
just asking those questions because it’s, it’s, it’s my first time getting it. So I don’t really
know. So I want to know whether or not there’s some money left in Warren Road’s
project that it can be at least put back from there out of general fund contingency. If it’s
not, then I would still, because of the situation it is, vote to do it to help on a temporary
measure. But I think in terms of keeping up with the money, that would be a better
90
measure to do it if there’s project money there. Because if the project and the delay cause
the inconvenience that you’ve got over in the other area that you’re doing, then I think
there ought to be a way we can legally remedy that because [inaudible] charged off to
Warren Road’s project.
Mr. Boyles: Mr., Mr. Mays, if I could respond, I have been in contact almost
every day with Richard Elim from the Sheriff’s Department. They have had the little cart
up there that shows the speed of people coming through. And there’s been an increased
motorcycle presence up there. But you know, they’re only there -- as a matter of fact, the
Sheriff’s Department will put out the little speed control, but they have to pick it up at
4:30 because the people who use it have to be off at 5:00, got to have it back to the shop,
and the speeding happens from 4:00 o’clock to 7:00 o’clock.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] crime isn’t on a time thing, you know. I mean that’s just
like, you know, that’s like folks that sell drugs. You know, they don’t, they don’t have
no certain time in which they, you know, they do that. Some of us deal with, with, with,
with [inaudible] but I guess if you’ve explored that. But I’m just saying that you are not
going to catch everybody all the time. And if the temporary ones, if they can be bought,
do think we probably need to explore because if they temporary they can be picked up
and put into another problem area once we hopefully get this one solved. But I, I still
would like to know whether there’s some money, [inaudible] or Fred, in that Warren
Road project account.
Ms. Woods: If I may interrupt you, sir. Pardon my rudeness.
Mr. Mayor: Just a minute, please. Your name and address for the record.
Ms. Woods: Monique Woods, 3139 Crane Ferry Road.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Woods: I’m the very last house on the left on Crane Ferry next to the school.
Close to Warren Road. We call our little stretch the Indy 500 every morning and every
evening, with Columbia County traffic using us, or Richmond County. Columbia County
traffic using our area as a through way. Ignore all speed signs. We have called the
police. We have -- the Sheriff’s Department, if you would. We’ve done all that. We
have a gentleman that took it upon himself to do this and he got the names. My husband
is one of them on that petition. My father, who lives three doors up, is one on that
petition. My mother is handicapped. It’s all she can do to get out of her driveway. My
children grew up there and went to Warren Road. I drove them to school because I didn’t
trust them walking just that little short distance. I went to Warren Road. It wasn’t like
that. It’s like that now. That is my home, and I do not plan on selling it. I would like to
see the speed humps to take care of the speeders, whether young or old. Columbia
County or Richmond County. It is necessary. It is a safety factor. It is something that
Kings Chapel and Crane Ferry need. Those people do not pay attention. They don’t. I
watch it. They’ve heard my voice out there to slow down. They need to. I don’t even let
91
my children play in the front yard -- we have a wonderful neighborhood -- cause I don’t
trust them, cause it doesn’t take place. The Sheriff, the Sheriff’s Department does not
patrol. They can’t 24/7, even the people that live there. We’ve gone through all the
motions, sir. Been there. This gentleman that came today to present that, he did a
wonderful thing for all of us. And we’d like it, we’d like to see it take place. Find the
money, do it. If it means taking it out of the Warren Road and then putting it back, do it.
But it needs to be done. Cut down on some of that. It’s not just the construction from
Warren Road. This is year round. This has been going on for years. It’s not just because
of the construction. Detours? They don’t even mind the detour signs, these people. It’s,
it’s, it’s interesting. They’ve even had it on TV, all the people that run the stop signs and
do the speeding. To no avail. It needs to be done.
Mr. Mays: I’m sympathetic and I want to help you. But I thought I did need, I’d
be remiss if I didn’t ask the question in terms of --
Ms. Woods: I understand.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] when we talk about general fund contingency, it gets to be
a no-no with everybody, but there are times when you -- that’s why you have a
contingency, to deal with certain emergencies.
Ms. Woods: Sure.
Mr. Mays: But if we’ve got another source, I just would like to use that one first
if we’ve got it.
Ms. Woods: I understand.
Mr. Mays: Because [inaudible] they come in, and I think everybody has got some
they can bring and that’s why I still was asking that question.
Ms. Woods: And I respect that.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] money there to deal with it with. But if not, then I’m
prepared to vote to deal with it as an emergency situation to do it if it’s the only means
that we’ve got. But I, but I need to find out still the question whether or not you got some
money over there.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Grantham, you wanted to speak?
Mr. Grantham: Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I might get an answer as to whether we have got some
money in there? That’s what, I just wanted to know if we got some money in there.
That’s all.
92
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, Mr. Mays. I thought you had gotten your answer.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] some help and I’ll vote for either one of the motions. I
just wanted to make sure [inaudible].
Mr. Thompson: The Warren Road project is approximately 15% complete now.
None of the contingency, 10% of that contract amount, has been used to date.
Commissioner Grantham, I believe, spoke about the transite water line earlier, or
Commissioner Cheek, and that’s a substantial amount of money if that change order
comes to fruition. And that way, you know, will be well beyond the contingency in that,
in that project.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I’m going -- I think Mr. Mays has got his answer
now.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Grantham: But what, what I was going to make a point of, I had talked to, to
Mr. Thompson about that water line that is such a critical situation. I don’t think we can
depend on the contingency to finance that water line, Eric. We’re going to have to find
money from somewhere to do that, and it’s going to be, you know, we’re going to have to
make sure that’s done. But I’m going to go back to the speed humps and I think it’s a
very important issue. As to one that we are in an emergency state to a point that we are
putting more traffic on Crane Ferry from Warren Road due to construction. But it’s not
just the traffic that’s being put over there right now. It’s a continuation of traffic before
and after the construction of Warren Road. What I’m making is, is I did some
investigation myself after we talked about this in committee, based on the speed humps,
when Eric mentioned that it was going to cost us about $12,000 to get that done. And I
guess if we did it permanently, Eric -- were you referring to one, two, three, four -- how
many speed humps were you referring to at that point?
Mr. Thompson: At least two, as many as [inaudible].
Mr. Grantham: Well, based on, based on my findings, and I’m not, I’m not
attacking your numbers for the $12,000, but in Portland, Oregon, their cost estimate is
around $2,000 per hump. Sarasota’s is the same, and Seattle, Washington, the same.
And they give a very good description of these speed humps and how they are put down,
what they look like, how they are done. If you go to www.trafficcalming.org, it gives
you a world of information on speed bumps, speed humps, and the project that they can
perform and what they’ll do for you. Not to say you didn’t have information. Now there
again, these are other types of maybe speed humps than what you look at. But I think
that we can do the job just as good as, as Portland, Oregon or Sarasota, Florida, you
know, for the dollars that they’re talking about right here in little old Augusta. As to a
temporary fix, if we’re looking for that, then maybe the $300 or $400 that Mr. Cheek is
referring to, I’ve not found those yet, either. I’m still looking. But, but I really feel like
that we have a permanent problem out there, not a temporary problem. And I think from
93
what the lady alluded to -- and I missed your last name and I’m sorry -- but my point is
that we don’t need to just to look for a Band-aid fix, we need to look for something that’s
going to be permanent for these people and get it done as quickly as possible. So I just, I
just say that we need to go forward, move forward on this, let this be our satellite project
for Richmond County, for Augusta, to let people know that we’re going to make a strong
attempt in controlling traffic, and controlling speeders particularly. So that’s my
comment, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. That’s all the more reason I’m pushing
for this drag strip, to get people off the road. But let me, let me, let me comment to the
young lady who was here, and I’m very sympathetic to what she said and I’m in total
agreement. But she said something that, that, that really came home to me when she said
they have done all they can do with calling the Sheriff’s Department. Now we don’t
regulate the Sheriff’s Department as to what they do, but this body ought to be putting
more emphasis on the Sheriff’s Department to get in that area, to patrol if they have to
have somebody there 24/7. Now when somebody lose their life or when there’s a bad
wreck, then we’ll say well, we should have done something. Now we see the signs. We
talking about the speed humps, and I think the speed bumps or humps may make a big
difference. But you got that many speeders, if it’s that broad, if it’s that wide open, look
like to me, and I know a little bit about the Fire Department and nothing about the
Sheriff, but there ought to be traffic division sign there, whether it be motorcycle traffic
or car traffic or even a dummy car placed in that area to slow down these speeders.
Something should be done and something should be addressed by the Sheriff’s
Department. And as Chairman of Public Safety, I’m going to bring it upon myself to
bring it to the committee, that we need to talk to the Sheriff about getting somebody to
stake out that area. Now I understand [inaudible] world to take care of. Well, this is just
as much a part of his world as anywhere else. And if you know there’s a problem, this
ain’t something you got to look for. Some of the stuff we had to look to try to find. And
some of the stuff we don’t find cause we ain’t looking for it. But if it’s that wide open, if
it’s that much of a problem with the children, the seniors, and the traffic being directed or
routed through there, we need to have somebody up here with some authority to write
some tickets. And I think if you write enough of those tickets, if enough of those fines
come in, you going to find people slowing down. Now I remember a incident on Gordon
Highway, Mr. Mays, when I ran 65 mph in a 45 and I got a ticket. The next week I came
along running 45, that what the speed limit said, and I got pulled over again. Now I was
doing what the speed limit said and the officer told me I was running too perfect
[inaudible]. All I’m saying is that we need to address those issues. We need to have the
Sheriff’s Department to address those issues when there is a problem, and there seem to
be a problem. And we need to check that kind of stuff out.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, may I make a motion? I’d like to move --
94
Mr. Mayor: Just a minute, let me see. Do we have one motion or two on the
floor, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: I have one.
Mr. Mayor: You have one? Okay, we’ll take a substitute motion then from Ms.
Beard.
Ms. Beard: That we put the humps in and pay for them through the contingency
fund.
Mr. Mayor: Well, that’s the original motion that Mr. -- that’s the original one that
Mr. Boyles made.
Ms. Beard: Oh, it was? I’m sorry. I guess -- well, fine.
Mr. Cheek: Question.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
Mr. Mayor, hearing, hearing the body speak today, is it the will of
the body that we make this the first pilot project, and if that being the case, then putting in
the permanent fixtures would be a best test of traffic calming, and so I guess, I hate to
impact -- this is the thing that concerns me, is impacting already-tight Public Works
I would like to see us go with the full
budget -- if we get this out of contingency,
blown, the $12,000, get it done, marked, and use this as the City’s first pilot project
with speed humps and traffic calming.
Ms. Beard: Is that an amended motion?
Mr. Cheek: That’s an amendment to your motion, if that’s okay with you.
Ms. Beard: That’s fine.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Well, it’s the Chair’s understanding that the motion Ms.
Beard made is the same thing Mr. Boyles made, unless I --
Ms. Beard: And now it’s been amended.
The Clerk: And they added that the cost not exceed $5,000, now we’ve gone
back to the $12,000.
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Okay, so is there any objection to amending the amount to $12,000
in that? That’s the cap.
95
Mr. Cheek: With the language that this is designated as the first traffic calming --
Mr. Mayor: If there’s no further discussion, we’ll move ahead with the vote on
the motion. All in favor of the motion as amended, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is a companion item to this in some respect, that’s item
18, Ms. Bonner, if you would read that for us.
The Clerk:
18. Motion to approve the list of additions and changes to the Augusta
Richmond County radar permit to be submitted to the Georgia Department of
Public Safety and Georgia Department of Transportation for consideration.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee March 8, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’re adding with this application Crane Ferry Road to those
streets that the Sheriff can use radar on, and I would recommend to the Administration
that if this is moved and approved that you all fax this list up to Public Safety and D.O.T.
tomorrow morning first thing, so we can get the radar out there as quickly as we can.
There is one other thing, though, we need to include with the motion on this. Mr.
Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: I gave you a letter I received this week from the State that apparently
says we haven’t approved the right resolution to allow us to use radar in the City. It’s got
Norman Simowitz’s signature on it, that the consolidated government needs to do this.
So I would ask the maker of the motion to approve this list, that we also include the
resolution to authorize the use of radar on our streets in the City so we can update that.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can, I’d like to have the Clerk put on Public Safety
Committee, the next committee meeting, someone from the Sheriff’s Department to be
able to address the, the concerns of Crane Ferry and the traffic problem that we’re having
there, for our next committee meeting.
Mr. Mayor: All right. So we need a motion on item number 18 to approve
this, with the addition of the, of the updated resolution to authorize the use of radar.
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Ms. Sims: Second.
96
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion and a second. Discussion on that? Mr.
Mays? Okay. All in favor then please vote in the affirmative. Oh, you already have.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Allen has to leave for a class, so if we could jump over to
item number 37. Mr. Williams, you had requested this item, and Ms. Allen needs to go to
school tonight.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
37. Discuss the cable filming of the Commission meetings. (Requested by
Commissioner Marion Williams)
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I asked for this item to be placed, place on,
on the agenda. And have no problem with the cable or, or that regard. My regard in this
was that the, the Administrator had instructed the cable, I guess, photographer --
The Clerk: Technician.
Mr. Williams: -- technician --
The Clerk: [inaudible] camera [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: -- have instructed the camera man to leave several times and we
have not finished the, the, the, the meeting. And, and I want some clarification if that
was a Commission decision, knowing a lot of times we do go into legal and we may stay
for a long period of time, but I think we got enough smarts about this board to be able to
go out and somebody can relieve him, and I didn’t want him confused as to who he’s
supposed to listen to, so I thought I would bring to this board to find out is it a
Commission decision. Mr. Mayor, I brought it to your attention one time and you came
out and asked the man to stay. But to keep going back and forth, I had it put on the
agenda so I would have clarity that it was a Commission decision and it was a
Commission item that he deals with. He was instructed that he should listen to I think the
Administrator as to whether he go or stay, and I wanted some clarification on that.
Mr. Mayor: Well, the TV comes under Ms. Allen. She might be able to shed
some light on it. But I would, just from the Chair’s perspective, we have our meetings
here taped and the meeting is not over until we move to adjourn. And so I would assume
that the camera should be here for the meeting.
Ms. Allen: You’re absolutely correct, Mr. Mayor and members of the
Commission. According to the contract, the contract administrator is of course
Information Technology Department. It’s basically for us to administer the contract
97
that’s in place. But the ruling, excuse me, the governing rule of the whole entire contract
is the actual Board of Commissioners.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. And the contract with the cable company says that they will
tape the meeting?
Ms. Allen: Yes, sir. Now we did in the contract give them an estimated hour, 72
hours per year, which is actually about three hours per Commission meeting.
(Laughter)
Ms. Allen: That was --
(Laughter)
Ms. Allen: Of course, that was an estimate. But they are to tape it in its entirety.
Mr. Mayor: In its entirety. That’s the intent of the contract?
Ms. Allen: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: All right. I think that’s your answer.
Mr. Williams: move that we receive as information that the
Thank you. I
governing authority is this board of Commissioners.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. So Ms. Allen, I think if you would
just reaffirm to the cable company that they are to stay here until the adjournment of
meetings under that contract.
Mr. Cheek: Quick comment. It’s my understanding that only Comcast carries
this, and Knology still doesn’t pick it up and doesn’t carry it; is that accurate?
Ms. Allen: That is currently accurate, but we are in the process of [inaudible] two
new contracts approved where Knology would have the ability to [inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: They’ve always had the ability but they’ve chosen not to, and I just
wanted to say thank you, Comcast.
Mr. Williams: Well, Ms. Allen, I think you need to make some clarification to
the board as to what Knology intended or what the [inaudible] contract and I don’t want
to state it cause I’m not sure. But how is that stated now?
98
Ms. Allen: Currently right now, Comcast is the only cable company that is
showing the Commission meetings. Knology --
Mr. Cheek: Knology has always had the opportunity.
Ms. Allen: Exactly. They have had --
Mr. Cheek: -- chose not to.
Ms. Allen: They have had the opportunity but they have went under new
management and they have come to the table and had a change in regard to showing the
Commission meetings. So they are amenable to [inaudible] meetings as well on their
channels.
Mr. Mayor: Well, these are issues that need to be negotiated ultimately in the
franchise agreement.
Ms. Allen: Exactly.
Mr. Mayor: Where we need to negotiate for a public access channel for the
government and those type things. And we haven’t done it historically and we need to
start doing it when these come up for renewal.
Ms. Allen: We are in the process and we will be bringing back to this board the
actual contract for Knology as well as for Comcast to be renewed.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. All in favor of that motion,
please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much, Tameka.
Ms. Allen: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair, the Chair is going to declare a five minute
recess. If you want to run out and get a sandwich and come on back and we’ll try to get
this wrapped up.
(Brief recess)
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Commissioner Colclough, and that is item number 33.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor --
99
Mr. Mayor: Let the Clerk read the caption.
Mr. Colclough: Okay.
The Clerk:
33. Motion to approve the reallocation of $1.5M from the Downtown Traffic
Signal and Streetlight Upgrades – A Project (CPB#324-04-201824110) to the
Morgan Road Improvement Project with authorization to proceed; and once the
project is completed the remaining funds are to be returned to original project.
Original project funding will be restored in SPLOST V. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee March 8, 2004)
Mr. Colclough: I’d like to change the funding source on this project. Rather
than take it out of traffic and street light upgrades, I’d like to take the $1.5 million
out of the dirt road project funding,
Mr. Mayor: All right.
The Clerk: Out of what?
Mr. Colclough: Dirt road.
The Clerk: Unpaved road projects?
Mr. Colclough: Unpaved road.
Mr. Mayor: You want to make that motion?
Mr. Colclough: That’s in the form of a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams, you asked this item be pulled. Did you --
Mr. Williams: Well, that was my concern.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Commissioner Colclough addressed it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. That’s why I let him go first. I thought he might answer your
question.
100
Mr. Williams: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor of the motion then please vote with
the usual sign.
Mr. Mays: I’m going to vote for it. I just wanted to ask something, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Mays: I know we’re in the process of voting. I know the Commissioner’s
intentions on that and I’m in favor of the motion. But I just wanted to ask him, is this
where we would replace that on the SPLOST for it to go back into that same fund?
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir, that’s my intentions.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Colclough: Put the money back [inaudible] SPLOST is approve.
Mr. Mays: Okay. I just didn’t want it to look like we were taking it out and not
any intention to put it back.
Mr. Colclough: The money will go back.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right, the next item is item number 21.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Just a minute, Mr. Hankerson, please, if you’d let the Clerk read the
caption, then I’ll recognize you.
The Clerk:
21. Motion to amend the Capital Outlay FY 2004 budget by $1,570,750 for
revenues and capital related expenditures. (Approved by Finance Committee March
8, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: All right, Commissioner, go ahead.
101
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. I pulled this because I just had some questions about
it, the background of 21, about the appropriations. And I understand that the $450,000 of
the purchased pension property, I think that’s already been passed, I think, that we
purchase that property, and the $450,000 would come from this $1.5 million that came
from New York Bank. But I was just -- the other items under there, I just didn’t really
understand. I didn’t see no backup of what this money, what this was for. The flood
mitigation grant match and security equipment, sheriff’s equipment, public works,
$100,000. I understand [inaudible] but I just wanted some explanation on that cause I
thought maybe more could have went in contingency since in two months and a half we
are going to be looking at some other things. I know the reclassification got to take place
and things that we need to be doing in two months and a half. So I just wanted to -- had
some questions on that [inaudible], what is this for? Equipment and public works.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, can you respond to this?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. The $335,000 is money that needs to be spent
in the indigent defense [inaudible] in reference to [inaudible] lawsuit. $285,000 for the
building. An additional $50,000 we put in during the last committee meeting in reference
to computer equipment and phone lines and stuff like that, that gave a total of $335,000
for that particular building. And if you recognize [inaudible] under a Court mandate to
go ahead and provide that, so we are looking at this as a funding source. In addition to
that, the $135,000 is a match for flood mitigation grant that we are seeking or have
sought. David, maybe you can help me with that.
Mr. Persaud: Yes, public works grant, public works, public safety.
Mr. Mayor: Is the home buy-out, the local match for the home buy-out?
Mr. Russell: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, we’ve just been approved for what, six or eight properties I
think.
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Just got a grant for that.
Mr. Russell: The fourth item is the security equipment. $50,000. And that
provides for an additional scanner for the Law Enforcement Center. They’ve only got
one down there that’s affordable scanner at this point. That provides an additional
scanner down there. My understanding is $70,000 is for Sheriff’s vehicles. And then the
public works equipment is $100,000 for miscellaneous equipment in public works. It
would supplement their normal capital budget in that area. Our concern for this is this is
a one-time payment, so that’s why the decision was made to put it in a capital [inaudible]
where you have one time costs, and instead of putting it some place where you’d have
rollover money, so that was the recommendation that the Administrator advised, made for
102
this kind of funding. It’s a one term source or one time source and therefore it would
appropriate to put it in the capital outlay expenditures.
Mr. Hankerson: I thought it would be, in my opinion, would be better used if we
would have put it all in contingency, cause you had adopted budget revenues, had $3
million that these expenditures could have came out of the adopted budget that we
already had. And when we look at increasing contingency, these funds could have been
in contingency. We was just addressing a few minutes ago where we was going to find
some money. And we was talking about getting it from contingency. To me, it just
would have been, seem to me, we’re looking at two months and a half, looking at the
budget overall again. If this money would have went in contingency you still would have
had, we’d still have capital outlay money, the $3.2 million already that it could have
came from. I can understand that we talked about paying the $450,000 to purchase the
pension property, but after paying that we would have had $1.1 million left that could
have went in contingency.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I’d like to argue
in favor of completing our commitment today on indigent defense. There’s a meeting, as
you know, in the morning where we’re going to attend with other elected officials and
particularly the judges, and I think that we had, we have tried to be very proactive in the
area of indigent defense, since the 2002 budget which was first, which was amended to
begin increased expenditures for indigent defense that year. And then there was
increased funding for indigent defense in the 2003 budget. So -- and the 2004 budget.
So I would argue, I would ask you that the indigent building be, be paid from this non-
recurring source of revenue. I think it would behoove us to do at least that. I’m coming
back with a recommendation on the pension property very shortly, and this is something
that we should apply there, so I would argue for at least those two being designated as
they are. We can go back to Finance Committee for the rest, but after speaking here with
Mr. Russell, I just realized how, how necessary the first two items in this list are.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, that, that makes sense. Considering those items that the
Attorney just mentioned, I’d like to make a motion that we consider those two items.
That would still leave a balance of $785,750 that can go in contingency and after, after
May we could decide then, you know, what we had money left to do these other projects.
They need to be done. You still have $3 million out of the adopted budget revenues to do
those projects, if I can get a second on that.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Mays: I’ll second to get it on.
Mr. Mayor: And as a matter of clarification, you’re going to put this in the capital
outlay fund contingency; is that correct? The capital fund contingency or the general
operation contingency?
103
Mr. Hankerson: What, what is number 7 that the Finance Committee
recommended, is that capital outlay or that’s contingency?
Mr. Mayor: Capital outlay.
Mr. Russell: Capital outlay contingency.
Mr. Hankerson: Capital outlay?
Mr. Mayor: Just want to make sure there’s no question on what the intent of the
contingency is.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, then the, it could go in general fund, can’t it?
Mr. Mayor: If you wanted to do that. It’s recommended, though, that you keep
this in capital because this is a one-time infusion of money.
Mr. Hankerson: Yeah, but some of these, that speed break was a one-time, too.
Mr. Mayor: Some things you take out of general fund contingency which end up
being recurring expenses.
Mr. Hankerson: Yeah, I understand that.
Mr. Mayor: It’s the Commissioner’s preference which contingency you’d like to
put this into.
Mr. Hankerson: The general, general fund. Not the capital outlay.
Mr. Mayor: General fund. General fund contingency.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Let’s start here with Ms. Beard and we’ll work our way down.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I believe when this was discussed in our committee
meeting we found there was a real need for all of this, and Mr. Persaud explained all of
this to us and made this recommended so that it was the reason we voted the way we did.
So I guess you’re going to address that now? Or would you?
104
Mr. Persaud: [inaudible] The appropriation of the $1.57 million is the
recommendation of the Administrator over and above the purchase of the pension
property [inaudible]. The [inaudible] $335,000 for the indigent defense building is a well
worthwhile project, just explained by the City Attorney. The remaining $786,000 is a
recommendation from the City Administrator [inaudible] policy decision by this body. In
all due respect, Ms. Beard, that is his recommendation. It’s my understanding that in
appropriating the $3.2 million in the capital outlay, he was [inaudible] funding for the
[inaudible] 2004.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Persaud, as the Finance Director and as the expert when it
comes to money, what, what’s your recommendation?
Mr. Persaud: My recommendation would be to take the $1.57 million, reduce it
by the $450,000 and the $335,000. That would leave a balance of $786,000. The
[inaudible] from the Administrator and he has always in my knowledge been the body
that makes the determination of the appropriation of these funds, so [inaudible] his
recommendation.
Mr. Williams: I understand and I, I, I, I applaud you for wanting to do that. But
I’m asking you personally what’s your recommendation as a finance -- I mean, you
know, what, what, just --
Mr. Persaud: My recommendation would be that [inaudible] Administrator
[inaudible] determine a need for those funds [inaudible] recommendation, you still have a
balance of $431,000 in contingency.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Persaud.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to say that we sat in the Finance
Committee, those of us that were here that day, and went over this almost with a fine
tooth comb and heard all the explanations, and I think probably got the same response
from Mr. Persaud as we just got here. And we did make a couple of changes in it. I think
one was the, because Mr. Russell said he needed some additional money for telephone
lines and whatever for the indigent defense building, and all of this was one-time capital.
This came back as a recommendation from the Finance Committee. Now if we want to
come back on the floor and change it, it’s my, it was my understanding that there was not
enough money, not enough funds for all the capital requests that we had, and Mr. Kolb
came back and tried to find the ones that were desperately -- that were most needed. And
I think that was what he had told me, was his recommendation. So I mean if we sit in
105
Finance and we try to work these things out, and then to come out here, I mean, heck,
what’s the point in having the Finance Committee meeting?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can, I’d like to, I’d like to respond to that, because
I was not here, and not that I know a lot about Finance, but Mr. Boyles, I differ with you
because if you got a disagreement, if you don’t have the understanding, and I think
[inaudible] had one, but I’m, I’m, I’m a little concerned about this myself. When it
comes to money, we make these moves, then it’s too late to go back and redo that after
we make the moves. So those of us who was not here and unable to discuss it, I think this
is the only place we had to do unless [inaudible] come through here and pass it right on
through. So I beg to differ. I think if we had, if I had been here and got the explanation
y’all got, I may [inaudible] same understanding. But I’m, I’m looking now what’s the
best use of this, this money and, and where this money needs to be placed at. But --
Mr. Boyles: We did at that time, too.
Mr. Williams: Well, you got an understanding. So we need to come to the floor
and do it. You say why it come out here? This the only place I got to do it unless we
pass it or send it back.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One of the things we’re going to need to
be real concerned with, and that is regardless of the, of the fund it goes in, either capital
outlay or general fund, is that we‘re going to have to be careful as how this money is
spent. Because there’s no repeat in getting this money back or getting it from any other
source.
Mr. Williams: Exactly right.
Mr. Grantham: So we have got to be very careful as to how we take it, you know,
some of the times we just come up and say well, take it out of general fund. That’s all
right, go ahead, we approve it. But if we start taking this money out of general fund, if
we’re looking for it to come back again next year, it will not be there. So I, I’m going to
encourage if we approve what we have on here, as to the capital outlay fund, and if you
want to put, those 3 through 7 down back into capital outlay fund contingency, that’s
fine, and then we can identify these items as they come up. But these items were
identified for a very special need and I think if they had not been important enough for
the, for them to discuss and bring to us, then we wouldn’t have them on this agenda
today.
Mr. Mayor: Well, if somebody wants to make a substitute motion to adopt
the committee report, certainly that’s, that’s in order.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
106
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: In due respect to the committee, I wasn’t present, either. I was
doing business for us in Washington, D.C. But I was just concerned because you had
$3,220,000 already in the fund. Those items could have came from that, that particular
amount there, that money. If in the background it had been identified, identified that we
were short in capital outlay money for 2004, I don’t know how much we were short, how
much we were short, why we had to do this this way. And first of all, another point is the
$1.5 million, I didn’t know that we had it until we got ready to buy the pension property.
You know, every time we get ready to do something we find some money. I didn’t know
we had $1.5 million. When we got ready to buy the pension property, then the money
came available. And now the money’s being directed to one, just one area, already
appropriated. So that’s why I, I, seem like to me it could have came out of the $3.2
million. [inaudible] discussion today even with Commissioner Boyles, we were talking
about where we were going to get the money from. Speed bumps is a one-time. There,
there is some other issues that’s going to be some one-time projects that we probably
could use it for.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion on the floor to adopt the Finance
Committee recommendation for this item. Yes, Mr. Mays, you want to speak before we
vote?
Mr. Mays: Yeah, let me just ask this. I think obviously one through six on this
list, and one has been already approved and tied to a, a previous issue so we would have
to undo that to even deal with that measure. But I guess what I’m what I’m looking at on
here is whether there is a source in those existing budgets. Now I know 2 speaks for
itself. There is no other source. It’s still a [inaudible] of how we’re dealing with it, and
the Attorney has probably danced to that music quicker than anybody else for us on
behalf of indigent defense. But I guess what I’m asking in terms of trying to determine
how the Administrator arrived at, at what he put on a one-time list, and he’s not -- and I
guess maybe Mr. Russell can answer. I’m just searching to find out whether or not there
is money in an existing budget to cover those items of any of those departments that are
there. And my reason for asking that is that I, I’m kind of in agreement with
Commissioner Hankerson. It’s why you set a budget to deal with some items. Now if
the budget is depleted and there is a serious need and those are serious things that are
down there, then I’m for staying with that. I have no, no problem with it. But I have a
problem that to me when you start trying to make one-time [inaudible] it should be in
cases of where there is no other source to turn to in terms of getting money. We don’t
have a budget that will cover indigent defense, but by court order, by law we’ve got to
deal with is. So this is an excellent opportunity to arrive at [inaudible]. But now if I’m
looking at equipment, for instance to put in another scanner over at the jail, is the jail
[inaudible] account depleted in terms of dealing with money to buy a piece of equipment?
If it’s depleted, then I can say go to it. But then if it’s got six figures of money sitting
107
over there in it, then I think it ought to come out there where it is. And that’s the kind of
question I need answered.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, can you answer the question?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I can answer the question. Commissioner
Mays, what this list was resolved from was a list of requests that were made to be funded
through our capital budget in the normal process. Because of the lack of dollars in that
fund, these were above and beyond the $3.2 million that is actually funded, so your
question is exactly on target. These were things that were needed and requested by our
department heads, were not funded in the capital budget because there was not sufficient
funds to cover everything. With the additional monies that were developed, the $1.5
million, these were things that the Administrator thought were the most important of
those things that were requested and not funded. The contingency then would be used to
fund other [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: I, I don’t mean to be picky, but I’m going to go back to Marion’s cars
for just a moment now. This is a new [inaudible] and I’m not going to ever deny public
safety equipment that it needs, but I’m going to try, I gotta, I gotta make this observance.
We, we buy vehicles, we buy other stuff, and we’ve heard all the things we’ve dealt with
of spending money and dealing with extra security, particularly past 9/11, even down to
the boxes that stayed in the lobby, crated up down there to protect everybody for several
months that we had to get out. Folk was sitting Co-colas on, to rest on when they came
into the building. It took almost an act of Congress to get them unloaded and get them
set up. But I, I got a problem to a point that if you need certain equipment to a point,
things like this, if, if, if, if, if you, if you’re down to where you need a scanner, which is
very important, and you are out of money to do that, then it seems like to me then
somebody ought to have a list somewhere else in public safety that’s still [inaudible] on
safety equipment. And that’s, that’s why I brought it up to a point that if it, if it’s out
there to spend that amount, which is not a lot compared to what we spend, then is, is that
the only thing that we need to be addressing? Because if there’s a safety problem and we
are only spending that amount to do it, I guess I’m rocking a pendulum that swings both
ways, then maybe I, maybe I [inaudible] today [inaudible] going into contingency, maybe
that ought to be dealt with. Somewhere in there I see something fuzzy. I mean I just
don’t want us making up a list and say oh, by the way, you know, we, we decided not to
do this and it didn’t come through the budget, let’s just go through and let’s just do this.
Well, then I think you got some departments in different places that could very well
spend up this $1.5 million very, very quickly. They could do it in about ten minutes. But
I just wanted to make sure that there wasn’t a [inaudible] amount of money somewhere
that could equally cover what’s being asked for in these, these [inaudible] down here and
get it from there. And I think that gets back to what the Commissioner was talking about
in that, in that $3 million. You know, if it, if it’s there, and I guess my last question
would be has that amount been a, you know, has it been used up per se or do we have line
items in place to cover and to eat up all of that $3 million, is my question.
108
Mr. Persaud: Maybe I can clarify this, Commissioner. The policy that you have
in place for appropriation for the capital, capital outlay budget is a little different from the
general fund. We adopted the 2004 budget, you adopted the capital outlay budget
[inaudible], in other words, the $3.2 million was done in lump sum. It’s been my
understanding that traditionally the Administrator makes the internal, internal allocation
for these funds. Essentially what I’m saying is that when the Administrator [inaudible]
$3.2 million, [inaudible] necessary to use the remaining funds from the $1.57 million that
fortunately was there. These funds were in fact [inaudible] October, November last year
as a one-time [inaudible], but I think the question is the policy allocation. Since you do
not [inaudible] $3.2 million [inaudible] I guess that’s a policy decision as how you want
to address that.
Mr. Mays: And that’s why I kind of wanted to bring that up, David, to a point in
here that even though we don’t delve as deep into those capital operations as we deal with
[inaudible] funds, it was just interesting. I just wanted to make sure that while we were
dipping into a one fund situation that there was no other outstanding source to deal with it
that could be dealt with, because some [inaudible] speak for themselves. You are not
going to be able to get a situation to close that gap on buying that land. There was no
source. That was a Godsend financially to be able to deal with it. Indigent defense, that
was a one [inaudible] not something else that’s there to deal with it. But some of it we
have an ongoing situation, and I was not [inaudible] that needs it and especially one
where you’re talking about in a safety situation. But I did want to be somewhere where
there was $300,000 to $400,000 sitting in an account to be able to pay for something and
then we come in here and take it out of the one-time deal and maybe need to even
strengthen our contingency from the standpoint that we’ve got a lot of stuff that we’ve
not yet determined how we are going to finance, that’s going to go pas sales tax and
whether or not we need to be in seven figures on our reserves [inaudible] reserves but in
contingency as well, when we start trying to get [inaudible] bond rating if we go that
route with it. So I just wanted to make sure. I’m not knocking how that is. I just was
searching for how it was put together.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Since we have four new Commissioners on this body,
David, would it be possible for you to furnish the Commission with a copy of the
Administrator’s capital expenditures for this year so they could see how that $3.2 million
has been allocated by the Administrator?
Mr. Persaud: Sure.
Mr. Mayor: I think that would be helpful for the new Commissioners. Those of
us who have been around a while are used to dealing with it.
Mr. Persaud: I’ll definitely request a copy from Mr. Kolb and get it on to them.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We’ve got two motions on the floor. One is to accept the
Finance Committee report. That’s the substitute motion, so we’ll vote on that. All in
favor of the substitute motion, please vote with the usual sign.
109
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Hankerson votes No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 8-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: All right, that takes us next to item number 22. Number 22.
The Clerk:
22.Motion to approve the extension of an existing lease for One Aljon 91K
Compactor for Public Works Department – Landfill Division from Aljon, Inc. of
Ottumwa, Iowa for $5,548.77 per month for 36 months. (Approved by Finance
Committee March 8, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked for this item?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I need some clarification on, on this 36
[inaudible] month. Is this $5,548.77 per month? Is that, is that what the lease for this
equipment is?
Mr. Johnson: That is the monthly lease cost, yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: That’s the monthly lease cost? And at the end of this lease, this
supposed to be turned back in?
Mr. Johnson: No, sir, this one will be purchased.
Mr. Williams: So it’s --
Mr. Johnson: There are two compactors. You’ll see the second one come to the
Finance Committee next time. There’s two compactors that are required at the landfill.
We will -- the intent here is one compactor is to be purchased, so we’ll extend the lease
which we’re asking you to do for the purpose of purchasing it. The next compactor that
you will see will be just to lease and return. And there is a business and operation
strategy behind both agenda items.
Mr. Williams: And the lease on the other one is what, the same as this one?
Mr. Johnson: Sir, this will be a bigger machine.
Mr. Williams: No, no. The price?
Mr. Johnson: No, sir, it’s a bigger machine. This is a smaller machine, so the
price is a little different.
110
Mr. Williams: I want to know what the price, how much?
Mr. Johnson: $8900.
Mr. Johnson: $8900 per month, and you get four tons more weight on the
compactor.
Mr. Williams: And, and, and that’s more feasible for us to lease these with that
kind of figure than to own this equipment? Is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Johnson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: That’s all I got, Mr. Mayor
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Don?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, maybe I can help Mr. Williams, too, cause that was a
concern of mine. And I’ve been an advocate of, of leasing versus purchasing because
this type of equipment would cost us about half a million dollars if we went out and tried
to buy it. And based on this, by leasing it for 60 months, it’s a new one we’re talking
about now, that’s not on our agenda, and I received an education at the landfill this past
week about compaction and about types of equipment that was needed, and along the
same lines with this one that’s on our agenda this is an extension of a present lease that
has been in effect for like 60 months, and now we will be buying it at the end of the 36
months. It, too, is about a $400,000-and-some-odd piece of equipment.
Mr. Williams: Don, if I can respond, that, that 60 months we already leased it,
plus the 36 months we going lease it, what, what, what that total? You know?
Mr. Grantham: It’s about $489,000, somewhere along in there.
Mr. Williams: And that, and that machine costs how much?
Mr. Grantham: A little over -- well, this machine is less than the larger one.
When this machine was probably lease -- maybe [inaudible], can you help me with that?
But it was about probably around $400,000. By leasing, you are going to pay a little
more over the long haul, because you had a residual value that they have elected to lease,
to continue the lease and not pay off the residual value. I, too, asked that question and it
was going to cost us $198,000 if we went ahead and purchased this particular equipment
right now. But in leasing it for the 36 months, based on that, around $5500, it’s going to
be a little more because of interest rates that will be charged during that 36 months.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Boyles?
111
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Because Mr. Williams wasn’t at the last
Finance Committee meeting and we’re going to discuss the other one, I’d like to have the
benefit of his experience with that, as he’s always done with vehicles, and those things. I
just wonder if we could just refer this back to, this item back to the Finance Committee to
discuss it, along with our discussion, deliberations on the one that we’ve got coming
back.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: I’m going to give you my, my education background now from
last week.
(Laughter)
Mr. Grantham: And I’m going to be like Mr. Williams now. I’m not a lawyer,
I’m going to become a landfill operator. But I asked that same question. And what I was
going to do was ask that we tie the two pieces of equipment together and bring it back
next, at our next meeting. But these lease -- whenever we were told about this particular
lease, this lease expires April 3, which had given us about three to four weeks to act on
what we’re talking about. And I know, and you might say we’re down to the last minute
again, and that’s a good question, but if we don’t, if we don’t exercise this extension then
we are left out there with one compactor working, and we do need this one in place.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, and Don, I appreciate your education. It really helps
me a lot, but I’m really, I’m, I’m, I’m really depressed when I think about how often we
come up with equipment and contracts and everything else we got to do. If they was
costing $5 or $10 I can see us saying well, we got [inaudible] $5 or $10. But at the
amount of money that we pay through this government for programs and for equipment
and for technology, we always wait to the last minute. Now what you saying to us now,
we need to go ahead and do this because it’s going to save us some money. Well, we
ought to be losing some, we ought to be saving some more money cause the people that
responsible should have had this to us in a timely manner that we wouldn’t be up against
the wall. This ain’t the first time. This is, I can’t tell you the times. It been numerous
times that this kind of thing has happened. So that make me want to send it back. And I
know the landfill need its equipment, but that really make me want to send it back to, to
Finance to talk about, cause the people who supposed to be doing this, whether it was the
Administrator, whether it was Ron, whether it was the Assistant Administrator, whoever
is supposed to be doing this should have done their job. Or they should not got paid.
And we do this all the time. It just don’t make good sense. Now when, when are we
going to stop that? That what we need to meet on. When are we going to hold people
accountable for doing what they supposed to be doing? And they put the blame on us.
When the news media write, the landfill is not operating cause we don’t have the
equipment. But the same folks coming in here every day getting a check, going back
home with it. But it’s, it’s time [inaudible] for that.
112
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got the landfill [inaudible] -- where is he? [inaudible], what
would be the impact of sending this back to committee and then coming through another
cycle of the Commission meeting? How would this impact your operations at the
landfill?
Mr. Johnson: The impact that we’re going to have is that currently we use both
rd
machines. Both of those leases expire on April 3, so effectively without a compactor,
we lose our density. We only have 24 months’ worth of air space, which has been
presented numerous times, so without a compactor, we’re diminishing our window which
ties to a whole series of events. The other option is closing the landfill. And that’s not a
feasible solution. And that’s why we brought you several alternative, one being approve
the larger compactor, which was tabled at a last committee meeting. Second was approve
the lease extensions. And so we feel that we are giving you several viable options that
could be brought before you.
Mr. Williams: Mark, let me ask you --
Mr. Mayor: Wait a minute. I invited him up.
Mr. Williams: I’m sorry, Mr. Mayor, but you, you, you --
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: I’m going to get my question in, but go ahead.
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to give you a chance to ask it, but let me, let me finish, if I
may. And Ms. Beard had her hand up and I want to go to Ms. Beard next, and then I’ll
come back to you. Ms. Beard, go ahead.
Ms. Beard: I just would like to say, Mr. Williams, that you were not at our
committee meeting last week, and we reviewed this thoroughly. And they did an
excellent job. I mean it wasn’t something we took lightly. And in the end, we stated that
one, to go forward, I believe, and that should be the recommendation here. And because
of that, I really do think we should look at getting that through this evening. But it was
not taken lightly. Don, is that not true?
Mr. Grantham: That was true. I believe I, I believe I drilled him more than you
would, Marion, at the last meeting to try to find a loophole to make things happen. And
I’m not, I’m not questioning that you don’t have a reason and a purpose to ask. You
know, the only thing is that a lot of times I’m going to look down at that end of the table,
and when you nod your head yes, I’m going to vote with you. So I’m going to ask you
right now to get on board, that we need to give these people this piece of equipment now
and then we’ll argue that next big one cause I’m still arguing that.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
113
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. My, my point is, Don, I’m in agreement, but here
we are now with our back up against the wall where we got to do this. Suppose we didn’t
have the support, suppose we did not have it and we saying now we’ve got to do it. If we
did have, have the -- and I’m going support it because we are up against the wall, but I’m
tired of paying folks to put us in a box when we got to vote to get them out of the box.
And this, this ain’t the first time. So when, when is the light going come on? Somebody
ought to understand that if you got a lease agreement that ought to be coming up in six
months, you don’t want to the end of the six months to bring it to this body so we can
vote on it. And, and, and, and, and that’s not just in Public Works, not just in the landfill,
that’s just in this government as a whole. We do that, we get up against the wall, then we
got to come out swinging cause we look we [inaudible] we don’t do it.
Mr. Johnson: Point well taken.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] I’m going support it, but I guarantee you that this next
one, that the lease is up on the, on the next item coming up, I’m not going to support it.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go to our landfill chairman, Mr. Cheek, and then Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Lord knows, all of us travel and all of us
have our different levels of expertise, but at some point in time we have got to bring our
expertise to the table, but we’ve got to trust our staff. And when they make
recommendations, we can’t all read every document and can’t all attend every meeting.
Staff has come to us, it’s been reviewed by Finance, they’ve made an approval. Sure,
we’ve got the right and should ask questions that are on our hearts, but there comes a
point in time when you’ve got to have a little trust in what staff is trying to do. We’ve
gone through several managers at the landfill over the last couple of years. We’ve got
some good folks at the helm out there now that are turning things around, getting a good
handle on not only the present, but the future. I just urge support for them and their
decisions and let them do their job and let’s move on with this, please.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to say I didn’t realize we had
an April 1 deadline or I would not have made a motion -- it didn’t get a second -- that it
go back to Finance [inaudible]. I just wanted to clarify that.
Mr. Mayor: Did we have a motion for approval?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, we did. [inaudible] approve as submitted, I believe.
Mr. Mayor: Well, the Clerk says we don’t have a motion.
Mr. Grantham: I’ll make a motion we approve it.
114
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Got to be quick. Any further discussion on the motion to approve?
All in favor of the motion please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 23, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
23. Motion to approve a 15% supplemental increase in the amount of increase of
$10,000 for the Richmond County Marshal. (Approved by Finance Committee
March 8, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you wanted to correct the language of that and then
[inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I did. And I think it should be a motion to
increase his local supplement in the amount of $10,000. The supplement [inaudible]
Richmond County Marshal. The Marshal’s office, as you know, used to be an appointed
office in the Civil Court. Additional responsibilities were added to the office when the
Magistrate Court Acts were passed in the late 1980’s and an additional $5,000 was
assigned to him for that, for that duty. Then the office was made an elected office, I
believe in 1999, and the State set that component of his salary at $60,000. He had
requested an increase, and the computation came to something under $10,000. That was
presented to the Finance Committee. So my advice is that you, if you grant him an
increase, the increase be granted in his local supplement, make that clear on the record.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Someone asked for this to be pulled. I didn’t get the name.
Was that you, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, go ahead.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m in support of the Marshal for sure. If you have a
copy, had a copy of the ACCG Legislature update, it talks about the, the legislation has
been turned down and [inaudible] turned down for increases for probate judges and on
those levels. It was told to me that the Marshal had extra duties. Now we know and
[inaudible] Attorney just stated that’s an elected official. That salary was set when he ran
for that office. I heard that he had extensive duties or extensive work and we provided
extensive people in that position for him. But I, I, I’m really disturbed, because if
anybody ought to be getting a raise, it ought to be this board up here getting a raise, if
there going be elected officials getting a raise. And if I could put a motion in to do that, I
115
would, but I know that can’t go anywhere. But I’m not in support of giving a $10,000
raise to elected official who have, have gotten everything they ask for, manpower,
equipment and everything else, cars alike. The landfill, the, the, the, the litter patrol, we
were supposed to gotten reports back from the litter patrol and what was going on, what
been taken in. I have not seen one in the five years I’ve been here yet. Have not seen,
not one through public safety or even on this body of Commission. I’m not in favor, I
urge my colleagues to be mindful of the economy, be mindful of the other people that we
got that’s wearing two or three hats, that if we do this, then I’m going to be in support of
everybody else. And we don’t have the money, we already done open the gates and it
start to flood, start to come down. Here we are now starting with elected official, and if
we going to go with elected officials, let’s don’t forget about this board up here, too, now.
If we going start it. But I’m just, I’m not in support, I think that that’s wrong, I think
with the, the way the economy is now, the way things been set, we need to at least defer
this until later and, and look at it. We already in a position now where people are coming
for reclassification and rezoning. We got departments that’s working overtime. We got
departments that working below staff levels, doing two or three things. And if we give an
elected official this type of raise, then let’s, let’s, let’s bring everybody in next week and
give everybody the same thing we fixing to give him. I don’t think it be appropriate to do
that.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: If I can remember correctly, when I read that, this raise was sort of at
the high end of whatever we were -- it was at the high end. For raises. Maybe we could
look at a mid-level. Maybe I need to go back and read it but it was something that made
me feel that it was kind of at the high end for a raise.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Referring back to the minutes here, the Human Resources Director,
Commissioner Beard, indicated that the Administrator and Commission can give up to
15% for these additional duties and so the $10,000 is a rounded-off figure at the 15%. At
the upper end.
Ms. Beard: Maybe she could explain whatever I’m trying to say.
Mr. Mayor: Is Brenda still here? Okay.
Mr. Speaker: Yeah, there she is.
Ms. Pelaez: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. Yes, Mrs.
Commissioner, you are correct in terms of, of what you are allowed to do in giving an
increase. It is up to the 15% for the additional responsibilities. It is by no way set that
you have to give the 15% increase.
Ms. Beard: Thank you.
116
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: It’s my understanding this salary was set in ’99?
Mr. Shepard: The State salary, yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: Since ’99, no adjustment since that period of time?
Mr. Shepard: That was the State part of the salary that was set by the Legislature
at [inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: Have we made any changes?
Mr. Shepard: No, sir, he’s still making $65,000. And the two components of that
are the State salary plus his $5,000 local supplement. And you know, since this time
we’ve had the security added. I mean I’m just reminding the board for the record. It’s a
policy decision of this board. That security here was instituted, building security, the
gates downstairs, and in addition to that [inaudible] security measures that were put in
place over at the Law Enforcement Center, which is also his responsibility. That was,
that was the point [inaudible] brought I believe earlier.
Mr. Cheek: And I just, I concur with that level of responsibility over litter patrol
and transferring documents to people and all has changed drastically in those last four
years. Number of personnel and facilities and other responsibilities I think would be
worthy of some type of raise. I know we can’t raise everybody’s salaries but certainly I
think as we’ve all seen the level of professionalism exhibited by our Marshals as
something that comes from leadership, and the man has done a good job raising a good
Marshal’s Department to a new level, and I’m in favor of some form of raise to support
that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, I go back to, to my first couple of
months here, being a new Commissioner, and Commissioner Sims and Commissioner
Beard and myself were invited out to the Marshal’s office to give us a good first hand
information as to what they do and how they perform their duties. One of the things they
alluded to was certainly the litter patrol and the additional staff that he had requested and
of course was granted, as Mr. Shepard mentioned. However, as an elected official, and I
agree with Mr. Williams, when you run you know what position you’re running for and
you know how much you’re going to get. But in this position and in the others there,
they’re not even given a COLA increase. And so, you know, we’ve seen an individual
for over five years not have anything as far as increase in pay, but has assumed additional
responsibilities and has taken on additional personnel that he is responsible for. I, I think
that the first request that came in was, was around $73,500. Brenda, is that correct? And
I think the reason that we went to the, to the $10,000 increase to $75,000 is, was based on
117
your calculation that 15% would round it up to the $10,000 based on the supplemental
income.
Ms. Pelaez: The first, the first calculation was $9,750.
Mr. Grantham: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Since it is an elected position, is not the election this year for the
Marshal?
Mr. Shepard: No, he’s in the odd-number flight of Commissioners.
Mr. Mayor: Is that right?
Mr. Shepard: Yes. He stood, he stood for elected when the odd seats were up, he
was on the ballot with me, I remember it well.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to put your name in there next for, cause I
think your salary around $65,000.
Mr. Mayor: It hasn’t changed.
Mr. Williams: It hadn’t changed but --
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] local supplement.
Mr. Williams: Yeah, I want to change, I want to put you in there. But let me ask
a couple of questions here. What’s, what’s the new duties, Steve? I heard you say
security of the, the jail and security downstairs, but what the other new duties are?
Mr. Shepard: Well, as I remember it, those two and expansion of the litter, litter
patrol.
Mr. Williams: Well, now, is, is there some talk now of taking the litter patrol and
putting it under Public Works?
Mr. Shepard: Well, there’s been talk but I mean right now it’s run by the
Marshal.
Mr. Williams: I understand that. We hadn’t got any reports from the Marshal. In
fact, there’s, there’s a lot of things that the Marshal Department have not done and that
just my opinion. That one example at the door right there. This a good man that the
Marshal has that makes every neighborhood meeting. But I’ve got still those junk cars
that the Marshal [inaudible] have not moved yet. So, but I don’t want to get into that. I
118
just want to know what the extra duties are, the responsibilities he supposed to be taking
on that we need to give this increase. And I hear you say that security. Well, we gave
them manpower for that. And I’m sure he don’t stand down there and watch them or go
by there and check them every afternoon. He got them on their, their posts and that’s
right where they need to be. He didn’t have to take a man from somewhere else. We
gave him additional people. We gave them machine. We gave everything they asked for
to, to, to have that effective position. And you talking about litter patrol. I have not seen
a report of how much money had been brought in, how, how, how much, how many
tickets been cited, nothing have come back to this, this, this body from the litter patrol.
So that’s why I think the conversation has been there to take and put it under Public
Works. But Mr. Mayor, beside putting your name out there for a $10,000 increase, I
want to make a motion that we deny this request at this time and wait until we get a
handle on some things and come back.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the Commissioner’s motion? The motion dies
for lack of a second. The floor is open for a motion.
Mr. Cheek: I make a motion for the recommended increase as listed in the book.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second? All right. Further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Let me just ask this, because I was not -- I was looking at the backup.
I see the letter and I know this was discussed in committee. And I did not have all the
information, that’s why I didn’t make a second for a flat out denial. I think that the
Marshal’s services under the direction of the Marshal does a great job. I came here, the
Marshal was already -- well, no, I left here and came back and the Marshal was here and
we had a good working relationship. But that’s not, that’s not what my conversation is
about. It’s about business and how it relates to other employees and other department
heads and even constitutional officers. Is there anything about a life or death measure,
and I say this to -- I’m looking at the Finance Chairman’s letter of putting this on, but it
can be to anybody. The Attorney has addressed it. Is there something about the magical
date of now of doing this as opposed to dealing with this in the, I guess the first of June in
terms of the, the mid-fiscal year, when we had agreed to deal with, with all the
reclassifications and other salary situations? Because I, I, I, I see a trend developing to a
point [inaudible] constitutional officer, and, and, and it’s coming up with people that I
know, like, do an excellent job for this government, but is this going to be a every two
week situation of where we’re going to be dealing with the necessary? Because there are
some folk who do not head departments that do not have the, the clout, per se, that folk
are going come and going, and going bring up their name and [inaudible] to deal with,
with 15% raises or supplements, however you may want to classify it, to put, to put this
119
up. And I’m just searching for an answer to deal with it. If it’s legitimate and he’s
overburdened, I’m, I’m, I’m, I’m possibly amenable to, to voting and dealing with it, but
you know, June is, is not, you know, June is not as far away as Oz. And, and I’m just
trying to figure out to a point with that list that’s [inaudible] long that we still have not
figured out how we are going to address that have been before this body two years in a
row and have not gotten -- that either, either their classifications or reclassifications or
their money, how then are we going to deal with that? Because at some point in time, I
think those folk are going to deserve an answer as well. And I’ve been trying to weigh
this thing out and say okay, fine. When, when that point comes this summer, we still are
not going to be able to [inaudible] everybody but we’re going to have to make some
tough decisions and say hey, we’re going to have to go ahead and we’re going to have get
as many people as we can or do what we can. But are we going, are we going deal with, I
guess I’m looking for what basis is the criteria that we [inaudible] because we got folk
who are waiting, we got some departments that have held the line, whether it be in
personnel or asking for anything, and God knows I’m not picking on Steve. Steve’s a
good friend of mine. But I’m just trying to find out what’s magical about tonight’s date
to a point that separates it from the mid year in which we said we were going to set a tone
to deal with these and to bring them back. And I need to get some kind of clarification on
that.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, if I may respond?
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Boyles: When the letter came, the request came to me as Finance Chairman,
I contacted the Chairman of the Legislative Delegation, Mr. Cheeks, in Atlanta, and
asked him about the status of raises that are normally given for the constitutional officers.
As you know, Mr. Mays, that normally in an election year the Delegation does not give
raises. The Marshal is not classified as a constitutional officer. He has another one,
Steve, you called it.
Mr. Shepard: Statutory.
Mr. Boyles: Statutory. When we went into, earlier this year, and raised the
Director of the Board of Elections, I expressed the same concern that you have just
expressed. And we have adjusted the salary of a couple of other people, and when you
go back to 1999 when this position was made elective instead of appointed, then
apparently for over this period of time, and I wasn’t here during that time so I don’t
know, but apparently as other things happened, as other employees were give 2% and 3%
increases in maybe ’99 and 2000 and maybe 2001, this position was not. So those were
the, that was the thought process that we had behind it. And if we could get the
Delegation, and I think even the salaries of the board of Commissioners, we’re
considered constitutional officers, I believe, I don’t know how it’s classed in [inaudible]
government, but it used to be, as constitutional officers. And those salaries are controlled
by the Legislative Delegation. So when I went to them, they said it was basically a local
120
matter that probably had to be handled under home rule. So that’s where we are at this
point. Because we had already re-valued some other staff.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: To answer the Mayor Pro Tem’s question, there’s nothing magical
about tonight, but I think this officer felt that there was some equity that had not been
achieved since he was still at the same rates that were in effect when he was assigned the
duties of Sheriff -- not Sheriff, but Marshal of Magistrate Court, and when his position
was created as an elected position. So he, he felt the timing was, I would supposed, right
to make this, to present this to this body, so he presented it. And it was considered in the
Finance Committee and actually Mr. Boyles brought forth the recommendation. So -- but
to answer your question, there is nothing magical about tonight, about doing this, but he
felt like that he needed to bring it forward. That’s what he told me and I said well, you
certainly can bring it forward to any Commission, so you know, he does have -- one thing
you can always remember about the 2001 election cycle, it’s the one that came
immediately after 9/11, so that was, after that followed the securing, the securing of both
this building and the LEC, which he took on. So those are some of the arguments he
made, at least to me, when he asked me to come by and discuss it, and so here again it’s a
policy decision, Mr. Mays, that you Commissioners have to make.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I might respond. I’m not against justification. I do
agree that those responsibilities since 2001 changed. I was asking the, the HR Director,
Ms. Pelaez, a question in reference to salary confrontation, compensation. Now, I, I kind
of wish my -- and this is just not to the chairman of the Delegation in the Legislature, but
I would say to my Finance Chairman, I wish that my, my friends on both sides of the
aisle, Mr. Boyles, when they decided to, to in their infinite wisdom, decided to make this
position an elected one, that they didn’t, that they did not get any resolution from this
government that was [inaudible] consolidated government to change it from one that it
was and made it elective, that to a certain extent that the Legislative Delegation, the
Chairman or anybody else had got one big nerve to a point of creating somewhat of an
unfunded mandate to say now you’ve got another statutory position to deal with of an
elected official. Now, you know, I think to a point when I asked about what the salary
was, now we’re talking about one, is it $65,000 now? Am I correct?
Mr. Shepard: You have [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: And it went, Mr., Mr. Attorney, it went from $48,000 to $65,000.
Now by putting his name on the dotted line to go to elected official, now he didn’t --
maybe he hadn’t had compensation in 1999, but he got $17,000 more for running now.
Let’s be a little honest about what we talking about about the numbers. Now we going to
go up another $10,000, we’re going to take a $48,000 job, you change it to an elected
position, and then Mr. Finance Chairman, it goes from $48,000 to $75,000? That’s pretty
good compensation. My only thing is why I said to a point that I didn’t think June or July
was going to kill anybody. I’d feel a lot more comfortable with those other employees
that I have said wait, hold up, we’ll deal with you then to a point of saying the same thing
121
to an elected official. I’m not saying that it’s maybe not deserving. But to a point I think
in ’99 when the complexity of the job changed and the status of it changed from being
one of a person that we pay that was a hired position and worked through the court
system and obviously the politics of that wasn’t working so the Legislative Delegation
decided to cure a problem by making it an elected position. Now that’s what really
happened. Now to a point that the Legislative Delegation said that we ought to deal with
all the payments of it. Now so we have done some increasing in there from what it was
to what it went to. So I don’t think anybody ought to be sitting here thinking now there
hadn’t been any compensation done whatsoever. That is just absolutely not correct. And
went from that to where it is now. So I mean I’m, I’m, I’m, I’m glad to, I could, I could,
I’d feel a lot better if this was being done when everybody else’s was being done,
because [inaudible] say this to a point that if I can tell some folk -- remember we’ve got
some on that list that have been there through two to three different times before this
board, prior to some of you all coming on here. Maybe they ought to be satisfied by now
to a point that we should have done something with them. But if we going to put a lot of
folk in that box to do it, then I don’t think we ought to every month pull one out of the
box and they say all right, fine, let’s do this one, because it hasn’t been done. You know,
I got some folk that just down in that box way deep, that you know, we’ve, we’ve not
dealt with either. And we got some folk to a point, whether they here [inaudible] health
reasons, years they been here, working for benefits, they can’t leave, to a point, you
know, so I mean, I, I, if it’s with a vote to a point on whether I like the person you’re
doing it for, I think it’s one of the best of the 2700 folk that we got working. One of my
favorite people in terms of heading up an agency. But I’m talking about the principle of
when and how we’re doing it and I just don’t think it ought to be said there hadn’t been
no compensation, cause you go from $48,000 to $65,000, that’s a nice jump.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Ms. Beard and then Mr. Grantham.
Ms. Beard: May I amend the motion?
Mr. Mayor: Yes. Speak into the microphone so everyone can hear you.
Ms. Beard: May I amend the motion?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, please.
Ms. Beard: I would like to amend it to maybe 7 ½% instead of the 15%.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the motion to reduce the amount
to 7-1/2%?
Mr. Boyles: There’s a motion on the floor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes. Yes.
Mr. Cheek: Long time ago, a motion on the floor.
122
Mr. Mayor: No objection to --
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] motion.
The Clerk: The motion was to deny it.
Mr. Mayor: I thought we had a motion to approve it.
The Clerk: We do. I was [inaudible] to him.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: Yeah. He was thinking his was to postpone. No, it was to approve the
motion, the 15% local supplemental [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: Whose motion was to approve?
The Clerk: Mr. Cheek and Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Cheek: Your twin brother.
Mr. Mayor: And the amendment has been offered, there was no objection to the
amendment, so the motion will stand amended. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I advise not going as a percentage. I advise going as a,
as a dollar amount. So therefore, the, the dollar amount that was stated in the original
motion was $10,000; 7-1/2% [inaudible] be $5,000. Half that.
Ms. Beard: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: So 7-1/2% equals $5,000.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: In the context of this motion. All right, is there any -- let’s see, Mr.
Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: That was it, I was going to amend.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anyone else? Are we ready to vote?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I have -- let me just state this for the record.
123
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, go ahead.
Mr. Mays: For the record, I don’t have any problem going with the 15% and the
$10,000 as long as we do it when we do the others, in the middle of the year.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: I can live with the $10,000. I can’t live with the $10,000 now.
Ms. Beard: I must agree that I’m not comfortable with the way we do [inaudible],
and we’re only doing it for a few people, and then we’re giving such large amounts. 20%
raises, 15% raises. They are large raises. I would prefer that. But if we must do
something tonight, I think we should look at what I’ve recommended.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll go ahead and vote them on first the substitute motion, and
that’s the motion for the increase of $5,000 supplement. All in favor of that motion,
please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Boyles and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Mays, Mr. Colclough and Mr. Williams abstain.
Motion fails 5-2-3.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to Mr. Williams’ original motion, which is to
deny the increase. Correct, Mr. Williams?
Ms. Sims: We didn’t have a second.
Mr. Speaker: Who seconded that?
Mr. Cheek: We didn’t get a second.
Ms. Sims: There’s no second.
Mr. Mayor: We didn’t get a second? I’m sorry, we didn’t have a substitute
motion. So it goes to the original motion then.
Mr. Williams: Can I offer another motion?
Mr. Mayor: Well, you can offer another motion, but in effect he hasn’t gotten an
increase because the motion on the floor was defeated. Go ahead then if you’d like to
make a motion.
Mr. Williams: Well, not, I’m going to leave it where it is. Leave it like it is.
Mr. Mayor: It was defeated. There were not six votes to give any, the 7-1/2% or
$5,000 increase.
124
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Is the floor open for a motion?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Mays: I make a motion that the recommendation be deferred until the
reclassification time that was so stated for the rest of the employees that we’ll move
on in mid-fiscal year.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion on that? We’ll move ahead with the vote then. All
in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Next item is item number 30.
The Clerk:
30. Motion to authorize the Augusta Utilities Department to purchase a powered
activated carbon feed unit currently under lease for $38,005. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee March 8, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked this be pulled.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Same concern I had on the last one. This
was a lease agreement, and the $38,005, is that, is that the purchase price for, for that
piece? I think I got my information on it already, but, but --
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir, yes, sir, that’s a buy-out of the lease.
Mr. Williams: It’s a buy-out? Okay, that’s all I need, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Do we have a motion?
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
125
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize Mr. Cheek. He want to dispose of an item
here.
OTHER BUSINESS:
44. Discuss ANIC funding for Diamond Lakes Project. (Requested by
Commissioner Andy Cheek)
Mr. Cheek:
Item 44, Mr. Mayor, there was under the original contract with
Augusta Neighborhood Improvement Corporation, an agreement to provide certain
funding to certain City entities, one of those being a south Augusta sports complex, ala
Diamond Lakes. Commitment was made for $2 million, and at this time and this juncture
with the construction of our new community center and library project, some additional
funds would be helpful, and so we’ve requested from ANIC that someone be here. Now
it’s my understanding that there original language which had a project list associated with
it was passed, and then some subsequent legislation was passed that basically disallowed,
or allowed them to basically allocated funds as they saw fit, which didn’t make much
sense to me since it was SPLOST, I know we have our list and categories that we have to
turn this
go with. In any event, if we have no one here from ANIC to talk with us, to
over to the attorney to find out if there is legal precedence for us to request and
receive this money for Diamond Lakes Project.
Mr. Mayor: Is that a motion?
Mr. Cheek: That’s a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the motion?
Ms. Beard: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Further discussion? All in favor of the motion then please
vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item, Madame Clerk, we’ll take up 40, 41, and 42
collectively.
The Clerk: Okay.
126
Mr. Mayor: Under the Calhoun method of voting, we’ll vote on the -- spread on
there as separate votes.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
40. Approve the extension of the solid waste collections contract with Waste
Management, Inc. in the amount of $758,707 for year 3 (June 3, 2004 thru June 3,
2005) for the collection of solid waste, yard waste, recycling and bulky waste in
sections 11 & 12. (No action by the Commission March 2 – requested by the Mayor
Bob Young.)
41. Approve the extension of the solid waste collections contract with Inland
Service Corporation in the amount of $1,170,600 for year 3 (June 3, 2004 thru June
3, 2005) for the collection of solid waste, yard waste, recycling and bulky waste in
sections 16, 17 and 18. (No action by the Commission March 2 – requested by the
Mayor Bob Young.)
42. Approve the extension of the solid waste collections contract with Augusta
Disposal and Recycling, Inc. in the amount of $636,938 for year 3 (June 3, 2004 thru
June 3, 2005) for the collection of solid waste, yard waste, recycling and bulky waste
in sections 13, 14 and 15. (No action by the Commission March 2 – requested by the
Mayor Bob Young.)
Mr. Mayor: Ladies and gentlemen, I put these back on the agenda. These are
critical issues to our community. The solid waste collection has been successful. It
needs to run without interruption. There needs to be reassurance to our customers that on
th
June 4 the trucks will be there to make their pickups. I understand what, what the
concerns of the Commission are, and principally it’s what are the households going to be
charged for solid waste collection this year. The administration has proposed an increase
of up to $240. I would -- total amount, $240. I would submit that the cost of the increase
of these three contracts is less than half of the increase that the administration is asking
for. In fact, these increases for these solid waste haulers will be the only increase they’ve
had over a three year period, and those increases range from 3% to 9%. What’s driving
up the cost of solid waste collection is not these contracts, these haulers, but a bond issue
which we’ll talk about in a few moments, but also the fact that we are having to subsidize
the haulers who are paying their tipping fees and subsidizing the household accounts of
over $800,000 that are delinquent. Likewise, we are continuing to pay for exemptions
from pickups that we have granted, and those unit costs have not been backed out of the
contract. So what I’m asking for you to do today is to go ahead and approve these
rd
contract renewals for one year, for 2004-2005, June 3 of each year, and then we will,
Engineering Services will have on the agenda an opportunity to discuss the status of the
collections of the landfill accounts, which total about $250,000 and the household
accounts which amount to over $800,000, and we’ll also have an opportunity to be
working with the Attorney to, to work on these contracts to refine the amount to back out
the exemptions. The intention is to have the, have the program operate as efficiently as
possible so that he increase in the household cost that the folks will be billed this fall will
be the smallest amount that we can possibly bill them. I think $240 a household is too
127
high. We’ve got to do a better job of managing the program and we don’t need to
increase it to that level. But for, for continued confidence in the service so that the
th
haulers know what they have to do on June 4, the customers know the trash will be
th
picked up on June 4, I encourage you today to renew these contracts for a 12 month
period. I think Mr. Shepard has some specific language he would encourage you to
include.
Mr. Shepard: I would recommend this language for all three contracts, Mr.
Mayor, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and Commission, and that would be to authorize the
Mayor to execute a contract with each hauler for the sections stated in the agenda
book for extensions of service as described in the contracts for the period June 3,
2004 through June 3, 2005 at the costs for each section as they are stated in the
agenda book that we have for Items 40, 41 and 42. Those are third year cost figures
and that’s what we’re trying to establish.
Mr. Mayor: Having said all of that, we’ll go into discussion. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I want to so move on those items
, and I want to say
that you stated very well what we covered in our work session the other day. We had a
very lengthy work session discussing all of these issues. We’re looking at still worse
case if it went to $240 annually, someone getting two days a week, plus limbs and leaves,
plus bulk items, everything but bodies and paint essentially at the same price that
somebody pays a private hauler for one day a week service. It is tax deductible. Ladies
and gentlemen, the people are still calling my house in south Augusta that were ignored
in the last round of annexation and saying please add me to the service. It is cheaper than
what we are getting now, one day a week. We covered and asked every question that you
can imagine at the work session and the Mayor has summarized it very nicely, but the
bottom line is we are going to, we need to pass these, these contracts. In the meantime,
we will take due diligence to go back and try to recapture some of the money that -- or
reduce the amount of fee increase based on the fact that we are paying for units that we
are not collecting trash at, and we’re also delinquent in certain accounts. Those are two
things that we plan to do, but the people of Augusta need trash collection. Look at your
Districts and the impact the service has had after the storm and the fact that people are
piling on yard clean-up and spring cleaning stuff at the same time. It’s a heck of a deal.
You can’t go buy it for less than, less than two or three times that amount for the same
service from a private hauler, unless you’ve got Joe Bob in the pickup truck doing it for
$10 a week. So I just urge support for this. We met in here, we said an hour-and-a-half,
it ended up being two hours covering this stuff in full detail. We developed a set of
lessons learned for the next round of contracts, which I assure you will be higher unless
we get creative and get contractors we can work with. But the bottom line is we don’t
need the interruption. We’ve thought through this thing. We’re going to cut the cost to
the bone just like we have all along. It’s a good deal. And people, from what I’m
hearing, don’t want to see it go up, but $2 to $4 a month is reasonable since it hasn’t gone
up in three years.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
128
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m like Commissioner Cheek, I’m in
support, I think it’s been great to have the service we got now. I do want to mention,
though, a couple of things. Today I had a constituent who, who was complaining about
not having their garbage picked up. And really they had no complaint. They had found
or picked up a different garbage container from the normal ones on that street. The ones
on that street was gray. They had picked up a green one and put out there and they was
debating with the, with the garbage hauler why he don’t pick up that container. They said
they called the City and the City brought it out there to them and that that’s not true. I
said all that to say that we have not got a handle on those properties that we ought to be
billing for garbage cleanup with people move out, people move in, we change back and
forth. Somebody say well, I was in this property but now it’s not being used, so I don’t
want to have to pay. I had several people to call me and ask me why don’t we do two,
two pickups a week, that’s bulk waste and household waste. Those containers so large,
we could have saved some money by backing up on some of those time we picked up.
There’s very few residents that fill up those cans, those containers once a week. But
today, like I said I had a conversation with a constituent and they was complaining about
they won’t pick up this particular can, they pick up the other ones but won’t pick up this
one. You can find a can, and I won’t say everywhere, but in District 2 you can find a can
almost anywhere. You take it and put it in front of your door, most of the haulers
[inaudible], most of the haulers go ahead and pick it up. We got people that’s not paying
for service. And that’s [inaudible] but we need, we need to get a handle on those kind of
things. We got people out there who will put a container in front of their door and the
hauler comes along and sees that container, he just picks it up and dumps it cause that’s,
that’s his job. It ain’t his job to go check the address against the street to see is that the
right place of where we picking up at. So I’m in support of this, Mr. Mayor, and I’m
going support voting because I think it’s important to keep the service rolling. But I
think the government has got to get more active into knowing how we are charging, who
we’re charging, and are we collecting those, those charges that we put out there. So,
that’s all I need to say, Mr. Mayor. I’m in support. We need to go ahead and pass this
and get it over with. It’s [inaudible] contract. We come back again and look at it at the
end of this year, but we do need to get a handle on how we’re charging people, who
we’re charging, and who’s paying for the service and who’s not.
rd
Mr. Mayor: And we know that the expiration date is June 3 of next year, so we
don’t have to bring this in at the last minute.
Mr. Williams: Exactly.
Mr. Mayor: To be reviewed.
Mr. Williams: Exactly.
Mr. Mayor: Anybody else want to comment? Tommy?
129
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I hope at some point after all the yard waste is picked up
from the storm damage, storm debris, I hope this Commission will officially recognize
the great job that the haulers have done out there. That’s been a yeoman’s job and I don’t
really know that they really expected that to be a part of their contract. And it seems like
an unusual situation, but they certainly deserve a great big round of (A round of applause
is given.) and a lot of appreciation from this City for what they have done.
Mr. Mayor: Barbara, did you want to --
Ms. Sims: I was just going to say I was at the meeting, one of maybe three
Commissioners, that went through this, and I have had people after people call me and
say thank you, thank you for the trash pickup, don’t let anything happen to our garbage
pickup. They love it and I want to urge everybody to pass this.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I have a couple of questions to ask now. Exactly how much is
this going to increase per month?
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] don’t know.
Mr. Hankerson: Don’t know that?
Mr. Mayor: Well, the only thing we know, Mr. Hankerson, is what these
contracts, these individual contracts are increasing. And one is going up 3% and one is
going up 4% and one is going up 9%.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay, now my second question --
Mr. Mayor: We don’t, we don’t know yet what the cost per household is going to
be because that rate will not be set until probably this summer by the Commission.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay, my second question is then since there’s a variation in the
different rate increase and the customers going to be paying different? I mean if I have
Inland picking mine up and theirs is whatever percentage, 9%, and somebody else’s is
4%?
Mr. Mayor: Well, what the Commission did when we initiated this service was to
have a citywide uniform fee in these districts, as opposed to -- if you’ll, if you’ll look at
the information presented at the workshop, there’s a breakdown. There must be, what,
two dozen districts. And the rates, there are 18 districts, and the rate charged by the
garbage service in each district varies, so you’d have 18 different rates that were set out
there. So instead of doing that, the Commission settled on one uniform rate, which would
be an average of all the rates. So some, in some areas the person pays a little bit more
than the actual cost of the hauler, in other areas the person pays a little bit less than the
actual cost of the hauler, so you don’t have 18 different billing schedules to keep up with.
130
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: So that accounts for that difference there.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion to approve. All in favor of the
motion, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Cheek: Do we have a second to that?
Mr. Mayor: We do.
Mr. Colclough: I seconded it.
Mr. Cheek: I just wanted to make sure.
40. Approve the extension of the solid waste collections contract with Waste
Management, Inc. in the amount of $758,707 for year 3 (June 3, 2004 thru June 3,
2005) for the collection of solid waste, yard waste, recycling and bulky waste in
sections 11 & 12. (No action by the Commission March 2 – requested by the Mayor
Bob Young.)
Mr. Cheek: I want to so move on those.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
41. Approve the extension of the solid waste collections contract with Inland
Service Corporation in the amount of $1,170,600 for year 3 (June 3, 2004 thru June
3, 2005) for the collection of solid waste, yard waste, recycling and bulky waste in
sections 16, 17 and 18. (No action by the Commission March 2 – requested by the
Mayor Bob Young.)
Mr. Cheek: I want to so move on those.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
42. Approve the extension of the solid waste collections contract with Augusta
Disposal and Recycling, Inc. in the amount of $636,938 for year 3 (June 3, 2004 thru
131
June 3, 2005) for the collection of solid waste, yard waste, recycling and bulky waste
in sections 13, 14 and 15. (No action by the Commission March 2 – requested by the
Mayor Bob Young.)
Mr. Cheek: I want to so move on those.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Before we go to 42A, I have passed out or had passed out to each one
of you an item that came into us late today from Public Works with respect to the
building at the Augusta Common. The bids have been tabulation, and if we choose later
in this meeting to add this item and approve it tonight, we can have the public restrooms
th
open in time for the July 4 celebration at the Augusta Common. So --
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: I was going to ask everybody to take a few moments to look over this
as we continue with the agenda. I don’t want anybody to be surprised, Mr. Cheek, have a
chance to read it. Just want to point that out. So we’ll go ahead now, Madame Clerk,
with 42A.
The Clerk:
42A. Approve to proceed with $8 million dollar Bond Issue for the Landfill.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I thought you were going to give us another good lead-in
like you did just a minute ago, but we covered this same information at the work session.
This is necessary in order to close an existing cell, open a new cell, make some
improvements to the facilities out there. We have a [inaudible] of land space to grow the
landfill, but what we don’t have is infrastructure in the way of [inaudible] houses and
storage for equipment and so forth. We, we covered this again for two hours the other
day. They, they thought this through in the very best way possible, I think, and covered
their angles. Essentially what this will do is when this bonding is, a cell will be opened,
it will pay for itself as it’s used, and then it will basically pay to close itself at the end.
And that will move us into the position of moving to a new cell after that in the existing
facility. Now there was some discussion that [inaudible] actual rates. We’re going to
look at fees at varying counties. For instance, if Columbia County comes to Augusta to
dump, are we going to charge them the same thing as Augusta residents and so forth, but
that’s a separate issue. This is, this is basically to operate the cell and improve the
infrastructure at the landfill. Did I miss anything? And to close out, close out the
132
existing cell. So anyway, I just suggest and urge and beg your approval on this particular
issue.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: I make a motion to approve.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Discussion? Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to -- again, I got educated at the landfill,
and I saw the site where the new cell is to go and I urge every Commissioner to take it
upon themselves to go out there, to take a look and see what we do have. That’s, that’s
certainly an enterprise area out there that’s creating and generating a lot of dollars for this
City, and I just think that what they do out there is something that’s, that we can be proud
of. They do a good job and I just want to be one to tell you right now that I think it’s a
very worthwhile program to get into as far as starting early to build a new cell, that we’re
[inaudible] if we don’t.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor of the motion then please vote with
the usual sign.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: 42B.
The Clerk:
42B. Approve the concept of the proposed fee changes at the Landfill.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to have to defer. I think we [inaudible]
covered this, but we were going to come up with a fee schedule that may have
differentials based on who, what, when and quantity.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t think we’ve done that yet.
Mr. Speaker: In summary, we’re looking at a volume-based discount. It was to
raise the initial fee by $1. We have a schedule in place to, as increased volumes come in,
there’s a volume based discount that’s associated. We are evaluating the Mayor’s
approach to looking at outside county waste. Right now we’re finding it difficult with the
systems we have in place to track that. But we will continue to find an avenue to, to
move forward. And then the additional charge was to increase tires from $1.25 for small
133
tires to $3.00 and for larger tires over 17” from $5.00 to $8.00. Other than that, the
remaining fees stay the same.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: What we’re doing tonight is we’re requesting an approval of the
concept of you pursuing those particular fees structures, to be brought back at some point
in the future, not too distant future. It is the intent or desire of this board and of Solid
Waste to try to pay the cell off before it’s time to close it. [inaudible] if we can do that
without pricing ourselves out of the local trash dumping market.
Mr. Speaker: That is correct. A long-term goal with the pricing, is to (1) become
self sufficient so we don’t have to go back to the bond market to continue to finance our
growth; second would be for capital outlay for larger equipment. We have a full series of
events where we could be self funded, effectively saving interest charges and effectively
saving the community overall.
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve in concept the plan with a report back --
Mr. Speaker: At this time we’re actually going forward with public hearings as a
part of an ordinance to present the current concept that was presented in the work session,
and then come back after that so we can have the process.
Mr. Cheek: -- end of April?
th
Mr. Speaker: Actually, I believe it’s scheduled for April 5.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Speaker: Is the actual hearing, and then we will come back.
Mr. Cheek: Is that Masters week?
Mr. Mayor: Yeah. Be a lot of garbage generated Masters week. Very timely.
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] Masters week [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the Commissioner’s motion?
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I would just like to mention, too, that I discussed with the
Administrator, since we’re going to have a bond payoff for seven years, what we try to do
is structure the rates over that seven year period as part of the bond covenants so we don’t
have to continually revisit those, just as we did the water and sewer rates on the, for the
water bonds. We don’t have to revisit those rates every year. They’re part of the bond
134
covenants. So they’re going to take a look at that, too. All right. Any further
discussion? All in favor of that motion then please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, what I would request is unanimous consent to add the
awarding of the bid for the building at the Augusta Common.
Is there any objection
to adding this for discussion tonight?
Mr. Colclough: Add and approve.
Mr. Mayor: Add and approve, if that’s your motion.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second, all right. Discussion? All in favor then please vote in the
affirmative.
Mr. Grantham: Wait a minute, I’ve got discussion.
Mr. Mayor: Well, you didn’t say anything.
Mr. Grantham: Don’t be railroading this thing so fast.
Mr. Mayor: All right, clear the board. You got to be quick. Go ahead, Teresa’s
here somewhere. Is Teresa still here?
The Clerk: No. Eric’s here.
Mr. Mayor: Eric’s here?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Go ahead, Don.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, this is the recommendation that, that has
come back after we had the discussion on the two buildings that --
Mr. Mayor: No, this is the building at the Augusta. Common. It’s not Diamond
Lakes.
Mr. Grantham: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: This is the public restrooms at Augusta Common.
135
th
Ms. Sims: Be ready for July 4.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, there is no bid protest as I understand it.
Mr. Mayor: No, there is no bid protest. And the recommendation is for based bid
#2, is that correct? Is that right, Mr. Acree? [inaudible]
Mr. Acree: Yes, sir, that’s correct.
Mr. Cheek: Base bid #2.
Mr. Mayor: And that’s your motion, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: And was there a second to that?
Mr. Cheek: We had a second somewhere.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor then vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Rick, go out and build it.
Mr. Cheek: We’re getting faster as it gets later.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, we have come to you.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Last but not least.
45. LEGAL MEETING.
??
Pending and potential litigation.
??
Real Estate.
??
Personnel.
??
Award of bid to R. W. Allen Construction for $5,954,338.40 for the
construction of the new Diamond Lakes Community Center/Library.
(Deferred from the Public Services Committee March 8, 2004)
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: We had one item that we tabled. What was that that we carried over?
The Judicial Center. The Judicial Center.
Mr. Shepard: That would come under both categories.
136
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to go into executive session and a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor then please vote with the usual sign. And then we will
.
meet you in the conference room
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: I think we can let the cameraman off right now, for the day. I
think we can let the cameraman off. I think
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible]
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: Well.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor: We’ll call our meeting back to order.
46. 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 to authorize the Mayor to sign the
affidavit.
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. The Mayor will execute it.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney, we need a motion with respect to a settlement?
137
Mr. Shepard: I’d like to get a motion to add and approve a settlement with
Gary Willingham.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Do you have to state the amount or anything on that, Mr. Shepard,
for the record?
Mr. Shepard: In the amount of $14,500 and we will charge it to the account -
-
Mr. Mayor: Risk management?
Mr. Shepard: No, it is an HND matter. Housing & Neighborhood
Development.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor then please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Do we need a motion on anything else before we take up this
contract?
Mr. Cheek: We need to bring the Judicial Center issue of the table.
Mr. Mayor: All right, do we have a motion to bring the Judicial Center issue off
the table?
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second to that motion?
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We do have a second to that motion. All in favor of bringing that off
of the table, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion, please.
138
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize -- well, let the Clerk publish the vote that it
came off the table.
Mr. Boyles and Ms. Sims vote No.
Mr. Grantham out.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, in light of the current unhappiness with the original site,
and likely unhappiness with the second site, I’d like to make a motion that we relocate
the Judicial Center to Regency Mall.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion --
Mr. Mays: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. You’re a little slow there, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: You ain’t lying. At 10:15 at night.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: Life’s rough on old people, ain’t it?
Mr. Mays: You ain’t kidding. Especially when, especially at this time of night,
after eight hours and 15 minutes. Now we serious about another site being in here, or do
you need a substitute motion now to go back to May Park?
Mr. Cheek: Let’s see how this one goes. We may go to May Park.
Mr. Mays: I mean I just don’t want us to just be playing around and [inaudible]
with these deals.
Mr. Shepard: May I be heard? There is some data that we can gather, as we have
discussed, from sources other than intrusion upon land. We do not, we have data that can
be gathered from the Atlanta Gas Light file at EPD, it was alluded to in Graves
Engineering. I would counsel you at this hour to allow that opportunity to be explored
before we did anything as rash as moving it to Regency Mall. I think that it may end it, it
may put the light on the subject that we need, there’s data there. I think we could find
about [inaudible] without conducting the testing. There’s data we can find out about
139
point sources without entering anybody’s land. I would counsel that that investigation be
followed up on the site which is known as the Telfair site before we do anything else.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Shepard: But I can’t make any motions.
Mr. Mayor: Let me -- Mr. Cheek has already spoken. Let me recognize Mr.
Williams and then we’ll come back.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In light of what the Attorney just stated, I
mean [inaudible] committee came today and said in no uncertain terms that it wasn’t
feasible to go there and they didn’t want to go there. I think the motion is a good one.
Mr. Mays mentioned about a substitute motion. And we ought to always have a backup.
But if there is a business motion be put on the table, you know, I think we need to do
something. Evidently, that, that’s not the site of choice, that’s not the site of the body to
go and move, so I think we need to get off center and go somewhere. I’m frankly tired of
talking about it. We had a rush meeting. We was called to come here to make a decision.
We made a decision, got a site, now for six months we been dragging our feet. So I’m,
I’m for moving on. Let’s go somewhere.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d still like to pursue, as we discussed earlier, the
options to, to look at whatever data is available on the original two sites, but I think that
we should definitely tonight take a vote to see what the mind of the body is. I think all of
us are kind of tired of what has become apparently to be foot dragging on the part of
those that are not in favor of this site, in spite of its many, many economic and aesthetic
benefits to that area. I, quite frankly, for one having been somewhat schooled in
environmental science am quite frankly tired of people who have very little knowledge
making superfund sites out of things that are as clean as under their kitchen cabinet. So
anyway, I’d like to see us take a vote tonight just to see and with that I guess a friendly
amendment to follow up if this vote should fail, to continue on [inaudible] plans to pursue
a Part II on the original site, with a part I on the secondary site. If this should fail.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’m just wondering by, by putting up this Regency Mall
as a possible site, does that mean the folks that are wanting to vote for Regency Mall
have given up on the possibility of the new civic center? And I don’t mind being put on
the spot as to yes, I do, or no, I don’t, because I’ve got a yellow button here that I have
not used this year and I’m just getting ready to use it.
Mr. Mayor: Any further comment?
140
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I need to get some clarification from Mr.
Boyles. I mean I don’t think this body talked about go nowhere with Regency Mall for
anything else than the, you know, the site for the judicial building. There been talk about
an arena, but you know, unless y’all met when I wasn’t here or met somewhere else, we,
we, we have not talked about taking anything from, from this board -- we know the
rumor’s out there about the, the sports arena through private developers. But we, we
hadn’t made a decision on that.
Mr. Boyles: Well, when we met the other day to discuss the sales tax, when we
met in these chambers the other day, there was nothing that was taken off the list that was
presented by the citizens, the 21 citizens that we put on the board to bring it, and whether
we’re in favor of it or not, we at least owe the courtesy of pursuing that until some
determination is made.
Mr. Williams: Like you said, Mr. Boyles, that was a citizen group. The Mayor
said in that very same meeting that this body would make the decision. There’s a lot of
things on that sales tax group that’s not going to get considered, and not to, to belittle
anybody that worked on it or even had input in it, but the buck stops right here. And
that’s, that’s a decision we have not made. I mean I think we need to make a decision on
what we going to do on this issue first.
Mr. Mayor: Under the rules of the Commission, all comments are to be directed
to the Chair.
Mr. Williams: I don’t have anything else. My comments are made.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I don’t want to cut you off, but let’s try to follow. It’s late, but
let’s still try to follow the rules here if we can. All right. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, at, at 10 whatever it is --
Mr. Mayor: Late.
Mr. Mays:
I’m going to try and make a substitute motion that hopefully will,
will be inclusive of, of some of everything that, that everybody has said and will give us
an opportunity to move. One of the reasons why we, we’re in the dilemma in reference
to the property that was last voted on is the fact that the non-availability to be able to get
access to that property and to be able to do the proper testing, that has not come about,
and that’s caused a major problem in terms of where we’re going. But we cannot sit still.
Earlier we had said okay, let’s do the testing on this property and try and proceed with the
What I’d like to do in terms of making a substitute motion is that we proceed
others.
with trying to get testing, quite frankly, on, one to three different sites, one of those
being the May Park location -- which we already own, testing on the site of this
particular facility -- which we already own, testing that involves that Regency Mall,
and I think -- and the reason why I’m throwing this in here is because then we’ll see what
everybody is made of. We’ll see what efforts will be made at that point to prohibit
141
testing from being done there. Because if it’s going to be done everywhere, testing has
And
got to be done there, too. So let’s look at the testing that’s going to be done there.
my fourth item is not dealing with testing. It is to look at the Telfair Street site,
which does still contain or would contain the historic corridors that we are talking
about not being disturbed and being able to look at that middle piece of property
that’s there on Telfair Street that some of us had asked the consultant to put in
--
and I think, Rev. Williams, you know where I’m coming from -- that they were very
reluctant and pretended that they couldn’t put in or didn’t want to put in. And this may
drive some folk back to getting it there on that property that some of us know is not as --
it’s wider than the Marriott Marquis property and it’s wider than where the Westin
Peachtree Plaza is. So why couldn’t we deal with dealing with the Judicial Center on that
That’s the four points of my motion. The testing on three property sites,
spot?
where the Municipal Building, Regency Mall and May Park, and also dealing with
the availability of looking at the mid portion of the Telfair Street site without
disturbing the historical corridors or putting anybody out of business on Telfair
Street.
Mr. Mayor: That’s the former dairy, isn’t that?
Mr. Mays: That’s correct. In the mid portion of it. And why I tried, why I made
so many is the point that we’ve got to start testing, we’ve got to do the testing if we’re
going anywhere. And that two of those properties at least we already own, so at least we
can know what’s there. The third one is a fact we’ll see what kind of games are being
played on Deans Bridge Road with everybody’s business, and then the fourth one
involves the site where we already are, but just a switch in the location to deal with that,
so that we’re not sitting still. That’s my substitute motion. And it’s open to amendment.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] increase the funding [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: The Mayor has just reminded me about the funding for the testing. I
wish probably we could get a little bit of money back from the construction company
that’s been paid a whole lot with these consultants that have been determined to put this
building anywhere they wanted to put it from the very beginning. But since it’s money
that’s there and some of it’s been held since the last sales tax, I think we ought to be able
to find the money to do the testing to be able to deal with it. That would be a very
interesting scenario and would give some people something to do while they complaining
about us sitting still. That’s four different locations, two we own, one that’s going to be
very controversial, and another that returns us -- gives us two downtown, one where we
are and one in south Augusta, and that’s plenty of work to keep somebody busy for the
next 30 days anyway.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to Mr. Mays’ motion?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to that motion. Any further discussion?
142
Mr. Boyles: Point of clarification, if I could.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Boyles: He’s saying the Telfair Street site. I’m looking. Is that item number
85 on --
Mr. Mayor: It’s the Mayfield Dairy property which fronts on Telfair.
Mr. Boyles: Between the --
Mr. Mayor: Between Johnson and the historic properties on James Brown
Boulevard. Is that describing it correctly?
Mr. Boyles: And that shows as 85 on our map? Rick, am I right?
Mr. Mayor: I don’t have a map here.
Mr. Mays: And I put in there, and the reason why I’m putting that back, Tommy,
is the fact that we’ve gotten complaints about [inaudible] about the site. Well, what that
does, it reverses the positions of the buildings and then the parking area. Now what I’d
like to see is since it probably won’t be a building there, I want to see how many people
are still going to play games about parking lot going back there then where the building
was going be. And this will [inaudible] everybody out from where they are on this deal
and then we, we can see what’s left. And it’s still -- when we get ready to go, at least we
know then what, what kind of obstacles we’re going to face with testing and what we’ve
got on our own property.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Mays: And I just was trying to give us some choices that they get us past
where we are today, cause it seems as though we are going to have to end up going
through every legal hurdle in the world just to get somebody over there to test. So I’m
just trying to put some options out there.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any discussion on the judicial motion? We’ll move ahead on
the vote. We certainly had a health discussion earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Williams: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. The Chair will rule there has been
adequate debate on the, on the issue before us with the Judicial Center. We’ll vote first
on the substitute motion from Commissioner Mays. All in favor of that motion please
vote with the usual sign. The substitute motion from Mr. Mays. We need one more vote,
one more affirmative vote to move it forward.
143
(Vote on substitute motion)
Ms. Beard votes No.
Mr. Cheek abstains.
Motion carries 8-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, would you make sure that we have the proper budget
adjustment ready for approval at the next meeting so we can put that money out there for
the committee? All right, the next item is the, is the item out of legal. It was on the
agenda. It was on the agenda as item number 45. Let me get my Attorney back here.
It’s under item number 45 on the agenda. Award of a bid.
The Clerk: For R. W. Allen?
Mr. Mayor: Yeah. It’s on the agenda under item number 45. It’s on the agenda.
I’ll get the Clerk, the Clerk will read the caption and then we’ll proceed.
The Clerk:
45. Award of bid to R. W. Allen Construction for $5,954,338.40 for the
construction of the new Diamond Lakes Community Center/Library. (Deferred
from the Public Services Committee March 8, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will note that the Commissioners have been, have
discussed this issue previously. We have been briefed by our Attorney on the issues that
are involved in the bid protest with respect to this project. What we’ll do tonight is hear
from the parties from the two lower bidders and then I think we’ve got some discussion
among the Commissioners and then some action we are contemplating tonight. Mr.
Shepard, you want to be heard?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, I would ask the Commission, since we’re here, to go ahead
and hear from Ms. Gail Stebbins, representing Shearer, and Mr. Bill Keogh, who
represents R.W. Allen & Associates.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Shepard: And do that in that order.
Mr. Mayor: We’re going to allow each party three minutes. Mr. Shepard, I’m
going to ask you to be the timekeeper. Welcome, Ms. Stebbins. Nice to have you with
us tonight. Sorry for the late hour.
Ms. Stebbins: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. It is our
position that an award to R.W. Allen violates State law, and we are prepared to contest
that based upon approved Georgia Supreme Court case, J.A. Jones Construction
Company. R.W. Allen did not follow the bid process. It was noticed in the bid tabulation
144
that they failed to follow the bid process as was set out in the initial form. R.W. Allen is
an old hand at this bid process, knew the requirements, is a standard requirement on
every one. R.W. Allen merely failed to follow the bid. Now is that something that can
be overlooked? If it is a material condition, no, it cannot be waived, it cannot be
overlooked. And this is a material condition. The Georgia Supreme Court case,
following the Supreme Courts of every other state in the entire United States, has set out
the materiality standard which is does it give a bidder a substantial bidding advantage?
And in order to understand that, walking through very briefly the bidding process. In a
commercial construction bid, the estimator stays at the office and prepares the paperwork.
A representative from his firm goes to the bid site, waits by telephone, and at a pre-set
time calls the estimator who gives him the numbers that he fills in by hand. Every single
contractor does that. This is not something unique only to R.E Shearer Construction. So
time is of the essence. Every second counts. And this required that you fill in an original
and two copies, each one by hand. There were seven alternates with subcontractors. The
subcontractors had to be listed in duplicate, three times, three different forms. The
numbers had to be changed back and forth. And so we are talking about a process
created by the rules that [inaudible] time. It didn’t matter whether you had to run up and
down the steps ten times, whether you had to run around the building. The process
required by the mandatory bid documents was an original and two copies which had to be
hand written and turned in by the time. So every second counted. And it is not just the
position of R.E. Shearer only. Let me read you what another of the contractors will
swear to in court if this contract is awarded to R.W. Allen. And I read: “That by
preparing and submitting less than the required one original and two copies of the
proposed form, a bidder gains a significant and material bidding advantage. The
Diamond Lakes project stands out as a tough bid to pull together. The majority of the
subcontract supplier quotes came within the last 30 minutes before bid opening. All
bidders should be held to the same standards”. This contractor would also contest the bid
opening under the same circumstances if he had been the lowest bidder as R.E. Shearer
Construction Company was, the lowest qualified bidder, that the representative had a lot
of pressure to prepare the three documents at the bid opening. I would ask one other
point very quickly.
Mr. Shepard: Ten seconds.
Ms. Stebbins: I left a lot of this out that I wanted to read. However --
Mr. Mayor: Three minutes is a material element of this.
Ms. Stebbins: The amount that you are approving is not the amount of the bid.
And it is not only a violation of the J.A. Jones case, but it is violation of the State
mandated required bidding process to give it to R.W. Allen under these circumstances.
We will come to court and we will prevail if you do follow that and violate Georgia law.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Ms. Stebbins: Thank you.
145
Mr. Mayor: Now, we will hear from Mr. Keogh. Mr. Keogh, I’ll give you an
extra 30 seconds because that’s the amount of extra time the, the previous attorney took.
Mr. Keogh: I appreciate that. Hopefully I won’t need that. Ladies and
gentlemen, thank you for hearing us at this late hour. I represent R.W. Allen, who was
the low bidder on this job. This is a very important job at Diamond Lakes. R.W. Allen
was low bidder by $109,000. The dispute that you’ve heard from the other side is not
because of anything material in this, in the bid. They’re not complaining about anything,
any of the numbers within that three pages of the bid. They’re just complaining about
how many copies of that were submitted. And what they want y’all to decide, ladies and
gentlemen, is that it is more important that y’all give up $109,000 in tax savings as
opposed to how many copies of the exact same information was submitted to the board.
I’ve heard all afternoon some of the difficult decisions y’all have had to made. There
needs to be money for speed bumps, for worthy employees and folks who need work,
need raises. All of these are very important. This is $109,000 item, and I would
respectfully suggest that you cannot throw out $109,000 just because of the number of
pages in the bid. These are actually just mere technicalities in contrast to what you’ve
just heard. They are not material in any way. Three things I want you to remember about
this bid. First, of course, it was the low bid. Second of all, it was submitted on time.
Contrary to this [inaudible] conspiracy about running up and down the stairs, if you
check the records you see that R.W. Allen’s bid was the first one submitted. It was
submitted ahead of the one you’re hearing that’s being complained about. So there is
nothing about bid rigging, none of this stuff. They submitted their document first.
Again, the question isn’t what they submitted, it’s just how many copies. The State law
is clear both in the statutes and in the case law, that if there is a technicality y’all have the
ability to waive that. It’s been consistently held throughout this State. Y’all even just
waived a bigger one today, I’d suggest, when you dealt with the radar issue. Think about
that for a second. There was a technical problem with the, with the way the county does
radar, that could cause lawsuits for each of the hundreds of thousands of tickets that have
been written, and y’all did the right thing, you overlooked that, you got the technicality
fixed, and you fixed it. Now that’s much more material, ladies and gentlemen, than what
we’re talking about here, the number of copies on the exact same information. We are
very confident in the ability for us to, to, to win in any lawsuit. Obviously, we believe
that we’re exactly right, the law allows you to do exactly what common sense tells you to
do, which is if you can save the taxpayers $109,000 just because of the number of copies
of the same information submitted, you have the right to fix that. That’s common sense.
You don’t need a lawyer to tell you that, but I think your lawyer would probably tell you
the exact same thing. Ladies and gentlemen, I respectfully submit that six pages of
duplicate information is not more important than savings the taxpayers of this county
$109,000. Given the choice of being in a lawsuit, I would suggest that the right place to
be would be on the side of the taxpayers.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible].
146
Mr. Keogh: Thank you, sir. To be on the side where you can save the taxpayers
$109,000, where you’re going to get this job done quickly. These folks are ready to roll.
Plans are ready, people are ready, they’ve got everything to go. We get a contract signed,
they’re working the next day. Thank you very much for listening.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Have either of these companies represented
here tonight worked on the Blythe area community center project?
Mr. Keogh: No, sir, R.W. Allen has not.
Ms. Stebbins: No, sir, R.E. Shearer has not.
Mr. Cheek: Any previous history of work for the City?
Ms. Stebbins: Yes.
Mr. Keogh: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: We have satisfactory marks from the staff on behalf of all those
projects that they’ve done for us?
Ms. Stebbins: [inaudible]
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I can speak from the
Recreation & Parks Department point of view. We have not had any direct jobs with
R.W. Allen, although they did construct the Lake Olmstead baseball stadium in 1994, and
I think Rick Acree -- I don’t know if Rick is still here or not -- Rick can probably speak
to that, although I think maybe he was employed by that company at that time, maybe
he’s not the best person to speak. R. E. Shearer has done a couple of jobs for us. They’re
currently doing the Sand Hills Park job now. And their performance has been very good.
Mr. Cheek: Just this, Mr. Mayor, I’m going to say this and then I’ll, I won’t say
anything else. It’s -- given the bids being what they were and I’m not a lawyer, thank
God, and nothing personal, some of you guys, that I’m having to look at $100,000 worth
of books and desks and playground equipment that I’m not going to be able to put in the
hands of kids as a result of one copy of a letter not being upstairs. And I know that if I
had to make that decision and I would take that out of the hands of needy children, I
couldn’t sleep well at night.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, based on the information that we’ve heard and
those that are in our packet with the bid, I’m going to make a motion to reject the
147
bids of R. W. Allen and Austin Company as non-responsive to the requirement set
out in the invitation to bid and to submit bids with two copies and to reject all other
bids and to put the Diamond Lakes Community Center/Library Project out to bid
again.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Mays: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Call
the question then. All in favor of the motion that’s on the floor, please vote with the
usual sign.
Mr. Cheek: Madame Clerk, change my vote to no, please.
Mr. Cheek and Mr. Smith vote No.
Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any other business to come before the body? If not, we’ll
entertain a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We’re adjourned without objection. Thank you.
[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 March 16, 2004.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
148