HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-18-2004 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
May 18, 2004
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:09 p.m., Tuesday, May
18, 2004, the Honorable W. H. Mays, III, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding.
Present: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Cheek, Williams, Sims
and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Absent: Hon. Bob Young, Mayor.
Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Deputy Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Augusta Commission will come to order. I’m going to
ask everyone to stand and give our attention for our invocation to Rev. Gerald Varner,
pastor of St. Mark United Methodist Church. And then one of our own Capt. Sean
Shelton will come forward and lead us in our Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, one of
Augusta’s professional fire fighters.
The Invocation was given by Rev. Gerald Varner.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
The Clerk: Rev. Varner, on behalf of our Mayor Pro Tem and members of our
Commission, it is always a pleasure to have you come in and join with us and imparting
and petitioning heaven on our behalf. And in honor of you today, we’d like to pin you,
and you’re now an ex-officio member of the Augusta Commission.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Stick around, preacher, I might need that vote.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If we might, there is additional [inaudible] that’s there
[inaudible].
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
1
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] and if we have no objection to doing that, we
could possibly have that right after the employee of the month award and handle that
[inaudible] at the same time. After the employee of the month award, if there is no
objection.
The Clerk: Okay. To adding it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] doing that.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] public works [inaudible].
The Clerk:
RECOGNITIONS:
ARC EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD
Mr. Kenneth Settles, Public Works and Engineering Department
Facilities Management Division
The Clerk: We’d like to ask Mr. Kenneth Settles of the Public Works and
Engineering Department facility management division, along with Mr. Rick Acree, Ms.
Teresa Smith, would you please join the Mayor Pro Tem at the podium?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And Mr. Engineering Services Chairman.
Mr. Cheek: I’m with you.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. I’m sorry. [reading] Dear Mayor Young: The Employee
Recognition Committee has selected Mr. Kenneth Settles with the Public Works and
Engineering Department facilities management division as employee of the month for
April, 2004. Mr. Settles has worked for the City of Augusta for the past five years. He is
a groundskeeper whose duties include maintenance of the municipal building’s grounds
and general repair and maintenance at the municipal building. He was nominated by
department director Teresa Smith, who states: though we occasionally receive
complimentary letters on services provided by our department, the letter received in Mr.
Settles was worthy of his being nominated for the employee of the month. The
committee received a letter, a copy of a letter written by Risk Management manager
Sandra Wright which states, which stated: over the years, those of us in Risk
Management have had the opportunity to observe Mr. Kenneth Settles as he performs his
daily duties of maintaining the grounds of the municipal building. I am very impressed
with the conscientiousness and the courteous manner in which Mr. Settles performs his
2
job responsibilities. An observation was made today as he was moving the grass strip
between the curb and the sidewalk. As pedestrians approached, he refrained from
mowing and waited for them to pass before reassuming his mowing activities. Most of
those who manage claims are aware of mishaps that can occur while cutting grass. Rocks
and other debris can and are routinely thrown from mowing and weeding equipment. I
see great patience and diligence when someone would take the time to not only protect
themselves but would take the time to protect others as well. Mr. Settles takes pride in
his work, as evidenced by the appearance of our well maintained landscape. His
courteous manner with others does not keep him from getting his job done, and done
well. Some might think that these actions would hinder one’s work performance. Our
grounds are a testament to this contrary. Making safety a part of the job pays off in big
dividends. The employee looks good, we look good, Augusta looks good, and no one
was injured. The committee felt that based on Mrs. Smith’s recommendation and Mr.
Settles’ attributes he should be awarded the employee of the month. The committee
would appreciate your in joining us in awarding Mr. Kenneth Settles employee of the
month for April. Thank you, thank you for your assistance.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think everything is pretty much in the letter and it’s indeed
my honor to be able to present this to you today, and also I think from the first week that
you came on board, that we met outside, your very first week in coming to this
government and [inaudible]. Thank you again, one of our family.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Cheek: Let me say first off that I really admire your haircut.
(Laughter)
Mr. Cheek: But we want to thank you for your commitment to excellent and your
qualities and dedication to making this City better by your example and this building look
beautiful by your hard work.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk: At the direction of Ms. Smith, I’d like for the entire Public Works
Department to please stand while we recognize you during National Public Works Week.
(A round of applause is given.)
NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK
3
The Clerk: In recognition of National Public Works Week:
Whereas, Public Works [inaudible] in our community an integral part of our
citizens’ everyday lives; and
Whereas, the support of an understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the
efficient operation of Public Works systems and programs, such as the management,
oversight and maintenance of apparatus for water, sewer, streets, traffic control, solid
waste collection, City-owned rights of way, and public buildings, as well as trees and
landscape beautification efforts; and
Whereas, to increase public awareness of services provided by Public Works
Department allows for an increase in public understanding of these services; and
Whereas, to enhance relationships between the public and the Public Works
Department provides for an opportunity to improve communication; and
Whereas, to convey information about Public Works to the schools, expose and
educate the youth of our community on Public Works related issues; and
Whereas, to promote team building and promote morale amongst Public Works
employees serves to increase efficiency and decrease duplicity during the performance of
daily tasks and assignments; and
Whereas, to demonstrate appreciation for activities performed by employees in
the Public Works Department serves as an indicator that our employees truly are our most
valuable resources;
Now, therefore, I, Bob Young, the Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby
proclaim the week of May 16-22, 2004 as Public Works Week in Augusta, Georgia, in
recognition of the contributions which Public Works officials make every day to the
safety, health, comfort and quality of life for all citizens in Augusta, Georgia.
In witness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of Augusta,
th
Georgia to be affixed this 18 day of May, 2004.
(A round of applause is given.)
Ms. Smith: I usually don’t make any comments each year, but I did want to say --
and I know that many of you are aware that I’m from Wrens. It’s a small town just south
of here. So Augusta is very much home to me. When asked why I took this job, the fact
that it was home was a very big reason. But the most important reason was that I felt that
I could make a difference, a positive difference. And in the 3-1/2 years since becoming
director, the challenges that have been before this department have been consistently met.
When we were challenge to learn something new, we learned it. If something that was
done needed to be corrected, we corrected it. When there was not staff to do it due to
vacancies, we found a way to get it done. When there was something that neither I nor
my staff had the technical expertise to do, we found someone that could do it. So in the
Augusta Public Works & Engineering Department, good enough for government work
simply is not good enough. We take pride in the services that we provide. For the things
that we can change and improve, we move forward in doing so. We will continue to
4
focus on developing work plans for the services that we provide, to monitor and measure
our performance in an effort to improve efficiency and to work smarter, not harder, in
providing services for all the citizens of Augusta. For the Public Works & Engineering
Department, these past few years have been our time to sow and soon will come our time
to harvest. For change, as we all know, takes time. As a department, we stand
committed to our vision to be the best public works and engineering department in the
state of Georgia. And to do so while carrying out the mission for which we are charged
by the Augusta Commission. Again, this is home for home. In spite of the challenges,
trials and tribulations that occur, we believe that we are making a difference. Many long-
time employees of this department have commented that in the many years that they have
worked for the City, this is the first time that they have had an opportunity to have direct
interaction with their director. Well, I think it’s very important that employees know that
their managers truly believe that they are the most valuable resource. And so in addition
to implementing our [inaudible] Program and putting in place our employee newsletter
and having at least five Public Works & Engineering employees recognized as Augusta’s
Employee of the Month over the past year, as well as continuing to focus on our
employees with this, our fourth annual National Public Works Week celebration. Each
year, we have improved and fine tuned the activities based on input from our employees.
I have never had a job that I was prouder to have or worked with employees that make
me feel as good as most of the ones in this department do. As is reflected in this year’s
National Public Works Week theme, the Augusta Public Works & Engineering
Department is 24/7: Focused on our Community. We invited each of you to come out
this week and participate in our celebration of Augusta’s Public Works & Engineering
employees. And on behalf of the entire department we thank you for your continued
support.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, on behalf of Engineering Services and the
citizens of Augusta, I’d like to thank the Public Works Department for the progress that’s
been made. It’s very easy to forget that just three short years ago we did not know how
many drainage ditches we had. We did not know how much grass we could cut with the
number of people that we had and cut the entire county. Many of the data sets necessary
to do a qualitative and quantitative job of rending public services were unavailable.
Undone. Never before seen in this area. In fact, the good old days were not as good as a
lot of people remember, because a lot of areas were just simply left out. That is no longer
the case. You battled through the ice storm this year, you cleaned up ahead of many
other cities in this area, and did most of your normal work. You’ve worked to institute a
very fine trash collection program that gets better, that has cleaned up much of the city.
We continue to improve the way we do our jobs every day, and we’re doing that with less
people, more efficiently and smarter than ever before. We’ve had good days, but I know
the brightest days area ahead because we’re getting better at what we do.
5
Congratulations, God bless you, and to all those still in the field doing the work that y’all
are representing, y’all tell them hello from us and thank you for their dedication.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Let me echo what our chairperson said and to
this entire Commission for the support given the department and its directors. To all of
the staff, from top to bottom, I’m [inaudible] across the Alabama state line back to
Augusta and Ms. Smith asked me whether I was going to be here on Thursday night. I
said I don’t think I’m going to be back. In fact, I said I won’t be here at all this week.
And with the Mayor being out of town, I came back from [inaudible] in Alabama in two
hours an 47 minutes. I’ve got a 7:30 class to do in the morning. I’m not going back as
fast as I came over here, but I will be back on Thursday and I’m going to drive the full
four hours it takes to get back [inaudible].
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’re going to let you all get out of here because this is
your week, this is dedicated to you in Public Works [inaudible] the last of the cool days
are gone. It’s going to get hotter, and as Andy said, I know your best days lie ahead. The
weather is certainly waiting on all of us. Thank you for a continued good job.
Congratulations on your week. And if there be any sponsors who worked to help make
this possible, [inaudible] thank you for supporting this department continuously, not only
this year but throughout each annual event in the past. Thank you so much.
(A round of applause is given.)
AUGUSTA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Distinguished Service Award
The Clerk: Augusta Fire Department Chief Al Gillespie, would you please join
the Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Also the chairman of Public Safety. I’m going to work all
you chairpersons today. Come on down.
Mr. Gillespie: Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem, Chairman of Public Safety
Committee, rest of the Commission, and the members of the audience. At this time I’d
like to ask firefighter David Blount to come and join you up here. I’d like his family,
David, to come up also. Bring the crowd up. And if I could have Battalion Chief Wayne
Taylor join us up here also.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
6
(Laughter)
Mr. Gillespie: I’m proud of people in my organization, and David represents the
class of people that are out there serving this community. We talk about those who go in
harm’s way and doing it without thought for their own safety in many cases. As
Commissioner Williams knows, this is a dangerous job, and sometimes you do put
yourself in those positions. But I would say and David -- I don’t want to put words in his
mouth -- but I would say that he would say all I was doing was my job. But that’s not
necessarily the truth. Any one of our people would have done what David did, he just
happened to be there and it needed to be done. This particular award we’re giving out
today is Distinguished Service Award. It’s the second highest award in the Fire
Department, and you don’t just get it handed to you. You have to be nominated to
receive this award. You have to have that award nomination reviewed by a committee of
your peers, part of the county administrator’s office, a member of the Public Safety
Committee, and if it’s deemed appropriate then the award goes forward. This has
happened in this case. I’m going to read a bit of Battalion Chief Wayne Taylor’s
nomination for this particular award, so you can see the type of people that are out there
serving you. And David Blount is high on the list, believe me. [reading] On March 11,
2004, water rescue [inaudible] received a water rescue alarm for water rescue on the river
at 11:20 a.m. At this time, Engine 1 had gone to the shop for a minor repair and thus was
out of the station and unable to respond immediately. Firefighter David Blount had come
to the station to speak with the officer on Engine 1 on his day off, folks, and was present
when the alarm was sounded. He immediately volunteered and sought permission from
me, the battalion chief, to respond with the water rescue vehicle that pulls the jet skis.
Chief Taylor agreed, and they responded to the boat ramp at the river and arrived at
11:22, two minutes after the alarm. Firefighter Blount spotted the man in the river, about
¾ of a mile downstream, then backed the skis into the water and mounted one of the skis
and proceeded down the river to the victims. He found two men clinging to an
overturned boat without life jackets. He picked them up and took them shore one at a
time and brought them to the ramp, where they were examined by EMS, warmed and
dried. The second victim on shore, the rescue completed at 11:31, eleven minutes after
the beginning of the call. The time for completion was nine minutes, had a little bit of
time before, that was included in that. Engine 1 assisted with the retrieval of the
overturned boat upon their arrival. The last paragraph, it says, [reading] it is with the
highest praise I recommend you, Firefighter David Blount, for the recognition for his
unselfish actions, his competence response, disregarding the possibility of personal injury
when completing a water rescue of victims in fast moving and frigid water. He
exemplifies the very well trained and competent firefighters we have serving in this
department. [ends reading] I concur wholeheartedly, folks. David has asked to be
allowed to have the battalion chief who made this nomination pin the medal on him
today, and we’re going to allow that to happen right now. He also will receive a
7
campaign ribbon to wear on his daily uniform, the type he’s wearing normally, and the
ribbon that he will receive goes on his dress uniform, the type I’m wearing today.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Blount: [inaudible] appreciate that [inaudible] Chief Taylor, the day we were
out there, if he hadn’t had the confidence in me to let me do what I had to done, it
wouldn’t have ever been done. So we all work as a team. These two fellows here are
part of the team, too. We were together every day, too, George Smith and Dale Amino.
And Chief Taylor happened to be there that day when I was off and he, he made it
happen, too, just as much as I did. Cause if he hadn’t had the confidence to let me -- if it
had gone wrong, it would have all fell on his shoulders. It just happened to go right. So
thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Gillespie: I’ve got to say that we just started this medals program when I
came to the department, and David will probably be wearing more of these. It’s been
going on for some time. I’ve heard some amazing stories about David when we went
through this, including an earlier water rescue.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Gillespie: Hear that? 19 people, 19 citizens that this gentleman has saved.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Gillespie: One member of our department. I wanted to make a quick note
here, also. You saw the captain in the Army uniform who came up and led the Pledge of
Allegiance. Sean, can you come up here for a quick moment? Now, Sean’s wearing the
wrong uniform today, but he probably has to since he’s been called up. Sean is one of
ours, also. Sean is a firefighter for us and he’s called up for a higher duty right now, and
we’re hoping to have him back someday soon, but right now we understand what he’s
doing and what’s he doing to help this country, and we wanted to let him know we
appreciate it.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Chief, thank you so much for putting in that program and
being able to [inaudible] professional firefighters that are there in the department.
[inaudible] that type of recognition. David would never be a person who would just
assume hero status, but David and I go back over 25 years, and just by nature in terms of
what he did, it comes natural to help somebody, whether it’s saving somebody’s life or
8
whether it’s just a resident that would live across the street in the neighborhood or a fire
station where he’s working. It comes natural with him. As they say sometimes on the
job, it comes with the territory. To him, being nice to people and putting other first
simply comes with David Blount’s territory, and we’re glad to have him also as a part of
our family. Thank you so much, David.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Williams: I just want to add [inaudible] Fire Department [inaudible] family.
Like Mr. Mays, as well, I remember [inaudible] and so [inaudible] is in his blood
[inaudible] save other lives. I just want him to know [inaudible].
(A round of applause is given.)
DELEGATION:
Five (5) minute time limit per delegation.
The Augusta Metro Convention & Visitors Bureau
Mr. Barry White, Executive Director
RE: Augusta Gallery Pass
The Clerk: The Augusta Metro Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Barry White,
executive director, regarding the Augusta Gallery Pass initiative.
Mr. White: Thank you very much, and if I may make a correction, the Augusta
Metro Convention and Visitors Bureau.
The Clerk: Oh, I said Chamber, I’m sorry.
Mr. White: That’s all right. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission,
thank you for allowing us to make a brief presentation today. Also a special thank you to
the Commissioners who are currently serving on our board of directors, Commissioner
Hankerson and Commissioner Boyles. The first thing I want to go over, the second item
in there, this packet right here. Just wanted to share some cooperative advertising that
we’re doing. The Convention & Visitors Bureau administers a tourism grant which
Mayor Pro Tem Mays also sits on that committee, but that grant has awarded $116,000 in
advertising for 2004. We’ve added about $80,000 - $88,000 to that, and gotten some
negotiated rates. We’re going to have about $315,000 in advertising exposure for the city
of Augusta and the metro community this year. The Georgia Department of Industry,
Trade & Tourism did a study which says ever dollar spent on advertising returns $7.63 to
the state sales tax. Now I don’t know what that number is for local sales tax, but I would
imagine it’s somewhere just under $2 million, because if we invested this much in
advertising, we’ll see a return in state sales tax of $2.4 million, so the local sales tax
would be just under that. If you look further back, you can see the attractions that have
9
participated, it’s also open to private industry. We have a couple of hotels. This is the
first year out of the gate. We expect this program to grow. And then you’ll see some
sample ads that are running in publications like AAA, Going Places, and Southern
Living. So I just wanted to make sure you are aware of the co-op advertising we are
doing, stretching our dollar, making it go farther, in representing the city of Augusta.
The next thing I want to show you is really why we’re here. You’ve got some tent cards
out on your table there, and what this is, is called Augusta’s gallery pass. We have nine
ticketed attractions, primarily in the downtown area, that we’ve grouped together as one
and put together into one ticket. Now you can go and buy this ticket, $20 right now. $20
and it gets you into all nine ticketed attractions in metro Augusta. It’s good for ten days,
and that represents more than a 50% savings off the regular price if you had to go to all
these attractions and pay individually. We did a soft launch of this in April during
Masters week. We are gearing up as we go through the year, including it in our
advertising, and expanding, probably expanding our sales locations. Currently you can
buy it our office at Enterprise Mill, at the Visitors Center at the Museum of History, and
online on our web site. So I just wanted to make you aware of a couple of programs that
we’re working on, let you know that this ticket is out there and appreciate everything you
do for us.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any questions for Barry? Go ahead, Andy.
Mr. Cheek: Barry, it’s good to see you. I look with interest upon the future
discussion you guys will bring on the expansion of the convention center before the
SPLOST work session sometime soon. So please plan on coming down and giving us a
report on that, to the benefits to the local economy and cost and so forth, to go along with
all the other presentations we’re getting.
Mr. White: It will be my pleasure. I’ll be glad to do that in the work session and
also individually for some of the new Commissioners I haven’t had a chance to sit down
with. I’ll be glad to do that.
Mr. Cheek: That, to me, seems like one of the most logical things we can do. It’s
my understanding that for every overnight stay we get, we get more in the way of taxes to
the local economy than somebody working in a factory for a month, so anything we can
do to grow that type of business in the city for that small an investment, comparatively
speaking, is something we ought to do.
Mr. White: Be glad to.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I was just trying to get his attention. No questions.
10
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other questions from any other Commissioners?
Thanks, Barry. Andy said what I was going to say. We’ve got another round, we’re
going to pick your brain on some things [inaudible] promotional side of [inaudible]. But
how long do you plan to run this particular feature?
Mr. White: We hope that the Gallery Pass will be an ongoing product that we can
run continuously. We’ll of course gauge it. Our plan again is to expand the retail outlets
and have all the participating attractions be able to sell this. So we’re going to implement
some second and third phases of this during the rest of ’04. We’ll evaluate at the end of
’04 and see how we continue in ’05.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I know [inaudible] step ahead [inaudible] but I know in this
particular season of summer [inaudible] hotels I’m sure that could be a great feature to
promote, because [inaudible] that want something to do while they’re here.
Mr. White: We’ve got thousands of the tent cards and we’re distributing those at
the attractions and the hotels. We’ll keep working.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sounds good. The Chair will entertain a motion to
receive as information.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Any discussion? If not, all in favor of
the motion do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That takes care of our delegations and guests, with the
exception of our state championship team at ARC, and what we’re going to do because of
exams, they probably will be coming in, and if we’re at a point during the Commission
meeting, we will finish whatever agenda item that it is upon entry and then we’ll move to
them at that time. If we could, Madame Clerk, proceed to try and put together an
expanded consent agenda at this time.
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 26.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What I was going to do was just go with the ones on the
consent, and then we’ll expand it, cause he can add in those that he may try and get on
consent from Engineering Services and add those to that particular number.
11
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Consent agenda consists of items 1 through 26, that’s items
1 through 26. And for the benefit of any objectors to our planning petitions, once the
petition is read, if there are any objectors to the petition, would you please signify your
objection, your objections, by raising your hand?
PLANNING:
1. Z-04-39 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that before any sale or
development of the property it must brought into compliance with the flood
ordinance and the soil erosion control ordinance; a petition by Lorenz Quinn, Jr.,
on behalf of Wyman B. Simmons, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the
southwest corner of the intersection of Brown Road and Mike Padgett Highway and
containing approximately 2 acres. (Tax map 234 Part of Parcel 4) District 8.
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to that planning petition?
2. ZA-R-164 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to Section 8 of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance of Augusta-Richmond County to provide for sales trailers to be
placed in new subdivisions by Special Exception subject to certain regulations.
3. SA-40 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to Section 402 E of the Subdivision
Regulations for Augusta-Richmond County pertaining to street signs, and Section
405 F pertaining to construction standards for private streets.
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to the planning petitions, as well as
amendment?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: None noted.
The Clerk: There are no alcohol petitions, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Before we, before we decide to pull any off the regular
consent, I’m going to recognize the administrator for just a moment and then we’ll go to
Engineering Services to add those and we’ll do all the pulling at one time. And then
we’ll start in order on those that are pulled. If we have any guest delegations, Madame
Clerk, I’ll recognize those first at that time, and then move into the staff-related items.
Fred and then Andy.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, late last week we discovered an issue
involving the Fed-Ex property, Fed-Ex Drive, late last week. There’s a piece of concrete
12
in the right-of-way there that we need to remove. It’s about 28’ x 28’ x 6’ that was
discovered when they started doing the excavation for the road. I’d like to add that to the
agenda so we can go ahead and proceed with that project, and Ms. Smith will explain it to
you at the appropriate time.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I move that we add.
Ms. Sims: I second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s an addition, is there any objection to so adding?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The floor is yours.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. I’m not in objection. I do, I do just hope that there
is some, some deep discussion about what happened. I’m in support of that new facility
opening up. We went to the groundbreaking, but I’m, I’m, I’m, I’m, I’ve got a serious
problem when stuff like this, as large as this piece of stone is, pops up and we just find
out about it yesterday, so to speak. And I’m going to allow it to be added but I hope there
is some deep discussion about what we doing and how it got to that point, for, it should
have, somebody should have known something about that before now. We get in this, in
this mode and then we in a rush, Mr. Shepard. We up against the wall again and we, we
got to do something. We done heard that 212,000 times, but we still come back with the
same thing, and that’s, that’s, that’s something that sticks in my craw a lot, so I really
don’t, I’m going to allow it to be added. I’m not going not allow it, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem,
but I just think we need to be mindful. Every week there’s one or two, maybe three.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The observation is noted for the record. The item is so
added. And hopefully it will be approved. Engineering Services Chairman, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. For the purposes of adding to the
consent agenda items from Engineering Services, the Chair recommends -- we have a
delegation here for item 29, so that should stay. Item 30, back to Engineering Services.
31, 32, 33, 34 to the consent agenda. Item 35 is for discussion today. 36 and 37 to return
to Engineering Services. 38, 39 to consent. 40 with the amendment, instead of discuss,
approve pending change orders; this is for Glenn Hills Drive and area around Doctors
Hospital and so forth. 40 to the consent agenda, instead of discuss, approve, added. 41,
discuss today. 42 to the consent agenda. With the consent of the body, the Chair
recommends those for the consent agenda today.
Mr. Colclough: So move, Mr. Chairman.
13
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second to add the numbers that are already on
the consent agenda, along with the one addition from the administrator, as well as the
numbers so noted from Engineering Services. Before we start to pull, Madame Clerk,
could you -- did we give you enough time on those?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go through one swing-around with them, please.
The Clerk: Okay. On the Engineering Services portion of the agenda, item 29
will be discussed today. Added to the consent agenda will be items 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
38, 39, 40 will be to approve pending change for resurfacing, item 42 for the consent
agenda.
Mr. Cheek: Item 30 is to go back to, recommended to go back to --
The Clerk: Item 30? Item 30 will be, has been referred back to committee, along
with item 37 and 36, I believe.
Mr. Cheek: That’s correct. Thank you.
The Clerk: Is that what you needed, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: That was it. Just needed them re-read so I could make sure I was
right. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. That concludes those numbers from Engineering
Services. Are there any items left from any other Commissioner that’s there they would
like to attempt to add to our consent agenda? If not, the chair will recognize
Commissioners on the right for the purpose of pulling items off for discussion at this
time. Commissioner Cheek, and we’ll go in the order in which you all are seated.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I was going to recommend that item 43 be
added to the consent agenda, with language stating that Masters week would be declared
non-work week in perpetuity for this Commission in order to -- that the meetings be
scheduled from now on around that week to allow us to meet with guests from out of
town and put on a good face for the city of Augusta as ambassadors to the rest of the
world. I guess to just add that to the consent agenda in the form of a motion that Masters
week be a non-work week for the Commission.
14
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Was there any objection to it? I don’t think we necessarily
have to have a motion. It will be so added. Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’d like to pull item number 7,
item 15 and item 21. I need some clarification on 15 and 21, and there’s some discussion
on item 7. We’ve got a delegation here to speak to that item, as well.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other Commissioners to my right? That concludes the
right. How about the left? Anything from there? I’m, sorry, Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Yes. I think maybe we should discuss item 14.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 14?
Ms. Beard: Yes.
The Clerk: 14?
Ms. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I would ask the body to consider
item 47 on the consent agenda. Those articles of incorporation were prepared by Ms.
Flournoy. If there is no objection to that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If there be no objection, to add item number 47, it is a
matter of, of routine business. I serve as one of the two representatives on that board,
calling for the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem, which works with Ms. Darden and with
the Burke and Augusta representatives, which has worked real well for a number of
years. It’s just a matter we need to move on for the benefit of that group with this
particular item, if there be no objection.
Mr. Shepard: One other matter, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the
Commission. If we could make it a part of the record that as far as the agreements that
need to be executed, that you could execute them with the Mayor being out of the country
for the balance of the week. For example, number 32, fiber capacity and pole sharing
agreement, these type things, to get past [inaudible] the Mayor’s signature, I think you
need express authority in your office to sign such as that so we could have -- if that could
be added as part of the consent agenda that any matters needing the signature of the
15
Mayor be executed in his absence by the Mayor Pro Tem, and that’s confined to this
agenda only today.
Mr. Cheek: Motion to that effect, to be added to the consent agenda.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I have no objection.
Mr. Shepard: We’ll come to Alabama, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If it’s wrong, I’ll ask him when he comes back. We have a
motion and a second, I believe everybody is clear on those numbers and items that we
need to be pulled
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PLANNING:
1. Z-04-39 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that before any sale or
development of the property it must brought into compliance with the flood
ordinance and the soil erosion control ordinance; a petition by Lorenz Quinn, Jr.,
on behalf of Wyman B. Simmons, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the
southwest corner of the intersection of Brown Road and Mike Padgett Highway and
containing approximately 2 acres. (Tax map 234 Part of Parcel 4) District 8.
2. ZA-R-164 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to Section 8 of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance of Augusta-Richmond County to provide for sales trailers to be
placed in new subdivisions by Special Exception subject to certain regulations.
3. SA-40 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to Section 402 E of the Subdivision
Regulations for Augusta-Richmond County pertaining to street signs, and Section
405 F pertaining to construction standards for private streets.
4. FINAL PLAT – WALTON HILLS, SECTION V – S-683 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by James G. Swift & Associates, on behalf of Southern Specialty
Development Corp., requesting final plat approval for Walton Hills, Section V. This
residential subdivision is located on Brookstone Road, adjacent to Walton Hills,
Section IV and contains 18 lots.
5. FINAL PLAT - WALTON ACRES, SECTION VI – S-684 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
petition by James G. Swift & Associates, on behalf of Southern Specialty
16
Development Corp., requesting final plat approval for Walton Acres, Section VI.
This residential subdivision is located on Beaver Creek Lane, adjacent to Walton
Acres, Section V and contains 28 lots.
6. FINAL PLAT – HANCOCK MILL PLANTATION, SECTION 2–S-599 – A
request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission
to approve petition by Dykes & Associates, on behalf of Professional Properties,
LLC, requesting final plat approval for Hancock Mill Plantation, Section 2. This
residential subdivision is located on Hancock Mill Lane, adjacent to Hancock Mill
Plantation, Section 1 and containing 70 lots.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
7. Deleted from the consent agenda.
8. Motion to approve the emergency purchase and installation of a new Raypak
Commercial Pool Boiler for Brigham Swim Center from Johnson Controls in the
amount of $18,300. (Approved by Public Services May 10, 2004)
9. Motion to approve bid item 04-074, color coating of tennis courts at Fleming
Tennis Center, to Hasley Recreation and Design in the amount of $15,552.00.
(Approved by Public Services May 10, 2004)
10. Motion to approve request to terminate Air Service Development Grant.
(Approved by Public Services May 10, 2004)
11. Motion to proceed with the placement of additional seating at the Deans
Bridge Road Transit Stop Site (K-Mart Department Store) and direct the
Administrator to coordinate with the necessary crews to police the area to make
sure that a schedule is created for the removal of the trash and litter. (Approved by
Public Services May 10, 2004)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
12. Motion to approve Grant Agreements between the City and the U.S.
Department of Housing & Urban Development for receipt of Year 2004 CDBG,
HOME, ESG and HOPWA funds. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee May 10, 2004)
13. Motion to approve the creation of and operating principles for Housing
Trust Fund (FUND) Initiative; allocate earmarked grant funds to FUND.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 10, 2004)
14. Deleted from the consent agenda.
15. Deleted from the consent agenda.
PUBLIC SAFETY:
16. Motion to approve the following policy changes for salary continued and
light duty status personnel issues “In the course of performing hazardous duty
activities associated with alarms and physical training, firefighters may be subjected
to an in line of duty injury.” (Approved by Public Safety Committee May 10,2004)
17
17. Motion to approve matching funds for the Community Development Block
Grant Program. (Approved by Public Safety Committee May 10,2004)
18. Motion to approve June 10, 2004 as deadline to complete code violations
cited by the Augusta Fire Department for the Augusta Budget Inn located at 441
Broad Street. (Approved by Public Safety Committee May 10, 2004)
FINANCE:
19. Motion to approve the request for abatement of penalty only for the common
area of Woodbine West Subdivision. (Approved by Finance Committee May
10,2004)
20. Motion to approve the acquisition of One Integrated Tool Carrier, One
Hydraulic Tracked Excavator, One Slope Mower and One Agricultural Tractor for
the Utilities Department. (Approved by Finance Committee May 10,2004)
21. Deleted from the consent agenda.
22. Motion to approve the acquisition of 5 Public Safety Marshal’s Department
vehicles at $24,039.36 each (Bid Item 03-131). (Approved by Finance Committee
May 10, 2004)
23. Motion to approve the request for abatement of taxes on Land Bank
property. (Approved by Finance Committee May 10, 2004)
24. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Flatbed Dump Truck for the
Utilities Department – Construction Division from Fleetcare Commercial Trucks of
Augusta, Georgia for $52,550.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 04-064). (Approved by
Finance Committee May 10, 2004)
25. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Agricultural Tractor for the
Utilities Department – Construction Division from Holley Tractor Company of
Aiken, South Carolina for $23,652.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 04-065). (Approved by
Finance Committee May 10, 2004)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
26. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held May 4 and Special Called Meeting held May 6, 2004.
31. Authorize Public Works and Engineering to direct Republic Parking
Systems to purchase new entry control gates, ticket spitters, three (3) fee computers
and access control software for the Radisson Parking Facility in the amount of
$65,601.79 (Quote #1 – attached) from Amano Cincinnati, Inc., through their
representative, Time and Parking Systems, to be funded through a fund balance
adjustment to the Urban Services District. Funds will be replenished through the
Net Operating Surplus generated by Republic Parking’s ongoing operation of the
Radisson Parking Facility.
32. Approve amendment to Fiber Capacity and Pole Attachment S Sharing
Agreement.
18
33. Approve contract to purchase 75.72 acres for the Butler Creek Greenbelt
and expenditure of Greenspace funds for said purpose.
34. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 195; Parcel 1.04
which is owned by Juanita Clark (Deceased), Ennis C. Page, Executor of the Last
Will and Testament of Juanita Clark a/k/a Juanita Brady Clark, for a temporary
easement and permanent easement on Project 10175 – Groundwater Treatment
Plant #3 20” Water Main.
38. Approve award of Consultant Services Agreement in the amount of $49,476
to Earth Tech for the Augusta Stormwater Management Program Feasibility Study
to be funded from the General Fund Contingency Account.
39. Approve Capital Project Budget (CPB # 324-04-203824088) for the Lake
Aumond Dam Improvements Project in the amount of $431,000 to be funded from
the One Percent Sales Tax Phase IV Program. Also authorize Public Works and
Engineering to award an engineering services contract in the amount of $60,025 to
Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P. C.
40. Discuss pending change order for the Resurfacing Various Roads Phase VIII
Project (CPB # 323-04-203824045).
42. Approve the award of contract to construct phase II of the Rae’s Creek
Trunk Line Sewer Replacement Project.
43. Discuss rescheduling the first regular Commission meeting in April when it
occurs during Masters Week. (Requested by Commissioner Andy Cheek)
ATTORNEY:
47. Motion to authorize the Richmond Burke Job Training Authority to submit
Articles of Incorporation to Secretary of State office in accordance with the Georgia
Non-Profit Corporation Code and after incorporation, RBJTA will submit
application for 501C(3) status with Internal Revenue Service.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If there being no further items to take off -- are you clear
over there, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. And there’s a motion and a second to do. There will
be no further discussion. All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. The
Chair votes yes.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-6, 8-13, 16-20, 22-26, 31-43, 47]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’re going to finish us with our delegation, Ms. – we have
the young people here, finished the exams. We’re going to item number 7. Will be first
after them.
19
The Clerk: Okay.
ACADEMY OF RICHMOND COUNTY MUSKETEERS (Requested by Mayor
Bob Young and Commissioner Barbara Sims)
Georgia High School Association Class AAA
State Semifinal Soccer Championship
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ladies and gentlemen, if you could –
The Clerk: Commissioner Sims and Commissioner Grantham, could you please
join the Mayor Pro Tem? I’m sorry, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s okay. Our young people have just entered the room,
for those that may be to rear of some of you, to the newly-crowed Georgia State Class
AAA Soccer Champions and also the number one ranked and still undefeated in this
nation. Richmond Academy Musketeers.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Commission, we have Mr.
Prentice Elliott, who is News Channel 12 sports director to do our official roll call. Mr.
Elliott?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, if we might get our attorney out of his
attorney role for just a moment and ask him to join us, long-time booster of Richmond
Academy, I will just issue an executive order for just a few seconds, Steve, and you can
come and join us [inaudible].
Mr. Elliott: All right, guys, as I call your name, just come on up. Richmond
Academy Musketeers undefeated season co-state champions. Start off with junior Peter
Menk.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: Sophomore Mike Smith.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: Freshman Conner Ardery.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: Freshman Nick Smith.
20
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: Junior Chris Smith.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: Sophomore Hodges Usry.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: Junior Austin Moss.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: Senior John Mark Capers.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: Senior Jonathon Harris.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: Senior Havird Usry.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: Junior Cline Beam.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: Junior Parker Rogers.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: Freshman Remer Brinson.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: Sophomore Marquintez Jackson.
(A round of applause is given.)
21
Mr. Elliott: Junior Will Batson.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: Senior Josh Pittman.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: Senior Daniel Brittingham.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: Junior Joey Varno.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: Senior Ben Moss.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: And junior Marcus Jackson.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: And of course head coach Chris Hughes.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Elliott: Let’s give one more round of applause to the Richmond Academy co-
state champions.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Hughes: We would just like to thank everyone for the support. The whole
town of Augusta has been great throughout all of this. You know, people that knew
nothing about soccer came out and packed the stadium to see these young guys and what
they were accomplishing, and it was just an incredible year for all of them, something
they’ll remember their whole lives. These kids all work hard. They do it year round.
They’ve done it their whole life, and to see it finally pay off and what they accomplished
this year, you know, is just remarkable. It’s just, you know, an attribute to these young
guys, their parents and this community that they grew up in. So thank everyone for their
support.
22
(A round of applause is given.)
Ms. Sims: I just want to say we are so proud of y’all. You’ve made your parents,
Richmond Academy, everybody in Augusta was pulling for you, proud of you. My
husband, my two sons graduated from Richmond Academy. They’re proud of you,
everybody that has anything to do with this town – really, really, you have just shown
spirit and class above class, and we’re so proud of y’all. You’ve got a beginning here.
You’re the first, you’re the very first that has ever brought this to Augusta, so think about
that. No one will ever take the first big, huge victory that you’ve had. It’ll be, it’ll be
here forever. Thank you so much. We are proud of you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Grantham: Having been a Richmond Academy graduate myself, it certainly
makes me proud to see you guys stand here in front of us. For those of you who do not
know, it was in 1957 and that last state championship was brought back to Augusta by
Richmond Academy. And I wasn’t on that team, cause I had finished the year before.
But just to tell you a little bit about the history of this school, it’s something that you all
can be proud of as you go through life. Because Richmond Academy still stands as the
oldest chartered high school in the United States, and one that we should all be very
proud of. And we’re proud of you young men for the type of examples that you give to
others and what you portray as individuals, as well as a team. It takes a team to win, to
do what you accomplished last Friday night. And we’re so proud of you. And I just want
to say go, Musketeers.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Number one ranking in America, that’s quite an
accomplishment.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? It would be interesting to see how many of
those players come through the Arsenal Gunners program and have been involved with
some of our local programs that we see in Rec and the Gunners. I bet a number of them
are. If that is an indication, then based on the age of the program, we’ve got some great
years ahead in soccer.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s true. Item 7.
The Clerk:
23
7. Motion to approve the reallocation of SPLOST Phase IV funds in the amount
of $20,000 from the Augusta Aquatics Center to Wood Park, Commission District 5
and proceed with Plan C (Construct new community center with small indoor pool,
relocated multipurpose court to Public Works property, add new tennis courts and
picnic tables) and include in SPLOST Phase V. (Approved by Public Services May
10, 2004)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. There is a delegation from
Wood Park that’s here today. I, I expressed to them at the last neighborhood meting that
I would pull this item to discuss. They were not in disarray or disagreement, but for
demolishing the pool, but nothing has been explained to this community, this
neighborhood association, as to what is going to take and when it’s going to take place.
The neighborhood is here today. They need some directions. This pool, this location sits
in Commissioner Hankerson’s District. The people that serve this area is in District 2.
And that’s because of the new drawing of the district lines that we have no control of.
But the neighbors, the people in that community that serve this area, 95% of them are in
District 2. So that’s how I got into this, this, this arena. But I had the Clerk to check to
see what was the remaining balance of the monies. No one could answer that until I got
some direction from her. I think, if I’m not mistaken, there’s Mr. Beck sitting over there.
He may have some exact figures. But I think there is some $600,000 supposed to be left
in that area. What the proposal was to tear down the pool and proceed with I think plan
C. Plan C would fall under the guidelines of the SPLOST V. That would not have any
money comes in until 2006. So they are here today, and I won’t speak for them, but I
wish we would get a count, Mr. Mays, so you can see the, the enthusiasm and the interest
that this, this, this community have and what goes on in that area.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: For the record, those that are here for item number 7 in
reference to Wood Park, would you raise your hands, please?
(20 supporters noted)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. So noted. There are – before I ask for a
spokesperson, Commissioner Williams, were you asking a question, though, in reference
to any numbers? I know you made reference, in reference to Rec, did you want to get
that clear, on the record?
Mr. Williams: Yes, I’d like to get that clear, on the record, as to how much
money is still there and also what, what can be done, what will be done if this pool is
destroyed, if this pool is covered over right now?
24
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, in answer to the
question, I guess I need clarification. You had mentioned the figure $600,000. Your,
what figure is that from?
Mr. Williams: I’m trying to get a figure of the money that was designated to be
spent in that area after the fire station was built. What, what, what’s the balance? I mean
what kind of money we got in that area?
Mr. Beck: The balance is zero.
Mr. Williams: Okay, the balance is zero.
Mr. Beck: The balance is zero. The only figure that’s out there right now is a
master plan amount that would go into the SPLOST V.
Mr. Williams: Right. And that’s $2 million plus we was talking about. And,
and, and this whole thing came about, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and I think you may have
been at one of those meetings, but this whole thing came about when the neighborhood
decided they wanted to keep the outside pool, to refurbish it, to do whatever it takes to
keep that, and to add the basketball courts to put in there. Now when we built the fire
station, this is one out of the many fire stations we built, only two of this magnitude, of
this size, and that was the one on Broad Street and one on Highland Park. We really took
in a lot more area than it was proposed or we thought was going to be taken at that time.
But if the pool is, if this, if this item, number 7, is approved and the closing of the pool,
Tom, or the covering over, then there’s nothing going to be taking place until sales tax; is
that right?
Mr. Beck: That’s correct. If this is approved, then monies you would approve
today, coupled with an agreement we had with the Fire Department, for them to
participate in this through their SPLOST account, what would happen, the pool would be
demolished. Not just covered over. Everything would be taken up out of the ground,
including all the concrete decking, as well as the bath house. So that has been in not only
this plan, but the master plan since it was originally approved in the year 2000.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I’m going to yield to Mr. Mays. If we can hear from the
neighborhood, let them ask whatever questions they maybe have, cause I couldn’t give
them the direction they needed at the meeting. I was thinking there was some money left
there to do something with, even the basketball facility or something. But I’m going to
yield to them. And their spokesperson, I see Ms. McCord and Mr. Jones and their
neighborhood president out there, but –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me, let me do this before the spokesperson or
spokespersons come. And both of your gentlemen are correct, Commissioner and my
25
director. But Tom, if we might, I think we thing, and we’ll put it in the numbers, for the
record. I think what we need to also put in, Commissioner Williams, really is two sets of
numbers. Because we need to put in what was proposed in the original plan, because I
think if we’re going to – let’s face it, if we, if we get truly technical, all sales tax projects
have a zero number beside them right now. Because this Commission has to set them.
But one of the things that was promised, and which I still state committed to doing, as I
stated at the meeting in reference to the first numbers that were pretty much locked in as
a starting point with the first set of figures, close to about $700,000. It may have been a
little bit more. So I think we need to, to mention that in the same breath. Because if
we’re talking about going beyond that, then that is a different amount to be added to
cover project item C if project item C makes it to the list in its entirety. Because there is
an amount that is there and it will take roughly $1.2 million, $1.3 million in order to do
item C if item C is what survives from the total Commission. Now I have heard a lot of
times about District 2 and about District 5. It’s also, all of it’s in District 9. So I’ve got
yours and I’ve got his and I’ve got everybody’s in 9, whether it’s [inaudible]. But what it
still takes, it takes a majority of this Commission, as it will with any project, that goes on
in the whole Parks system, whether it’s improvements or whether it’s building. A
majority of us to add that and to make that at that time. And I just wanted to make that
observation for the record as to how that process is going to work when we do get to
plugging in those numbers in their entirety. Commissioner Williams, I just wanted to
have that in there.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Where it would also be clear for folk that are here, cause
many of them, many of them joined this discussion at different stages. Some were with it
in the old part of it, some joined in the new part of it, some are here as we try to make
changes and make additions to make the area even better after the fire station has gone
there. So I think we need to spread the whole thing within the minutes so that everybody
gets a clear understanding of what’s there. And it’s not to, to debate you or the director
to a point, but I just think we’re talking about number, let’s just put everything clear out
there that’s on the board. And I plan to [inaudible] in terms of what [inaudible] the
neighbors want to try and go with this particular project. But I recognize you and then
we can, we can, if the spokesperson [inaudible] but give your name and address for the
record, and if we could, if it’s going to be more than one person, to try and cover
information that has not been covered by the previous person. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and I’m in agreement everything
should be on the table, but I just think that the neighborhood needs some direction. The
proposal to tear up the pool didn’t leave anything except the, the plan C. And plan C,
meaning there was nothing that would take place until 2006 or whenever the sale tax
approved, if it’s approved, and whatever. So I think they want some clarification and
26
some directions as to where we’re going, if we go ahead and approve this agenda item
and to take out that facility. So I yield to Mr. McCord.
Mr. McCord: Good evening. My name is Larry McCord. I live at 2914
Damascus Road, Augusta, Georgia. Good evening, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Commission
board, thank you for this opportunity today. And in regards to item number 7, we was
kind of foggy on which way we were going to be going with this situation as to our
neighborhood pool. We had a couple of situations regarding our kids going to the
outdoor pool and heading over to the Aquatics Center pool. We thought it would be in
our best interest to keep the pool for our kids, because of the swimming time that they
would get during the summer. It was kind of limited. Also, [inaudible] offices right here
at 1216 Highland Avenue, and I can sit in my office window and watch the kids travel to
the pool during the summer over to the Aquatics Center. Twenty minutes later, I see the
same kids coming back. So these kids or not swimming. And they traveling in groups,
you know, six or seven at a time, and they anywhere from I say 11 to 14 years of age,
crossing the street, going to the Aquatics Center. I have no problem with the walk from
Highland Park subdivision to the Aquatics Center. My problem is with the highway
there, right there at the red light at Damascus Road. There’s – if you know that area,
right there by that tank there is a big, uphill climb. If a kid is three or four feet, you can’t
see them. A car cannot see him crossing that street at that point until he tops that hill.
And when they get to a certain amount of speed, they may not have time to stop for those
children. That’s one of the concerns I have. The other concern is why are they getting
turned around at the Aquatics Center? That’s a public situation, that’s a public pool
facility, they need to be able to swim. If you taking at any time during the summer, a kid
going to swim, and you tell them no, you can’t swim at this particular time, he’s not
going to really understand. You know. So we have come here today to get, to ask you to
hold off on demolishing the pool now until we get a clear understanding of what plan C
really is financially and the time frame that plan will be executed. We need to know
these things before we move on because as Mayor Pro Tem just indicated, once the land
becomes vacant, six votes, the land can be used for anything. The way I see it. I can go
either direction. And when, if SPLOST, Phase V is going to be approved to come in
2006, who is to say we can get the money then? So we need to know before we move on,
we’d like to know as a community, a neighborhood community of Augusta, you know,
some clarity on these things. One other thing, too, Mayor Pro Tem, if I may add. This
$600,000 that was just thrown out is an invisible number, I understand. But it wasn’t
given to us as an invisible number. It was given to us at $684,000, option C, it was given
to the neighborhood as a situation that was rolling and in the very near future. It wasn’t
given to us as zero and coming way down the road. It was not presented that way. And I
have a little heartburn with that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me, let me try and answer part of that for you. I’m
going to let the director speak to the access side of it, because that’s a different question
but I think it ought to be answered, because this is one of our concerns because when the
27
Aquatics Center was built, and built in time for the Georgia Games, and I remember
supporting that project, one concern was that you, you needed to make sure that we were
not going backwards in terms of neighborhood services and that we had a pool that had
been historically there that was not just a pool that actually served residents of that area,
but actually drew from a wider radius than just the residents who lived there and had been
doing that for a long period of time. And that was a concern that we were going to
monitor from the standpoint that if that became a situation where you were, you were
having group activity and you were having different types of [inaudible] same time,
persons who were used to swimming in that area, to a point that were not doing so and
then you spend a lot of money on a facility that’s in close proximity but then people are
not being able to do it. So I think that’s one issue that I want to have the director answer
on that. But as far as the sales tax numbers are concerned, one of the things that, that was
voted on and one difference that [inaudible] that some of it goes from one Commissioner
to another one. I guess, I might see if [inaudible] 20 months [inaudible] to come back
and give them some memory for maybe a dollar fee [inaudible] remaining of how some
of that comes into play. You mentioned about whether or not those are real numbers.
The money that was started to complete the project, and I think the minutes of the
committee particularly will show that [inaudible] when we voted on it here at the time, I
made reference to, to your prior neighborhood association president, who – Charles
Evans – who worked very hard and came in a lot of times with members of the
neighborhood and at times even came by himself. He stayed on top of where this project
was going. It was a clear understanding that I guess in some factors if you, if you
pessimistic you may say it may never happen. If you optimistic I guess it gets into a trust
factor of having to say those that make a commitment will keep their word. I have no
problem. I only vote one time. I voted then to support it. I’m going to vote again to do
it. But when projects come up, regardless of what district they’re in, if – many times,
plans have been drawn. Just like road work, sometimes engineering work is done to do it
on one phase, actual completion working time may be done in another phase. That is
what happened in this particular phase to a point of [inaudible] where is the money? The
money as such was to come from Phase V. It probably got one of the earliest
commitments from the Commission to say this is a project that we want to put money in.
Now obviously there is a battleground to deal with in terms of doing that, and I think
you’re correct from the standpoint of all of that could be reversed. But I mean you’ve got
half of six to a point that’s going to support at a very minimum what’s there, cause I think
you got, you got one Commissioner in terms of where you got with 2, 5 and 9, with the
three of us having to deal with that. There are going to be millions of other dollars to
deal with other projects that are going to have to be debated. But I think to a point of the
age of this one and how long it’s been there, to a point, and I think it stands one of the
better chances of remaining intact and getting something added to it than do a lot of
others. But when you say that – and I use Brookfield for an example – I started working
with that one, I think, when Commissioner Boyles was director, and I tease him
sometimes when I say I’m not having any residents that vote for me in that particular
district. But I sometimes [inaudible] and say Brookfield belongs to me. I guess
28
[inaudible] oldest remaining thing of Brookfield, but we had two ladies at the time, one in
particular, who came for a period of 14 years, almost every Commission meeting, ten
years on every Tuesday. Not just the consolidated body but the old Commission to make
sure that Brookfield stayed on path. We bought the land out of one phase of the tax, we
did the project out of another one. And it took that long in order to get it done. So I
don’t want you to think to a point that you’ll get abandoned in it. Now you do have to
watch [inaudible] what she did. She made sure to a point that we eventually were going
to deal with Brookfield. I think you’re doing the correct thing in having the association
stay together and to work towards getting it done. But, too, if you’re going to say almost
to a point is it absolute to a point that every dollar that is requested will go into this one
particular project, if you’ve got [inaudible] technical about that, I would say no, but I’d
also say no to every other Commissioner that’s sitting here to a point who has got a
project [inaudible], but I think it has a higher degree of support than do a lot of them
because the commitment was made at a time prior to us discussing even dealing with
item C. And that’s why when I met with you that night, I talked about the possibilities of
making sure that we at least exhausted and worked around the funds that had been
previously committee, regardless of what the neighbors decided to do in terms of wanting
the pool as it exists, [inaudible]. I also said this, and I’m going to shut up and let your
next speaker go, but I’m trying to also explain to you, and I said this then, I wanted to
know what it was going to cost in terms of real numbers on a 47 year old pool, cause at
the time we didn’t know of something was going to go indoor, outdoor, to a point still
don’t know. And, and I have a, a problem to a point that if, if it ends up being an outdoor
situation, then we need to make sure to a point that you are not throwing $50,000 to
$75,000 to maybe $100,000 at pool that is a half century old. I it’s going to end up being
an outdoor facility then it needs to be a brand new outdoor facility to a point of what you
could build one for versus what you are going to [inaudible] and repair that one for and
not knowing when it may break down again. And so that’s about as blunt as I can be to
you. But one element that involves with this thing is [inaudible] trust element, in terms
of how we do and also from the persistence of a neighborhood still being around and of
making sure that, you know, you stay visible and that you keep your project, you know,
[inaudible] on that, cause many of these projects that have been done, it took them a long
time in order to get done. And some Commissioners that are sitting here are dealing with
the fact that they have some projects and places and neighborhoods that are heavily
populated that have zero dollars that are committed to them. None at all. As your
Commissioner from an at-large district, I’m going to supportive of that neighborhood, but
to a point of saying whether or not it’s going to be some horse trading that’s going to
have to be done amongst all of us in order to get it. But I say you probably coming out
the starting gate pretty good because of the time in which yours was placed in the pack.
And so that’s about as through as I can try and give you an answer on it.
Mr. McCord: Thank you. I just add, also, that we’ve been talking about this – we
tore down a basketball court and they told us that we were going to get a replacement
right after the fire station was constructed and finished and dedicated, we were going to
29
get the basketball courts replaced. There has been no issue of that and no talk about
where are we going to put those basketball courts. Kids are still waiting. We have
several kids at our neighborhood meeting asking the question and we, you know, want to
put that question to the Commission. They tore down one. We need to get one, at least,
back, a basketball court for those kids. And I mean the fire station has been open now for
a while. [inaudible] served the purpose, but we need to at least get our court back. Seem
like we done skipped over the court and very anxious to tear down a pool right now,
which can be covered, so I’d like to ask when are we going to get our basketball court
back that they took so quickly?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think the basketball court – I’m going to let Tom step up
on this one, but I’m going to say the same thing I said that night. I think that the
basketball court can be done in two different phases, and I’m going to say the same thing
here I said then. I would hope that whatever is put in right now for basketball courts
would not be what would be permanent in that area for basketball court, because I’ve
gotten a little too slow to run up and down it, but what I envision for a permanent
[inaudible] as far as courts, of going to the old Public Works area and really doing the
courts properly. I think you can have something to suffice until sales tax money kicks in.
I think [inaudible] deal with temporary court. That’s one of the easiest things we can put
in, in terms of basketball court, and I [inaudible] to do that. But I said that night that I did
not want you to settle on that from the standpoint that I think you can still have first class
courts [inaudible] done and not just basketball courts, but to deal with basketball, tennis,
deal with them lighted, deal with privacy fences and do them properly. And so I think
you can do both, get them properly done, but I do think in order to get the long range one
done, it’s going to have to get done within the confines of a major sales tax project. But I
think in terms of putting in courts in order to do what you’re talking about doing, that can
still be done. And Tom, if you want to bring that up some in how we can deal with that
and also on the access question of the Aquatics Center.
Mr. Beck: Yes, sir, Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Commission, the issue
with the basketball court, the original master plan that was approved for Wood Park in
the year 2000 did have a community center with a basketball court basically going where
the old pool property is now, where the pool is now. That was the original master plan
that was approved. So that was the intent, to put the basketball court back, relatively
immediately after the fire station was finished, and that was also an agreement with the
Fire Department. When the issue came up about the pool and about relooking at the plan,
the plan that was, was placed before the neighborhood association and is basically before
you today would relocate the basketball courts down to the Public Works property
whenever they move out of their property. That obviously would not be done until that
happens. So as far as any temporary basketball court situation, it would have to be done,
and of course we have no funds to do that with, but it could be done on the existing
parking lot area that is there now. We could probably put something in temporarily,
although I think in fairness to the neighborhood I think we need to go back to them to
30
make sure that that is something they want, because that was not discussed in any
previous meetings. So – and addressing the access issue, the Augusta Aquatics Center is
open six days a week. We do close on Sundays. And the Aquatics Center does have
available hours to the public for general swim every day. Now, you know, these children
that are being referenced to, we certainly don’t want to see that happen, but if they are
coming during a time that the center is not open to the general public for public swim,
and we have many programs within that facility, one of which is public swim – there are
many other programs there within the facility, so what I would suggest and what I’m
going to direct our staff to do is make sure that we get as much information as we can to
the neighborhood association on those hours. Of course, the hours are posted and are
available at the Aquatics Center, but to make sure just from a communications standpoint
that maybe we do a better job in getting the word to that particular neighborhood to make
sure they know what the hours are.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And I think expand it a little bit because of its proximity of
notifying them, but really through, through the alliance from the standpoint that while
some other neighborhoods may not come as much as young people who live close to it,
certainly if they come from [inaudible] a further distance to do a public swim, it would be
good if those neighborhoods know that and can help you to expand that information.
Because if they come and say are dropped off or catch the bus or walk and it’s from a
distance, even further than Highland Park, then that’s an additional problem for them,
that I think we can correct in the confines of doing that. Chief?
Mr. Gillespie: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Commission.
I just wanted to reiterate the Fire Department’s position on this. The particular building
that we built there was the building that we had planned to build there. As Tom has said,
it was the plan at that time to put the basketball court in the area of the pool. However,
there was a separate plan that was set aside, move the basketball court in a different
location there, nearer the road or behind the parking lot. That is our commitment to
fulfill our commitment to the people, and once this gets decided we will participate
financially in giving back to the community the basketball court that we had to move.
We don’t want to put money some place until we’re sure what’s going on, and we offer to
participate in this program in lieu of that, but we will participate in replacing the
basketball court that we moved at the right time when everything gets set here. We may
have to come back for a change order for that, but we intend to do that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I think that gets us in the direction of where I was
talking. If that gets to be something that the neighborhood agrees on, from the standpoint
that the larger picture [inaudible] and the court’s really being done properly, is going to
come further away than sooner, and it’s going to have to come at a larger sales tax
project. But I think if we’re going to do that, have the court that’s in there, then I think
that can be a source of what we’re dealing with putting those smaller amounts of money
together, to be able to do that to deal with the court. And the reason why I say that, I
31
mean we got people who make, who make their own basketball courts on certain cul de
sacs and streets and play on them every day. So it couldn’t be that much of an expensive
item in order to deal with courts. And when I say those courts, doing that from the
standpoint of getting us to a point of getting us to a bigger picture and of doing them in a
proper way. But I agree that that replacement part of it, if that’s getting to be a
[inaudible] we need to do that, then we need to put that back in for those young folk, but
at the same time do not take off the map the scale for doing the larger format, of being
able to deal with those courts properly and of having them in an area where it’s safe,
where is balls – whether it’s tennis or basketballs – they go out into a street area, they’ve
got their fence, they’ve got their lighting, and they’re in a good proper area where, you
know, it’s large enough where you’ve got multiple courts in that area to do it. I think
that’s a large place where it can be done. I’m going to go straight down the line. I’m
going to skip over you, Mr. Engineering Chairman, I’m going to come back to you last.
I’m going to go to Commissioner Beard and then we’re going to come back to you on
this end.
Ms. Beard: Well, I’m going to say, it’s been hard for me to have made it without
a basketball court. Okay? Basketball was our life, and we loved, all of us loved playing
basketball. But I wanted to mention something to the constituents in that area. You are
in one of the choice areas in Augusta, especially for recreation, for your children. You
have the Aquatics Center. And let me say this, it’s not just for the children in west
Augusta or the children actually in Columbia County. It’s for your children. You have
the tennis center. We have the golf course for children, the Masters Tee. Your children
can almost walk to all of these places. The skateboard center. And what you have here,
you have organized activities where in most of those situation they are competing locally
and regionally. Is that not true? And to think that all of that is there and it’s in your area
– I would like to see someone like Ann, who has just put her hand over her face, take a
trip and work up activities for the young people in that community until you get your
place. And when you do get your center, and I support that center 100%, let’s start
looking at these other sources, because you really are in one of the best situations in
Augusta.
Mr. Williams: Am I next, sir?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, sir. Ms. Sims, and then I’ll come back to you and your
twin last, cause y’all are going to take up most of my time.
Ms. Sims: I’m not going to take up much time. Tom, I just would like to know
on the public swim, is that a time, a scheduled time every day?
Mr. Beck: Yes, ma’am.
32
Ms. Sims: So that everybody knows when public swim exists? Well, then –
okay. That’s posted and that maybe no child would walk down there without knowing
that this is the time I can go swim?
Mr. Beck: Yes, ma’am. These times are posted.
Ms. Sims: They’re not changed?
Mr. Beck: No, ma’am, not unless there is some emergency with the pool that
would close the whole pool, which occasionally we may have a day if the chlorine level
is not quite right, then we don’t open to anyone, but that happens very rarely.
Ms. Sims: Right. So having said that, is there a way that these neighborhoods
can understand when the schedule, when the posting is, maybe to have that available to
them?
Mr. Beck: Yes, ma’am. And that was my point about maybe us communicating a
little better. Of course all the times are posted at the center.
Ms. Sims: But a child is not going – an 11-year-old is not going to walk up there
and look at the posting. You know, the parents really –
Mr. Beck: That’s correct, and that’s how we can use the neighborhood
association. I’ve been to their meetings many times but probably have not brought that
schedule with me and that’s something we can do just to improve communications.
Ms. Beard: I’m wondering if there would be a way to get some type of pedestrian
walkway across the street, from you know, the other side of Highland over to the other
side? Is that something we could look at.
Mr. Beck: At the direction of the Commission, we certainly could do that. We
don’t have any in our system that ties [inaudible] but I know that has been talked about
with linkage situations in other areas, but that’s, that would be an issue for the
Commission to give direction to.
Ms. Sims: And maybe the Engineering department?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Engineering Services as far as initiating the start, to talk
about it.
Ms. Beard: Lena, would you handle that for us? Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Williams and then Commissioner Cheek.
33
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I appreciate Commissioner
Beard’s interest and I don’t think there’s that much traffic to warrant us to, to have a walk
across overhead. But Tom, let me ask you another question. The posted sign, is it not
true that there is a, a membership with the Aquatics Center that is open to the public for
anybody, you know, but it’s membership dues or –
Mr. Beck: The Aquatics Center is open to anyone. But there are membership
rates that give you reduced rates than it would if you came and paid every day. So we
consider the members because there are many other activities that they get with that, but
it’s basically they are paying a reduced rate to use it on multiple basis.
Mr. Williams: I understand. And that’s what I was told. Since this is a sales tax
facility built out of sales tax money, wouldn’t it be more feasible to have it open to the
public and have the people who are doing the special events on hourly schedule, set a rate
for them and have – because it is public monies, and I don’t know anything about the
Aquatics Center. I’ve been there three times, I think, to visit, and not to [inaudible]. I
plan to do that, in fact I plan to go weekly for a while this summer to try to relieve some
of this stress that y’all got to me.
Mr. Beck: I’ll join you with that.
Mr. Williams: Well, any day. But wouldn’t it be more feasible to have the, the
Aquatics Center open to the general public for what the public needs rather than the
events? Because what I’m hearing, if it’s a three hour day, if it’s a eight hour day,
normal work day or normal play day, most of the time people start going in. But since
we not open that long, if the children being turned around or rejected because of the
events going on, shouldn’t events have a special hour and the open, the facility be open to
the public for – I mean cause – what I’m hearing is it’s a private venture that we allow
the public to come in [inaudible] time. From what I’m hearing now. I know that
Aquatics Center is open from I’m going to say 1 to 3, and I don’t know what the hours
are, that you can just – anybody can come in and swim. If you come at 4, if you come at
10, whatever time before that, you know, we got events going on. Now if we got that
much event going on, that ought to be an enterprise fund where we ought to be making
some money, if that’s the case. And I think we may need some, some, some feedback
from your staff as to what is going on, how much is going on, and what we doing. I
heard you mention sales tax, that there needed to be some money put in there for, for
public swimming. But if we got a public facility that ought to be for public swimming,
that’s what it ought to be for. I don’t think we ought to have swim lessons, I don’t think
we ought to have water aerobics, if it’s a public facility we might have to do those things
at night or over the weekend or on a special day. But from what I’m hearing now, I mean
we fixing to spend a lot of money to build a situation on Highland Avenue which is less
than two blocks away and we got the same facility right there. And because it’s behind
34
the doors or behind the wall, we tend not to know what’s taking place there. But I just
think there are some issues to be, be looked into with that.
Mr. Beck: If I could respond to that, the facility is multi-use. And that’s exactly
the way this facility – and this Commission gave us direction to build the facility. And
we feel like it’s been quite successful. There’s times when the general public can swim.
There are times when events are scheduled in there, such as aerobics classes and
swimming lessons. There’s time when the swim teams – it’s one of the dynamic and best
competitive swimming facilities in the southeast, and there are two major swim teams
that do rent the facility and use it. Many, many of our local children use it for swim
teams. So we feel like we’ve got a good balanced, multi-use facility where it’s open to
the public from 12 to 4 – are the hours when it’s open to the public every day, and then
other events are scheduled around that. So we feel like it is a well-balanced program
there at the Aquatics Center.
Mr. Williams: Well, I’m not doubting that, Tom. I’m just bringing up an issue
that we need to look at, that we need to address, that we need to know if the general
public is not aware of the time, maybe we need to make that awareness. But if it’s a sales
tax facility, it’s a public facility, then there is no private venture, whether it be swim
team, and I guess swim team [inaudible] water aerobics and all the other things we do.
But if it’s a tax paying, tax paying facility, built out of taxpayers’ money, it ought to be
open more so to the taxpayers rather than it is for an event or for the team that is renting it
or that’s training. Now there ought to be a time for them, I’m sure, but it ought to be
more lenient to the, to the taxpayers, to the general public than it is to the – and it doesn’t
sound like that. And I don’t know, I just say it sounds like it. It just doesn’t sound like
that. And I would like to inquire more. But that’s all, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. That’s all I
have.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Andy?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you. I think we’ve kind of [inaudible] work session the other
day, this afternoon. Recreation is a very hot item for people in this city. I will remind
everybody of two very real facts. One, if we do build a neighborhood park, we will need
the neighborhood to operate it like we do Jamestown Community Center and East
Augusta. We cannot afford the additional head count. So I would like to secure a
commitment from the neighborhood to actually operate and oversee this park, because it
is in their homes, in the area of their homes and so forth, and that would enable us to free
up other staff for these other facilities. We need to expand the Aquatics Center. The
neighborhood pools don’t need to be indoors. We can’t afford the maintenance on them.
Period. We need small neighborhood pools for people to go in and jump around and
splash. We need Olympic pools for Olympic training. People that swim on swim teams
and do aerobics are taxpayers, too. We need to invest in recreation. It’s big on people’s
hearts, but for this 1,000 home area surrounding this pool, it’s – Commissioner Smith
35
said the other day, we have thousands of homes that’s never had a pool in certain areas of
the city. So as we commit $2 million to this, I hope the 10,000 homes that we have over
at Diamond Lakes get an equivalent amount and the 10,000 or so homes around McBean
and these other places get an equivalent amount. Fair is fair and these people in our areas
have never had these types of facilities. I’ve watched the progression through this, the
promises made, and I’ve committed to making sure we deliver the promises. We don’t
have the money or the personnel to maintain an indoor facility. We do have the people to
maintain, with the neighborhood’s approval and support, we can maintain tennis courts,
walking tracks, basketball courts, a community room. These are the things we can afford
to do. And as Commissioner Beard said, you have more facilities in less than a mile from
your home than most of us have within ten miles of our home. And it certainly is true.
And we hope to one day have a fraction of what you have. Now the travel routes for kids
to walk is very poor in that area, and very dangerous. Those are things we can improve.
Side walks on Damascus Road and put a side walk on Wrightsboro Road, perhaps a
nature trail to the Augusta golf course that will accommodate getting the kids to and from
the swim center, while not interfering with golf. I mean these are all things that we can
do that we can afford. But the bottom line on it right now is we do not have $2 million
until the next round of sales tax, if we’re able to get that. And I’m sure with all of us that
have needs in our districts, that would like to see yours built in your districts, we need
you to not only lobby for yours, but to fully fund Recreation as it should be in the next
round of sales tax. I know you want it bad, but everybody else does, too. And the only
way to do that is to secure full funding. So I know I can count on you for your help to
make sure that you not only get yours but everybody else does, too. Thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That pretty much wraps up the Commission, and I think the
Commission has had a pretty good say on, on their comments on this particular issue. If
they, at the end of the day, after the neighbors finish, we are still going to have to get
back to the issue which is on the table, and that’s of how to deal with [inaudible]. I want
to recognize [inaudible] spokespersons from the neighborhood at this time and ask you to
try, if you can, stay with new information.
Mr. Hillcrest: My name is Alphonso Hillcrest and I am the vice president of the
Highland Park Neighborhood Association. We certainly want to, on behalf of the
president and the other members of Highland Park, we want to thank Commissioner
Mays and Commissioner Bobby Hankerson and Mr. Marion Williams for taking the time
out and coming out to our meetings and listen to our concerns. And they have [inaudible]
to the neighborhood concerns and they have spent a great deal of time to elevate our
concerns [inaudible] priority. And we just want to say thank you for that. We also want
to thank all of the neighborhood, members of the Highland Park Neighborhood who came
out today to support this effort. And [inaudible].
36
Ms. Curry: I would just briefly say [inaudible] and to talk about the Aquatics
Center up there. I have been going up there, one of those situations that we have been
talking to the Parks & Recreation director about, the Aquatics Center water is quite deep.
As you know, it appears that it was built for Olympic swimmers. If you go in the shallow
part, this may be one of the things that affects the children [inaudible] for swimming. I
am 5’6” and in the shallow part the water comes up to here on me. They do have
activities up there, but they all seem to be centered around adults. So if we build another
park, I think we need to think in terms of those little children, young boys and girls who
would like to get in the water who can’t swim that well. Because if you have high water,
maybe they don’t enjoy it as much. That is what I was saying. And if we consider an
indoor pool up at Woods Park, I think it should be for those children [inaudible] years old
who can get in the water and splash around, have a graduated pool [inaudible] the
swimmers, the real swimmers when they come can enjoy, but the little ones, also. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. [inaudible], would you give us your address for the
record, please?
Ms. Speaker: Yes. My name is Ann Curry. I live at 2084 Hillsinger Road. I’m
the street captain there. And we look forward to completion of our project which we
have been discussing before the fire station started, and I would also like say as I listened
through the times, things seem to change so we don’t seem to know what our original
plan was, in terms of saying various thing. Each committee [inaudible] change. But we
will certainly look forward to you completing and working with us and we will be
working with you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to recognize Mr. McCloud for a final question
and then I’m going to recognize Rev. Hankerson, who tried to get eye contact a minute
ago. I think he had a question on something that was said, but that’s going to conclude
our –
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mayor Pro Tem, I’d like to ask is it possible to, the
$20,000 you have allocated, to demolish the pool or whatever, could we perhaps consider
covering the pool with some of that money and building a basketball court in a temporary
setting in the center of the tract that exists there now? I was just going to ask that
question to Mr. Beck to see can that be done, is that feasible, his thoughts on that?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’ll say this before he comes. If, if – and Tom, I know we
talked about covering before, but if covering it and doing what needed to do in the
temporary courts to get us back to that [inaudible] $20,000 situation to a point of where
we can get on with a discussion to a point of formulating something else on a bigger
picture for that area, I wouldn’t have a problem with it at all. Because I firmly think that
in all honesty that before the dust settles on what’s done in this particular area, that there
37
is going to have to be some more discussion and before six people vote to finalize what
finally goes into that area. You may want to have some alternative plans and suggestions
rather than an all or nothing or either-or situation or [inaudible]. Now that’s just a
suggestion. When I look at what’s going to have to happen [inaudible] Commission and
the feeling of a pulse that I’ve had of talking with individual Commissioners who sit up
here, I, quite frankly, I have been around here for a long time now, three different
governments, I [inaudible] worth of [inaudible]. And I’m going to say that real honestly.
[inaudible] I’ve not counted that many. And I think this may be an answer to a temporary
situation that’s there that would also give some comfort zone to a point that we know that
it’s not over in terms of whether we do something [inaudible] but I think that the
commitment is firm there from pretty much everybody to deal with what was originally
promised in those numbers, when you get in there, whether it’s a high six or low seven or
nearly $800,000. But I think when you get, quite frankly, politically beyond that, those
numbers start to diminish. And, and, and when I look across having to deal with as many
neighborhoods and as many parks as we’ve got, and I’m talking about an area that I
committed to doing that one, because I committed probably before a lot of people got on
up here – Richard, you may be the last person that was here when we, when we did that
finalization plan. I think Marion had just come on here [inaudible] but at the time Henry
Brigham was still here. And we [inaudible]. So it goes way back into it [inaudible].
[inaudible] don’t want to go backwards [inaudible] commitment [inaudible] in the bank
to do. But I just think that [inaudible] because I think to a point of probably spend as
much on this one issue, and I’m not saying it ought not be talked about, but to a point
we’re going to have to get it where there’s a comfort zone in the community, and I think
to do that, if that [inaudible] then I’m saying that [inaudible] Commissioners, the director,
and of working that to where we can get some approval on it, if that’s what’s done. But I
think what’s worse is when we finally decide what to do with this $20,000 we need to be
in some consensus of agreement of doing that. [inaudible] and then we meet two weeks
from now to undo that. There just needs to be some agreement, I think personally, in
order to do that. And I think that’s a good suggestion on the temporary side. Whether
the Commission buys into that today or not, but I think that’s a better talking piece than
what I’ve heard recently, from the standpoint [inaudible]. And I appreciate [inaudible].
That’s [inaudible] when the chief mentioned about being able to go ahead and [inaudible]
deal with the [inaudible] and of getting the courts back in shape to do it. Because
obviously you’re going to [inaudible] down the road and what’s going to be dealt with
[inaudible]. Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. And I’d like to just say my
position is still the same. I met with the community, the neighborhood association, and
the Highland community, and we had proposals and proposals was accepted, so my
position is still the same. One thing I want to say, and I don’t want to take up any more
time on this. I think we’ve spent am ample amount of time on it. That I’m asking that
the neighborhood be very sensitive of two [inaudible]. The conversations of the
Commission, because each time that a new group comes down or someone else come up
38
to speak, to ask questions, it seem as though we losing some support up here out of the
ten. And it was looking pretty good the last neighborhood meeting I had, but I’m
hearing, I keep hearing that we have more out there than we have other places and I think
that we need to come together as one because I’m, I’m kind of hearing some loss of some
folks up here. So I hope that we’re [inaudible] with what we’re going to do and get it
right, the correct understanding and have the same spokesman for the group to come up
each time and so we won’t be redundant by asking the same questions that we’ve already
asked. I hope that his probably will be, I don’t know, but the last time that we have to
come before the Commission to address the situation and we will meet in communities if
there’s any more questions about it. So I’m pretty sure with Mr. Williams’ commitment
to the project and my commitment to the project and some of the others I heard, that
Highland is going to have a, a, a project out there that will serve the people and the
children of Highland. I heard the discussion about the Aquatics Center and my question
is, are the children, any of the children using the Aquatics Center now? There’s no
problem, in other words, in using it, using the center? I mean I was asking the parents if
there are any problems, costs, or problems, everybody is able to use it?
Ms. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. All right. Okay. Well, Recreation do have a schedule. I
just saw the schedule on the days, so I thank all of you for coming out today.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I make a motion that we take $20,000 and
get a cover for the pool and hold off on any other construction right now until we can,
you know, get some funds and something in place using temporary, using basketball and
basketball [inaudible] for temporary situation like was stated by [inaudible] to cover the
pool, and if we can, fix a temporary situation so we can get a basketball goal and court
there of some size to have in that, that area right now.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion among the
Commissioners? First Commissioner Cheek and then I’m going to recognize the fire
chief.
Mr. Cheek: The cost of covering the pool and other items germane to the motion,
please?
Mr. Beck: As far as any cost concerning covering the pool, we had gotten some
preliminary costs up, but they were, they were quite expensive to get any kind of a cover
that would be appropriate. I mean that’s a huge pool. It’s the largest pool, outdoor pool
in our system. It was going to be in excess, I want to say, of $10,000 for just a temporary
cover to the pool.
39
Mr. Cheek: This would be a truss type cover with kind of a pitched roof to shed
the water?
Mr. Beck: That’s my recollection. But when those kind of figures came up as far
as temporary cover to that older facility, it was something I didn’t address any more.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Chief?
Mr. Gillespie: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Commissioners, as stated earlier we want to
participate in this, too. Part of the original plan was that we removed the court, we
replace the court, and we are prepared to do that. I’m going to see if there’s a chance we
can help expedite this a bit, because – and I don’t know if we can legally yet, but maybe
you can help me out – we have to have a change order to appropriate our portion of the
funds from our SPLOST from the project there to pitch in for our share of the basketball
court. If you could add that to your motion, rather than us coming back to you again in
two weeks, it would speed up the process. And I don’t know whether you can do that or
not, but we’d be willing to do that. We have an item ready for that based on outcome of
these discussions, but we hadn’t brought it forward yet because we didn’t where we were
at.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m replacing one fellow today, I’m not going to try and do
two. If you could get the Attorney inside the door here for just a second. [inaudible] than
mine. [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: If you need a legal opinion, I could have give it to you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, but what the chief is doing, and I don’t think we – this
is not to delay anything, but I think you’ve got some procedures that cannot be done fully
in terms of moving all of it. However, I do appreciate his sincerity and concern to want
to go ahead and get it done, Chief, and we thank you for that. I think we’ve got a way to
work between those departments in doing it. What that question was, Steve, in reference
to being able to, to move, because [inaudible] how that would be done, and I would
imagine probably more than anything else, it would be a part [inaudible] looking at it
temporarily, that it be a part of that building facility that’s there. And that way, it would
not be actually transferred out even to another [inaudible].
Mr. Gillespie: We have the contract open still on that building and we would just
require a change order for that. I was asking if they could include that in that motion to
add a change order that they don’t have in front of them right now, but give us the
opportunity to do that. I wasn’t sure if that was [inaudible] could do or not.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think he’s going to want to let that come to him.
40
Mr. Shepard: The Fire Department is doing the basketball court?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There was a commitment to replace, and because there have
been different meetings concerning how much [inaudible] could be spent now and what
may be added on to what was proposed, that this situation of replacement has someone
gotten lost in the whole shuffle. And that’s why early on I was saying there could be a
temporary solution to those courts done, because it would not involved that much money
and we pretty much had it. I think you’ve got some cooperative sources to get that done,
but it just needs to be worded legally in terms of how that’s done.
Mr. Shepard: Well, we’re talking, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the
Commission, about a replacement facility; is that correct?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s correct.
Mr. Gillespie: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: If that’s the case, I think that would be appropriate.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I amend my motion to include that in, Mr. Mayor Pro
Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. Now we met with the neighborhood association and we
had plans, options that we were going to select. And the neighborhood association and
the community selection option C. Now option C is self explanatory. I, with the
questions coming up now with covering the pool, that’s not the solution, I don’t think
that’s the solution to what we are trying to do, the whole entire project. We don’t want to
waste any money, but we want to make sure that we – the questions were asked today
from the community about option C, whether they are going to go ahead with option C,
the commitments made to the community to get option C. So there are some things I
don’t, I’m not getting here right now because I [inaudible] with another option in mind.
I’d like to make a substitute motion that we just, we take this back to the committee and
we decide on all the costs it’s going to entail, what we’re doing here. The commitment
that I had consented to was the transfer the $20,000 over to [inaudible], to have the pool
covered, and so that way that we can go ahead with the project. But this is something
here, with what the chief has said and I don’t know the cost now, I think we need to come
up with a cost before, you know, we decide to go forward with it, instead of taking up
more time in the Commission meeting, is to just take it back to the committee so we can
41
get all the numbers and decide what we’re going to do. Cause this is another plan, now,
of covering the pool up, putting up a basketball court, a temporary basketball court. This
is, this a plan F now. Or D. I mean E. E, rather. So I’d like to put that in the form of a
motion that we take it back to Public Services Committee meeting and that we can
discuss it and decide exactly what all is in detail and give them a time frame of when we
ought to do it, the basketball court or cover the pool or everything so the community will,
will know. Because if we leave here today like this and something else come up, they
going to be expecting what we said today, and I don’t think that we have anything here
on paper to let me know exactly what we are doing. We’re just saying cover up the pool,
it may cost $10,000, the basketball court got to be put in, you got to pay for that. You
know, so I think it’s a lot in question here. I’d like to put that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second to send back to Public Services in
terms of establishing a cost. And, and I’m guessing, I’m asking in reference to the
motion, the cost concerning the items that are being mentioned today, am I correct,
Commissioner?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a substitute motion and a second in order to do
that. Commissioner Beard?
Ms. Beard: Is it time for a question?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am, the floor is yours.
Ms. Beard: My understanding is that they are still on the book for the $2 million
in SPLOST V. Summer is here. They’d like to have something to do this summer. So
we’re looking now at the temporary basketball court and covering the pool. Now we
know we have $20,000. Now it appears that if that is not enough, maybe funds from the
Fire Department can kick in. And with that, I’m going to move for another amendment,
that we go along with that today.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That would be in support of the original motion, that
[inaudible] is so noted for the record. Let me just ask one question, Tom, before Steve.
Just on rough numbers, and I guess after all the courts that y’all have had to deal with
over the years, particularly between you and your former boss. In looking at what the
chief has in terms of his monies, if we do this, are we pretty much comfortable in a zone
of where we can from a temporary standpoint deal with, cause the space is there to do the
temporary courts in, so it’s pretty much to a point if we’re going to deal with covering,
dealing with the amount, dealing with the courts, to do [inaudible] in order to work this,
42
and it’s a matter of whether we pass it today on this issue or taking it two more weeks to
deal with it down the road.
Mr. Beck: Okay. Just to clarify what the money is today and then to try to clarify
the direction you’re asking us to possibly go in here, the $20,000 that’s being, that we’re
asking you to move today would be for our share of the demolition of the pool and the
bath house. That’s what this money is for today. What the fire chief is talking about,
part of the original agreement with the Fire Department was that they would participate in
the replacement of the basketball court. And our initial figures have been approximately
$12,000 to put in a non-lighted basketball court which the neighborhood had shown no
interest in having a lighted court up there due to the other court was not lighted as well.
So –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me cut you off one second. I think, I think you’re
correct in terms of where this started and the intentions there. But I think the intentions
of the motion is, is to deal with the combined resources of what’s there in the $20,000
and whatever monies in terms of the chief’s participation, to be able to cover the court
and to deal with a temporary – to cover the pool and doing the temporary courts. I think
– what I think is, I need to know from the standpoint, is there enough money to do that?
Because I think the $20,000 can basically go towards staying in Highland Park, going in
another park, or going quite frankly to wherever the Commission decides to put it. But I
think what, what needs to be clear is, is there enough money if the first motion is to
prevail, is whether or not you’ve got enough resources there to do that?
Mr. Beck: The biggest problem, and I think I did hear that the suggestion was
mentioned about it being in the middle of the tract. That would not be our
recommendation to do that. That is the green space there in the park. The problem, if we
don’t demolish the pool, the only other area we’ve got there in the park until something is
done on a long range basis, would be the parking lot where the pool was at. That would
be the area that, if we put a temporary court up, where I would recommend a temporary
court to go, we’d have to come in with some temporary fencing to do so. But it would
not be my recommendation to put a basketball court out in the green space, it would not
fit in with the master plan of the park. The neighborhood and the park plan to have your
walking around in the park does not fit well with a basketball court in the middle of it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And I’m asking those questions cause what you just said
was one of the objections we ran into earlier in reference to moving it from that particular
spot. Now you’ve got merit in both motions to a point that if you send it back to give
time to work out with the neighbors exactly where you are going to put it up there, but
my concern is, I just want to make sure – cause I think if you’ve got the money to do it
with, you can work out the logistics for where it goes. But I wanted to make sure that,
with either one of the motions if they pass, that you’ve got enough money to do what you
need to do. You had a question?
43
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Thank you. I’m sitting here listening, and I’m trying to
understand now why is it so important to tear down something that’s wide open right
now. And why is it so unimportant to tear down something and not take care of the
community needs for the children? I have a little hard time with this. When I hear tear
down something, I’m not hearing any suggestions on what can be done for our kids for
the summer. Rather, the green space in that tract is not used. We’ve got more weeds
than we’ve got grass. So my thing is, there is nobody picnicking in the green space,
there’s nobody going in, even no Frisbee throwing in the green space. Why not use it on
a temporary basis for the basketball court until we get to the point where we can look at
the big picture of plan C. And Commissioner Hankerson, it’s not anything new. You
brought it to us. So it’s not a new plan. It’s something you brought to us and options,
and we voted on it. All we are saying is, why is there such a hurry to tear down
something that we could cover up and put a fence around it, and it’s wide open land, and
put a temporary court in the middle of that tract on a temporary basis? I mean I’m failing
to understand that. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think it’s the general feeling to get it covered. It’s a
matter of whether we are going to cover it at this point or whether we’re going to wait
and send it back to committee, and actually in time so that with as many ideas that have
[inaudible], I certainly would want to make sure that even if it’s a temporary court, that
neighbors there are in agreement of where it goes. And I mean that’s a shot, quite
frankly, that you all need to call. But I do think from the standpoint that if we do it, and I
think you’ve pretty much got enough votes up here [inaudible] to do it, whether you do it
today or whether you do it in two weeks. But I think the two week option gives you an
option to say okay, this is where we are going to put it, this is how we are going to do it.
If we go today, you’ve still got to go out and meet and deal with it. I would still suggest
that, but the only thing I’m saying is wherever it’s put, I just would like to see,
[inaudible] temporary court is put there, that we are kind of in agreement that that’s
where it goes. Because obviously if we take $20,000, part of it to cover, part of it to deal
with the temporary courts, once that decision is made, that’s where it’s going to go. And
there is not going to be another $20,000 to undo that, even on a temporary basis. So I just
think we need to be some agreement, some accord when that’s done. That’s my only
thing. I can really vote for both motions. I think both of them takes it where it needs to
go. I just want to see it get done. Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I want to know when can we meet
with the neighborhood and make a final decision and that will be the decision, that we
won’t come keeping back and forth? We make a decision, we’re changing on it, we’ve
got a letter, we made a decision what we were going to do with the pool, the neighbors
there that voted on it send a letter for us to remove the pool, now we’re changing back.
Are we going to continue to go back and forth, back and forth? I think we’ve got to come
to a point where we make a decision, that’s going to be the final decision what we going
44
to do. I’m sensitive to the children not having anything to do in the area because of
waiting on the basketball court and so forth. It’s going to be very hot this summer. I
would hope that we could move on, cause I think we’ve had adequate – I personally think
we have had adequate discussion on this issue all evening, and what I’d like to do
personally, I’m sensitive to the children of that community and children of the CSRA, for
the children this summer, I’d like to send 100 kids to the Aquatics Center starting June 1.
I’ll get with the Recreation Department, have your check over there waiting on you for
100 kids to go swimming.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Even though that’s not a part of the motion –
Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: As the longest chairman of that committee, we certainly can
use the money. We appreciate that so much. And I’m wondering now to a point, we’ve
got 1, 2, 3, 4 – we can’t take a vote without one person. But we’ve got two motions
that’s on the floor, and as soon as I get one more Commissioner back in here we’re going
to vote.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And I’m going to direct the director and the neighborhood
to get together on establishing something to get done over in there. And once that’s done,
let [inaudible] said, we’re going to have to move off this now. We’ve got $500 million
worth of projects to discuss in sales tax, is $20,000 is going to keep us for the last
[inaudible] weeks deciding how we are going to do, then we need to at some point get
this one put to bed.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Ms. Johnson here from Highland Park and
she wanted to speak, and so I just [inaudible] I wanted to [inaudible].
Ms. Johnson: Thank you so very much.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Pull the mic to you, Beverly, state your name and address,
please.
Ms. Johnson: Beverly Johnson [inaudible] Hillsinger Road and I’ve lived in
Highland Park now going on about 27 years. But I’ve listened very faithfully and I just
appreciate this discussion for us, and we do thank both Commissioners who are diligently
working on our behalf. However, one other thing I wanted to say, I really do want the
Commissioner board to understand why we selected C. It was the only plan that was
presented to us that encompassed everything. Now, you know, I know we don’t want to
talk about new plans but I want the Commission to understand why we picked C. C was
45
the only one that would give us a pool and the basketball court and everything. We did
not have a plan presented to us which encompassed the outdoor swimming pool and the
community center unless it was separated, and that’s what – our plan was for the whole
[inaudible]. I just wanted to say that was something that was not brought up. Thank you
for your time, but that was the only time that encompassed – if that plan had said a house
and an outdoor swimming pool, reduce the size of the swimming pool, we probably
would have picked that one. But I just wanted to explain that was the only plan that we
had. Thanks so very much.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Johnson, I think that’s a great observation and it’s what
I was talking about, but I may have said it a little more bluntly to point I thought we
needed to be thinking about some other options, because even though it may not be in
that package, every one of those things there has a number, regardless of what one it’s in.
A, B, C, D, and E. And it’s an itemized figure that relates to it and I think what the
Commission is going to have to do, and I just want the neighbors to be receptive to a
point that it needed to be when we get down to discussing what’s going to finally go in
that area, that there is at least some freedom for these two Commissioners to make some
suggestions and change in there, to put something together that might give a lower figure,
but the one that quite frankly, one that will politically fly and get some support on it and
get it down to a number also with what can be adequate [inaudible] that probably has
been part of the best discussion that we’ve had in terms of observation, because I think
they were looking for some direction to be able to get off center on item C in its entirety
to be able to do something else. And I think you’ve given both of them a good
handkerchief and a box of Kleenex to kind of move and to deviate from that. But the
Commissioner from that district, and Andy, if we can kind of wrap up, take a vote on
these motions, and let’s vote.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] I just wanted to [inaudible] the community is here,
they’ve been here several times and the committee, back and forth, neighborhood
meetings. Before we do anything, if the money going to be approved to go ahead and
cover this, just wait until, like Commissioner Hankerson said, we talk again. I think it
would be very wrong to go ahead and destroy and cover up a facility and then turn
around a pay to dig it back out and put something else in that place. We ought to have
something in place. So the temporary solution that [inaudible] suggested, temporary
basketball court and covering the pool right now with this money on the table I think is in
my motion, along with the motion that the chief, if any of his funds can kick in to help
with that, be a part of it. And I think that we are in, we cover the pool, we get a
temporary situation, and we have plenty of time before the sales tax come to come out
with a plan that would include what the neighborhood wanted and not – I think Ms.
[inaudible] said [inaudible]. If you give me a Rolls Royce I’m going to take the Rolls
Royce over a Chevrolet. So I just think that we need to go ahead and vote.
46
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Would you put one more amendment in your motion,
Commissioner?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What’s that, sir?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That is that if we’re going to [inaudible] the motion
prevails, one more amendment I think needs to be in there. That there be a working
group that meets with our staff in determining where you are going to deal with these
temporary courts, because I think there needs to be some harmony even in that so that
there is not a situation as to where it goes on spot A and then there is a disagreement that
is [inaudible] spot B. I think if they going to get down and you going to [inaudible] and
you going to put courts, then I think they can do that. They don’t have to do that in the
confines of this chamber, [inaudible] I think that we got staff that’s workable and
amenable to be able to meet with neighbors to do that, but I think that needs to be in your
motion. They work on that, and go ahead on an resolve [inaudible] voted on, along them
that flexibility to be able to work together and be able to go on and do that.
Mr. Williams: I so move that that be added to my motion that the neighborhood
association, along with Mr. Beck, get together and then come up with a place to be able
to put the temporary court for right now until another plan is feasible for us.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, it’s in there. It’s an amendment to it, on the original
motion. We got two of them. We got a substitute motion and we got an original motion.
Does anybody need them re-read? I’m sorry, Andy, I’m sorry?
Mr. Cheek: Madame Clerk, how long have we been on this issue?
The Clerk: Quite a while.
Mr. Grantham: An hour and 20 minutes.
Mr. Cheek: This is an example of an undeveloped plan to this floor that has held
this Commission and this city hostage. Now in deference to the neighborhood, who I
support and want to see their recreation facility there, the proper procedure, protocol or
decorum to use is to get this worked out in work sessions, and it may take more than one,
and not tie this body up for an hour and 45 minutes over money we don’t have. Now if
we’re going to get in the practice of coming with these issues and letting people come
and talk, which they have the right to do, in how many times in excess of the five minutes
on a given issue, until we get our way or get something put on a list, then that is a very
bad precedent to set for this body. As I’ve said, I support this neighborhood. I remember
the arguments four years ago when the neighbors said they didn’t want the basketball
47
courts because of the bad element that was there, but it sounds like we’ve got some active
and concerned citizens that will police their own neighborhood – I support you. But this
should have been worked out and you should have more than plan C which had a limited
scope. We need to be looking at costing sheets. If Public Works is even aware that we’re
going to take their land for basketball courts, which they’re not, this is an undeveloped
plan that should not have come to this floor, it should have been worked out between
Recreation and the neighborhood and the Commissioners in that district, not take up an
hour and 45 minutes when I’ve got people here running multi-million dollar businesses
that are here to take care of the business of this city, when this plan isn’t ready, and y’all
haven’t left with really anything more than you had when you came here. It’s a
disservice to you, to this body and to this city, and I hope we don’t get into the habit of
doing this every time. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You’ve got a substitute motion which will be voted on first.
All in favor of the substitute motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, what is the substitute motion?
The Clerk: The substitute motion was to refer back to the committee the
reallocation of the SPLOST money to establish costs associated with the covering of the
pool and the temporary basketball courts. The placement of the temporary basketball
courts.
Mr. Boyles: What’s the original motion?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead and read the original motion at the same time,
Madame Clerk. That way, both of them will be read.
The Clerk: The original motion was to reallocate the $20,000 to cover the
Highland Park pool, with the placement of temporary basketball courts to be installed,
and to approve a change order from the Fire Department to assist in the cost of the
placement of the temporary basketball court and to approve a working group consisting
of staff and members of the Highland Park association to determine where the courts will
be placed.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any question from anybody about the nature of the wording
of the motion? Okay, we’re voting on the substitute motion at this time.
The Clerk: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I wasn’t on the floor, so I don’t know what’s going on; I was out
of the room.
48
(Vote on substitute motion)
Ms. Sims and Mr. Colclough out.
Mr. Boyles, Mr. Smith, Mr. Grantham and Mr. Hankerson vote Yes.
Ms. Beard, Mr. Williams, Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Motion fails 4-3.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So the original motion –
The Clerk: The original motion, you want it read over?
Mr. Grantham: Call the question on the original motion, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’re voting. [inaudible].
(Vote on original motion)
Ms. Sims out.
Ms. Beard, Mr. Williams, Mr. Mays and Mr. Cheek vote Yes.
Mr. Boyles, Mr. Smith, Mr. Grantham, and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion fails 4-4-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is no action on either motion. We appreciate the
concern of the citizens. I think what needs to be done is the fact that there needs to be a
meeting, neighbors and Commissioners again, in the neighborhood, and there needs to be
a plan that’s brought forth. I will, I have no problem in supporting where we are
temporarily. I’m still committed to what I did 2, 3, 4 years ago on the six figures of
money that’s going to that park, but we need to at some point settle this, this $20,000
situation here. And I realize in the spirit of democracy at lot of times you’ve got to
discuss and you’ve got to debate things. I just think that when it’s brought back there
needs to be something that’s intact that we can either vote up or down and really not
debate it out. I think it’s had enough debate in the community, in the committee room,
and on the Commission floor.
Mr. Williams: Point of clarification, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: That means that there is nothing to be done, the situation will
remain like it is, nothing, no destroying of anything, everything will be as, as status is
right now, that until we get together with the community, the Commissioners and
anybody else involved, whether it be the district Commissioner, the super district
49
Commissioner, anyone else, everything will remain like it is, there’s no action, is that
right?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is no action at this time. The only thing that can be
done is if before the ending of this regular meeting today, that if two people from one
side [inaudible] decides to deal with a reconsideration and place it back on the floor in
order to get six votes and you [inaudible] one of the motions which basically read
somewhat the same thing, just one doing today and one it two weeks. So yes, something
can be done, but unless it’s reconsidered and done it won’t be, there’s no action. Ms.
Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Chairman, I’m for reconsideration. I wanted to kind of put this
on the fast track to get something done. If it’s going to take another couple of weeks,
then that’s okay with me, I will vote for that to keep things moving. So may we have
[inaudible]?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me get a vote count, Ms. Beard, on what was on those –
Madame Clerk, how many did you have there? Just in terms of the highest number of
either one of them.
The Clerk: Four on the substitute motion voting for.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: How many did you have on the regular motion? Four?
The Clerk: Four.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] ?
The Clerk: Mr. Colclough and Ms. Sims was out. You abstained. You didn’t
vote. And we had three – four for it and three against. Two out and you abstained.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Normally I say we wait till the end of the day, but what I’m
going to do, since we been here this long [inaudible] to deal with it, if somebody wants to
make a motion to vote for reconsideration on either one, I vote for it. If you got
somebody from the other side that [inaudible] if y’all will go ahead and way, that way it’s
not killed, cause you still going to have to talk.
Mr. Cheek: A point of parliamentary procedure.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir?
Mr. Cheek: Can we vote to reconsider the item and them resubmit a new motion?
50
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, it would have to be one of those that’s been voted
down.
Mr. Cheek: An issue to reconsider, I believe, is based upon the issue on the
agenda, and the motion to be made can be based on some movement from the floor.
Mr. Shepard: I think to reconsider the item. Then you make a motion on the
item. Whatever it is. So I mean the first thing that has to be pass is reconsider.
Mr. Cheek: Motion to reconsider the item.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The [inaudible] is open.
Mr. Cheek: Okay, if we’re going to do this thing, we need a second.
Ms. Beard: Second. I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second to reconsider. All in favor of the
motion will do so by the usual sign. The chair votes yes.
Mr. Smith and Ms. Sims out.
Ms. Beard, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Mays
vote Yes.
Mr. Boyles and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Motion carries 6-2.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I can’t tell you how to make it, but I think you know what
you need to make. You got one substitute there and you need to two votes and if
somebody is going to switch, let’s go ahead on and do it and let’s end this particular
situation today. It would be on what was the original substitute deal with them taking it
back.
Mr. Cheek: That’s not in the operating rules of the Commission. It can be a new
motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, it can be a new motion, but I’m just trying to get y’all
one pass, Andy. You were complaining about the time a minute ago.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to throw the two together if I get the chance.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And the neighborhood didn’t take up all the time. We did.
So I mean y’all go on and either put a motion on the floor, it’s reconsidering time, make
one or not. Somebody.
51
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we cover the pool with the
monies that they, the $20,000 plus what the Fire Department is going to do, plus the
basketball area, get with the neighborhood association so we could meet with Mr.
Beck to find a suitable place to put it so we won’t be at odds at where it goes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is that to come back to committee or –
Mr. Williams: That’s the end of it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So that’s the same motion you had before.
Ms. Beard: No, I think it’s different. [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: Just to get this thing off center, I’m going to rule that’s in order,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Cause I’m going to vote for both of them.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s no substitute that’s there. The chair is open to do one.
Mr. Cheek: I’ve got a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Beard seconded it.
Mr. Cheek: May I –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Andy.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to make a motion that we instruct staff to look at the cost
of covering the pool versus demolition of the pool, meet with the neighborhood and
discuss the location of the proposed basketball court because there are some houses very
close to some of the areas, also to look at long term planning outside the box that we’ve
already created for ourselves, develops some realistic cost figures for that area over the
long term, but to come back in two weeks with cost estimate of recovering versus
demolition and meeting with the neighborhood on the temporary location of the
basketball court.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there a second?
Mr. Colclough: You have a second.
52
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. The chair rules there has been
adequate discussion on all of them. And we’ll go to the substitute motion first. All in
favor of the substitute will do so by the usual sign.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Ms. Sims out.
Ms. Beard, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Mays vote Yes.
Mr. Boyles, Mr. Smith, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion fails 4-5.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The original motion.
The Clerk: The original motion is to approve the reallocation of the $20,000 to
cover the Highland Park pool and the placement of temporary basketball courts with a
change order from the Fire Department to assist in the cost of the placement of the
basketball courts and that a working group be established with staff and members of the
neighborhood association to determine the placement of said temporary basketball courts.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You have heard the reading of the original motion and
voting can proceed.
Ms. Beard: I have a question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The chair votes yes quickly. It carries. Adequate
discussion. Original motion carries.
(Vote on original motion)
Ms. Sims out.
Mr. Smith and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Cheek, Mr. Mays, Mr. Williams, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Boyles,
and Ms. Beard vote Yes.
Motion carries 7-2.
The Clerk: Next item?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk:
14. Motion to approve the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and the Chairman of
Administrative Services to establish the position for business development in the
City of Augusta Office of Business Development using the proposed job description,
53
approve advertising and recommend three candidates to the Commission for hiring.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 10, 2004)
Ms. Beard: I believe I asked that that be pulled.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am. Commissioner Beard has the floor.
Ms. Beard: I believe I asked for that to be pulled. I did that because of the
information that came out in reference to the budget. And I simply think we need to hold
off on doing any of these things until we know exactly where we are.
Mr. Boyles: As finance chairman, I second that motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second, until we continue talks in reference to
the City’s financial situation on that particular item. Number 14. Is there discussion?
None to the left, one to the right. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, sir. Is there any window of when we’re going to review
this? Is it going to be at budget season or in six months, or is it just permanently put on
hold until?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Chairman of engineering, let me just say this. I have
only one, one vote and one suggestion, but I plan to, to, to speak with our finance
chairman in reference to this item, and our finance director, along with the administrative
staff. In fact, all of us, something I plan to talk about on Thursday or at least at our next
sales tax situation, that we may in turn, and this is just suggestion but it’s something that
maybe, that you may want to start thinking about today, and that is from the standpoint
that I think from a credibility standpoint as well as from a fiscal standpoint, I think that
the earlier that we may look at what needs to be done in terms of addressing the City’s
general fund situation, and not to say formulating an agenda for sales tax is not important,
but I mentioned a few weeks ago and I was serious when I said that I didn’t think we’d be
doing anything other than barbecuing in July in reference to sales tax. I think we are
going to have to be discussing serious numbers as it relates to our general fund monies
and I think the quicker the better. And so it’s not to say we put sales tax on the back
burner, but I think if we’re going to – and this is just one person’s suggestion, but I think
if we’re going to spend time dealing with addressing workshops and talking about
numbers, it can be some time spent in relationship to earlier than even our current
attorney but past finance chairman’s suggested budget calendar of getting earlier into that
because of different situations and I think seriously to look at some things at that time.
Some that, that, that go into detail, and I say again, I repeat, it’s one person’s suggestion,
but I think there are some optional things we need to be doing. Not only just talking
about it, but I even think to the point of the re-establishment, whether it’s the same people
or not, of the, of the citizens group that looked at examining and determine whether or
54
not there was a lot of fat in previous budgets and to seeing in that manner there were
some very serious findings that were made, even though I was a little disappointed that
that group did not speak in unison. Those who chose to speak spoke very candidly about
where the numbers stood and it’s been over two years ago. There was a group that was
established because there was allegedly the fact that there was so much money that was
laying around, and you had some very astute business people that served from various
parts of this community. I think that needs to be reexamined. I also think we need to
seriously look at what we present to the general public in terms of goods and services that
are delivered, what it costs, what they are compared to in terms of the makeup. We had
an interesting discussion in a business session recently about where Augusta Richmond
stood and its ranking as far as the second largest city but in terms of what we are
expected to do versus where we sit in terms of comparison with other cities and counties.
And when you look at that, you look at the new issues that are developed, and I won’t
even comment on what was discussed in reference to what was allegedly said about a
balanced budget. But my answer to that very quickly was that one of those balanced
budgets that I heard that we didn’t deal with was one that contained a massive property
tax increase and that’s why we rejected it. And I wish that the balance that had been
done in that story would have been to respond and to ask some of us or to check the
record and to see what was presented in that so-called balance budget, because it
contained one that would have dealt with almost a five mil tax increase for this city, and
it was the Commission that put the brakes on and dealt with other ideas as to how we
were to deal with it. So I think that if we’re going to talk about that, we need to talk
about all of those things. So I think we may need to look at a shifting of gears in terms of
getting into this season and dealing with this budget very early, and when you start
talking about the action that the State has just taken and to a point that I’m not, I said
something [inaudible] and I’m going to hold my peace on that, Mr. Attorney, but I think
it’s very interesting to a point that one government has decided how 159 others will
decide how they do all of their business, and yet they carve out a way in order to do
theirs. And so I think we’ve got a lot more to talk about than just what we’ve been
dealing with and what’s going to fall on the sales tax agenda. That’s on money that we
may get. What we deal with in general fund operations and what we’re going to have to
charge our citizens and what they expect in return of services. I think we need to, if
anything, if we’re going to deal with workshops that are going to take up two or three
hours at a time, we may need to start talking about how we plan to balance and deal with
this year’s budget and how we are going to do that. That’s going to be my suggestion on
it. It’s just one person and obviously 11 of us will have to get together and make that and
to, and to come off with good, sound advice, and quick answers are not going to solve it.
It didn’t solve it two to three years ago when we were in trouble and had to deal with it.
Those of us who had to put our noses to the grindstone and know what we had to do, had
to work that out. Some of us – Tommy, you [inaudible] as a Commissioner but
[inaudible] department head, there are going to be some decisions made and they’ll be
tougher on [inaudible] doing that. I yield to the attorney.
55
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and members of the Commission,
I believe the memorandum has gone out to the department heads that they need to have
th
the proposed cuts in by the 25. And so my suggestion is that if – and I believe the
st
administration was tasked to return around the 1 of June with a proposal for
consolidating those cuts. And therefore, you know, with that you’re going to have to
retask the department heads to a different deadline or you’re going to have to work within
the framework that’s been set. And so I just make that as a piece of information to the
chair. I think there were some previously planned SPLOST presentations. Here again,
that’s the will of the body who do you want to hear, but I thought the administration had
prepared a SPLOST agenda for Thursday, and I don’t know if that’s quick enough for
them to shift gears. That’s just, that’s just my observance.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I wasn’t suggesting doing a disservice to that, but
what I was saying in terms of talking among ourselves, that we need to seriously be
considering that, and I made a statement the other day, even when we were there at the
riverfront, in terms of how we were talking on one side, because when the general public
considers what we spend, they a lot of times are not following the different pockets of
money of where items are coming from. And when you, when you, when you confuse
[inaudible] on one hand that you’ve got money to build everything, and then yet on the
other hand you have little monies to operate a lot of what you may be planning to build,
then it’s time I think that you’ve got to seriously look at where and how those items go
and then coupled again with what has happened on the State level to have to deal with it,
you have a different type of boxing in, and even with the directive that we sent to
department heads, I think we’re looking at a glaring example sitting right here in the
room. I think you are dealing with a 6% and we’re looking at one department that deals
with the Commission’s business and the clerk’s office where we’re looking at it being
25% down and is not really asking to fill it. So it’s 19% over what’s been suggested. So
we’re going to have to look at larger places of departments in terms of looking at those
budgets, because some of these smaller areas to a point when you say six, some may
already be observing six and beyond six and they’re not making a dent in the $4 million.
So I think we’ve got some serious talking to do. I don’t mean to disrupt what we’re
talking about on Thursday, but I was just going to suggest that maybe when we finish
that, that we need to start planning something else to talk about, and it may have to end
up being more than once a week in terms of when we talk about it. Commissioner
Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mays, thank you very much. I think that when we met in
finance, we said we were going to come back and meet with this information the first
week in June, and I had tentatively, without talking to all the members of the finance
committee, was hoping that we could meet on June 2 at o’clock. It’s Wednesday
afternoon, and maybe we could get something going and not interfere with what we’re
doing with the sales tax. Because that was the original plan, when the information was
released. I think the finance committee was aware that we were going to face this
56
problem because some of us on the committee were here last year, so we knew that this
was going to hit us. And I think that we’re probably, in my opinion, we’re prepared to
handle it. But I would like to tentatively, without checking with all the members of the
finance committee, to look at Wednesday, June 2, at one o’clock, so we could start those
deliberations.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think you’re correct. I think you are on track. But I just
wanted to remind us as we talk about these things [inaudible] in the essence of time, if we
going to get burnt out, we better get burnt out on how we going to balance and deal with
that budget on general fund operations as opposed to what’s going to happen with sales
tax. Cause what’s going to happen with sales tax to a certain extent is going to occur, and
I’m not saying we stop talking about it, but what we better start talking about is how we
are going to deal with, what we’re going to deal with with making up that gap in that
shortfall and coupled with what the State is basically said. I think you’re [inaudible]
corner that you are not going to have a lot of options to deal with.
Mr. Boyles: I think you’re absolutely right, and some of us have wondered why if
the sales tax doesn’t expire until December 31 of ’05, why we have jumped into it as
quick as we have. And I think Commissioner Williams and I have talked about that
many times and maybe we should be year-and-a-half ahead or a year and actually nine
months ahead when we started talking about the next issue of sales tax. So – but I agree
completely with you that our concern right now should be on the balancing of the 2004
budget.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I have an answer for you as to why [inaudible].
Mr. Boyles: We probably needed to. We probably all know.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I had had [inaudible] I shuffled enough papers now
[inaudible] funny story in the morning, but I’m going to recognize Commissioner
Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. We worked very hard on this
position and coming up with the duties and responsibilities of this position. I know that
we are in the budget crunch, but in being, and traditionally we are. A position like this is
real necessary. It’s necessary because three times in the duties and responsibilities of this
particular individual and it says in the job description that they would collaborate with
business owners, civic leaders, government officials to locate, promote and retain
business opportunities. That’s going to help our tax base if we have somebody constantly
working to do that. Facilitate entrepreneurs, business partners and networks, serve as
resource to entrepreneurs seeking space for their operations. One of the other duties is to
collaborate with businesses, agencies, public officials and lenders to maximum access to
loan funds. And this position is very important. I think this position that we have been
57
talking about, we need someone to community with the businesses that are located here
now, to know whether there’s a problem so they won’t be leaving, slipping out like,
leaving us like the Bi-Lo situation. If we had that particular person to talk to these
business owners when they have problems or when they see that their firm is relocating
to another city, we need that go-to person. So this is, this would be a go-to person and I
think that the, the title of the position that was recommended by Ms. Beard -- the City of
Augusta office of business development is a very good title for people to know that we
have somebody in place. I know it’s crucial times cause we looking for funds, but we
have some funds in HND that will fund this job for the rest of the year. So we was
talking about that anyway that if this position would be approved, that the first – until the
end of this year we have enough funds in HND that can fund this position so it won’t
have no bearings on the budget. The person can come on board with the understanding
that it’s until the rest of the year or until we find some funds to fund the budget. So with
that in mind, I would hope that we would consider just to refer this item until after the
Mr. Boyles just announced that the finance committee will
finance committee meets.
meet June – the first week in June, June 2, I believe he said, that we refer this item,
and we can still go forward with this item if the fundings – I know the fundings are
available, that we can still hire this person for until the end of the year, and we
would have somebody on board really working in place to promote businesses and
do the other things that the job description requires, so we don’t have to hold this
position up. We can fund it for the rest of the year. I’d like to put that in the form
of a substitute motion.
Mr. Grantham: I’ll second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second that the position be approved as is
through the remainder of this year.
Mr. Grantham: [inaudible]
Mr. Hankerson: The motion was that we defer it until after the finance committee
meets and then we come back and discuss it, but I do know that we have funds for the
rest of the year, so at that time we can decide whether we want to go ahead and use the
funds that we have allocated in HND for a position such as this until the rest of the year.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I was just trying to help the [inaudible]. [inaudible] y’all
are quick on that left side today. [inaudible] Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor pro Tem. I’m in, I’m in agreement, I
understand what Commissioner Hankerson said and even Commissioner Grantham with
his second. But when I think about the programs that we had within this city that we
didn’t get any support on, the nutrition program for seniors that was brought up and we
was in a panic about that, closing some of the facilities when the budget was not right –
58
you know, it’s – somebody has got to make some tough decisions and you have to make
those decisions. I don’t want to leave a position I’m working in to go to a temporary
position for six months, hoping that it will be funded for the next time. I think that’s very
unfair to the employee. And once we get a person, 9 out of 10 times we don’t want to see
that person just walk away, especially if they do a good job. But if we’re talking about
now what a crunch we in, I think we got time to come back and look at this situation after
we sit down with our numbers and make sure our numbers in place and the thing we need
to have, the cuts we need to make and where those cuts going be. But we always get the
horse behind the cart and then we want him to pull it. He can’t pull it from behind, he’s
got to be in front. I just, I hear the [inaudible], I understand what they’re saying, but I
totally disagree for hiring somebody for six months on a temporary situation and then
have to make a decision to let them go or not let them go. So that’s my comment, Mr.
Mays.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Beard? I’m sorry.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mays, I am probably getting off the subject, but I am concerned
about our budget and I was very interested in David’s memorandum in reference to that.
You know, you just, you hate to be in this position every year. The same thing every
year. We don’t quite have enough to do the things we need to do. Like you said, we can
put the standard band aid on things or we can restructure. What did you call it, the zero
base?
Mr. Persaud: [inaudible]
Mr. Beard: I really do think we should look at revamping our method of handling
this budget, and it can’t be done in two hours. We need a few days some place to go and
work together, get things under control so that we will never have the problem again.
And so this is really basically what I’m saying. I, aren’t we all tired of the way things are
going, watching this every year? You sit out there, have us go over and over and over
this type thing. I know we can do a good job here, and I think we have the right person in
place to get us on the right track. And I would like to see us take the time to get it
straight and move forward. I watched my husband deal with this every year, every year.
Not one year, every year. You know, I don’t propose to do that. So I’m hoping we can
look forward to some type of retreat or something, and if we don’t have the money we’ll
pay for it, and let’s go somewhere and get our thoughts together.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: A very good observance, Madame Commissioner. We have
two motions that are on the floor.
Mr. Hankerson: Just a final comment on it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sure.
59
Mr. Hankerson: And what I was saying, I wanted to make us aware that the
money is already – we have the money for the rest of the year in HND’s budget under
that ombudsman project that [inaudible] had already spoken to me about, and we was
going to use that anyone if the position had been approved, so there is money for it.
Ms. Beard: That is what he kept reminding us of when he wrote his report, that
when we do these things, we have to think of the years ahead, and if there isn’t – if the
funds aren’t available then we are in trouble.
Mr. Hankerson: But the funds are available, Ms. Beard [inaudible].
Ms. Beard: Only for this month.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
Ms. Beard: I’m sorry.
Mr. Hankerson: If we don’t use the funds, we’ll lose the funds. This has no
bearing on the budget.
Ms. Beard: I’m not for something I know I can’t do, let’s say, for the next 10 or
20 years.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there any further discussion or any questions on either
one of the motions that’s on the floor? If not, let’s vote on the substitute motion first.
We’ll go ahead and vote on one or both of these motions.
Mr. Smith: Can you read the motion again?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The substitute motion was to defer until the June 2, 2004
finance work session. The original motion was to hold until further budget discussions.
Ms. Beard’s motion was to hold until further discussion. The substitute motion was to
defer until after the June 2 work session.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to vote. All in favor of
the substitute motion which carries us up to the specific date in the motion will do so by
the usual sign. [inaudible] will do by the usual sign of voting [inaudible] substitute
[inaudible] raise their hands.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Hankerson, Mr. Smith, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Grantham, Ms. Sims, Mr. Boyles,
Ms. Beard, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Mays vote Yes.
60
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Item 15.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
The Clerk:
15. Motion to direct the Administrator’s Office to start the advertising of the
Deputy Administrator’s position. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
May 10, 2004)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I had that pulled. I just wanted to know is
that going to be effective immediately or what? What’s, what status? That’s all I need to
have answered. So move, but I just need to know is that effective immediately or?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think the intent of the committee, if I
remember correctly, was to advertise as soon as it was ratified by the Commission and
once done so, we’re prepared to advertise as quickly as we can thereafter, sometime in
the next few days or a week or so.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, there’s a motion and a second. That gets us started.
Commissioner Grantham had his hand up first.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I was, I was looking at
this as if we needed to address it very similar to what we did in item 14, and I think
that our budget, our finance budget session is going to be very important to the
future of what we’re going to do with positions, and what we’re going to do with
money, and I feel like this item needs to be deferred as well, so I therefore offer a
substitute motion that we defer item 15 until after the June 2 finance budget
hearing.
Ms. Sims: Second.
61
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a substitute motion and a second. Did you get that,
Madame Clerk? I’m sorry.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, that was to defer to after the June 2 budget work session.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Andy?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. On this position, I just wanted to
throw out just a comment for thought. Since we do have a budget crunch, since that’s not
likely to clear up in the immediate future, this may be an opportunity for us to look to our
department heads and assistant department heads to temporarily assigned one of them to
the position, which I don’t know the detail differential in that, and allow some of our
assistant department heads to rise instead [inaudible] and that way you will have
somebody to fill that deputy position while allowing a deputy in a department to take the
leadership role, while maintaining that knowledge base within the government, which
may help us to grow our staff from within and start developing our management
employees to take those leadership positions within our government. I’m certain within
the ranks of our department heads we do have some talented individuals and deputies
under them in their departments where we could look at that, and that may, at this point
in time, allow us to move an upper level administrative position without the additional
cost of hiring a new person, which just a slight 10% or 20% differential [inaudible]
depending on salary changes. I just wanted to offer that for thought. I agree with
Commissioner Grantham, we need to wait until after we have our budget workshop to
come up with our numbers.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I thank Mr. Cheek for his comments and being on the
Administrative Service Committee, as chair of the committee, in our discussions, while
we [inaudible] this position filled, because there is a shortage in that area, and with all
respect to Commissioner Grantham’s motion I’m more looking at – we’re in a position
now, I guess, this afternoon or first thing in the morning, we’ll know whether we have an
administrator or not – so I’m concerned on the coverage in the department and the
administrative office. It’s going to take us probably six months to even fill this position,
so that’s why I [inaudible] that we would go on and start advertising for the position,
cause we probably may be advertising for two positions, to have the adequate coverage.
You know, we already one short of two personnel, two persons short in the administrative
office, and we ought to have [inaudible] Mr. Russell working there, and each one of those
administrators have a portfolio. And if we’re saying now one administrator or one
deputy administrator can do what three, then I’m kind of concerned whether we needed
three in the first place. But I think there’s a lot of work to be done, and the idea that Mr.
Cheek, Mr. Cheek brought forward and we need to go back to Administrative Service,
that’s something that we need to consider in the whole budget plan and how we going to
62
attack this deficit and I think it’s a good idea, but all of this need to come from various
methods. We already have one method from the finance director that we received last
week, and it came out after we this was on the agenda. But we need to look at that, and
there’s several option that we need to look at. So I think we need to go ahead and start
advertising the position. We advertise it and start the process, that does not mean that we
are hiring right now. It’s going to take six months, at least six months to fill the position.
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other questions? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I agree with Commissioner Hankerson. We looking at this office
for the assistant, maybe even the administrator, but if we going do something at least get
the process started, at least we can get a committee together or something. I mean we
going to wait – when we see the storm coming we just going to stand there and say it’s
going to go around us. [inaudible] This is something that’s been on the agenda, I mean
something that been in our government for a while, something we ought to been done
something already, we was told that [inaudible] hold the job open for 120 days. These
are crucial positions. These are positions that need to be filled. We have a problem with
public works. We can’t find anybody. We been looking and looking, and if there’s a
problem we need to know how to solve the problem. But we going to wait until the last
minute, then go out and pursue it. I, I think we been cautious about the money, but I
don’t know why we been so cautious today when we voted on some issues that was, was
truly out of character for this government. We wasn’t cautious then, but now everybody
wants to get cautious about it and it something we ought to be doing all the time. We got
to make some hard decisions. Decisions that [inaudible] this community, this [inaudible],
we need to make. So I just think the longer you prolong it the more trouble you going get
in, and we need to be proactive and no reactive.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Commissioner, I actually – this is not anything I feel I need to
share at this time, approve the assistant administrator. I honestly think we need to look at
the position of the administrator. Now if he has gone out and he is looking at obtaining
jobs elsewhere, then that should be a signal for us, that we need to begin looking at that.
And I am for a committee to be formed to come up and make some decisions or
recommendations in reference to our administrator.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other Commissioners who have anything to say at this
point? We have a motion and a substitute motion that’s on the floor. I share this
[inaudible], I, I don’t think, I tend to agree with Commissioner Beard. I don’t really think
either motion comes where, quite frankly, where I would want to go today. I think the
substitute probably covers it more from the standpoint that I think in the next 48 hours,
there’s been a lot of [inaudible] on both sides of the motion, to a point of something being
63
done, but then if it’s not then it’s where I think her, her idea comes into play, that we are
going to soon have to talk about to a point not in terms of who is number 2 and number 3,
but who is in terms of number 1. And that’s where I am on it, and I’ve not just got there
on it. And I’m real honest about it. So I also think to a point of trying to deal with
number 2, or the [inaudible] of it, if you’re going to have to get on board to deal with,
with the top position very soon, I think you’re going to have to leave some space
realistically as to who is going to surround that person in a team effort in terms of the
administrative staff that’s there. So I personally, in a massive effort, to deal with number
2 to a certain extent. I do think adequate help is needed in there, but I think if you get the
budget dropped on you right now, and hypothetically in 48 hours you are one person over
in that office and that person is Fred Russell, I think you are going to have to go back to
what Andy has said to a point that you’re going to have to look from within very quickly
in terms of dealing with some things until you hire somebody. Now I’ve been down that
road before, and when you go through headhunters or foothunters or witchdoctors, but
the point being, you’ve got to have some folk in here with the experience of working over
and assistance – David and those getting us through a season that’s going to be probably
be one of the most difficult since 1990 and whether you get the job [inaudible] tomorrow
or next week, I don’t think in that area is going to really solve what your real problem is.
So I agree with the lady that’s going to have to represent me in 20 months after I leave,
cause she’ll be a Commissioner and I’ll be John Q. private citizen, but I’m going to,
Madame Clerk, call for the vote on the substitute motion. And I am going to, quite
frankly, today I am going to vote dramatically present on both of them. If it gets to that
point. The substitute motion is to –
Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] let me ask a question to get to where Ms. Beard want
to get to and this is a personnel issue and I think personnel issues ought to come back to
administrative service and we discuss it in the committee. I mean right now, that wasn’t
a motion she made, that was a consideration that we look at as far as the administrator’s
position. And you know, if that could be an agenda item on administrative service
agenda, at our next administrative service committee I think we could address, properly
address that. We do need to think about somebody in that position and as Mr. cheek was
naming, you know, making suggestions, and right now the number 1 position is not
vacant, but the number 2 position, we lost two positions in that department, deputy
administrator, assistant to the administrator. Those positions were, are vacant. At least
one I know we are – the deputy administrator’s position that we’re looking at. That
office required three deputy administrators and one administrator. The positions are there
for that, the slots are there for those. We may have to look back at – when you say get
somebody experienced, we may have to call Walter Hornsby back out of retirement and
let him come and sit in until we get somebody through the process. I think that – because
you need somebody in there. If it happens tonight – the media may already know. We
don’t know yet whether, what happened in Florida, Fort Lauderdale today. But if it
happens and Mr. Kolb leave us, we got a process for that time and we need to have
somebody in that position as soon as possible, somebody that is experienced in the
64
position, along with Mr. Fred Russell, that’s been doing a great job and I think that we
can continue to operate the office. So if we would, on Mr., on Commissioner Williams’
motion, I think I seconded that motion, but if we could also add amendment, I’m trying to
get it in, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, on making that agenda item for the administrative, for the
administrator’s position, in the next administrative service meeting.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: He can either accept it, Commissioner Hankerson, or not.
The agenda would not be restrictive of the motion.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] just put it on there, it will be on there.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, you want to read both of those motions in
there?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The substitute motion was to defer the advertising of the
deputy administrator’s position until after the June 2 work session. The original motion
was to start the media advertising of the deputy administrator’s position.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is that clear? I think [inaudible] commentary. I think
[inaudible] wanting to make sure. And it’s clear [inaudible] position that is there.
You’ve got – gentlemen, let’s try and wrap this one up. [inaudible] whichever one of you
twins [inaudible]. We’re in the middle of the vote.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to go back to what I said earlier. Right now the point is
that we do have an administrator and a deputy and we just recently completed the
assessments of the department heads, so now might be a good time to put together a
committee with the administrator, deputy administrator, Mayor Pro Tem and chairman of
administrative services to give a list, a short list of potential candidates for a rotational
assignment, temporarily assigned and moved up, to see if we do have the capability to
shuffle people around if we determine we want to save that amount of money.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Item 45 I had put on the agenda
to discuss the administrator’s contract. We talking about the assistant administrator and
the same thing [inaudible] if we need to do something on that level. I guess when that
item come up we can go back into this, this discussion or we can add 45 into it now. I
don’t know how y’all –
65
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The chair is going to rule you’ve got to stay with the item
that’s there.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Not co-mingle.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] but I was just trying to share [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Will allow the commentary on it, and particularly
[inaudible] deal with that one when you get to it.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: My only comment along the response that Commissioner Cheek
had is in forming a committee, is that I’m in hopes of that doing that we’re going to use
our public sector, the public industry throughout this community as far as people who are
experienced in hiring, that we include them on that type of committee, and if we use as
strong a resource that we can in making sure that we do come up with a committee that’s
going to bring us the most qualified candidates that we can get. That was just a comment
that I wanted to make.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the substitute motion will do so by the usual
sign. Is the machine still out, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Apparently. We can try it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The substitute motion –
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Defer any action on the deputy administrator’s position until
after the June 2 work session.
Mr. Boyles: Are we voting?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: The original motion, would you read the motion?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, no, no, sir, the motion – we’re in the process of voting.
You’ve got to state whether you vote yes, no or abstain.
66
The Clerk: The motion we’re voting on is to defer until after the June 2 work
session. That’s the substitute motion.
Ms. Beard: And what is the motion?
The Clerk: That’s it. You voted yes. Yes, ma’am, I’m sorry. Mr. Williams, are
you going to vote on this motion?
Mr. Williams: Vote no.
The Clerk: Okay.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Smith, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Cheek, Ms. Beard, Ms. Sims and
Mr. Boyles vote Yes.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Those three – we’ve got some items that are here, but we’ve
got people related outside the government, three that are on still on there. If we can do
27, 29 and 35 in that order, please.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
27. Receive recommendation(s) from staff regarding the replacement of the
docks at the Augusta Riverfront Marina.
Mr. Speaker: Mayor Pro Tem, Commissioners, [inaudible] representing the
Augusta Ports Authority. I am the chairman of that authority. Approximately a week
ago I met with public works, with the intent of describing the need for replacement and
restoration of the docks at the lower marina, which [inaudible] public ramps. Those
docks service two major river events, the regatta events which are sponsored by the ports
authority, as well as the drag racing events, and are responsible for bringing in last year a
minimum of $3.5 million in revenue. The docks themselves are in need of repair. We’ve
had people come down and look at them, identifying the problems, and I’ve been asked
to come here basically with three quotes for replacement and restoration of the docks so
we can continue with the river activities, the first of which is programmed for the middle
of July. You do not, I don’t think, have an your agenda or folders the figures for the
estimates because they weren’t available at the time I requested the agenda. I do have
them now and they’re basically all very competitive. The replacements would be made
67
with a synthetic or plastic material with warranty guarantees for [inaudible] 7 to 8 years.
We should get at least 15 to 20 years of service out of them. They would be constructed
in such a way that [inaudible] portability. They can be moved and the estimates I have
are based on material cost, the installation cost, and the anchorage cost required to put
them into position.
Mr. Speaker: What’s the number?
Mr. Speaker: The number varies from the first quote, which is not a confirmed
quote because I could not get a follow-up [inaudible] was $46,000+ from a company up
in Minnesota. And this would not include installation, nor did it include any other
construction or cost of any backup help. The second cost is $54,000, a company in south
Georgia, and it represents – it’s a company called Connect A Dock. And the third was
from a North Carolina company for $55,000. And recommendations [inaudible] the
second quote because it is the most competitive quote. It also represents the structure and
the qualifications that we need for the events.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell:
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we’ve been working with [inaudible] in
reference to this. As you know, [inaudible] or came to a committee meeting. We did
take some emergency action in that area. We had our risk management people and the
Recreation Department go down and look at the docks. We made some temporary
repairs on the area that’s being used by the rowing clubs so they can continue to use that.
We did close the other area, the area that he’s talking about in reference to the speed boat
races or summer nationals, [inaudible] and that area was closed temporarily. We agreed,
after looking at it with this recommendation to replace the docks, there is funding
What I would suggest the motion
available in the capital outlay budget to do this.
might need to be is allow us to do that with the objection of looking at the lowest
responsible bid [inaudible] take a look at that with us, and use that as an emergency
situation where we can go ahead and do that under the direction of Ms. Sams, get a
replacement so we can get that available by July 1.
That’s concurrence of both the
Recreation Department, Ms. Sams and the administrator’s office.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Cheek: We are going to coordinate with the port authority on their
information?
68
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir we are going to take that into – obviously, he’s already done
a lot of groundwork for us and we’d like to include him in that. I meant to say that. He’s
done a lot of groundwork and we greatly appreciate that.
Mr. Cheek: And we’re going to make the deadline; right?
Mr. Russell: We anticipate being able to, sir.
Mr. Speaker: I think we could look at a delivery time from the point of decision
making of about 2-1/2 weeks. [inaudible] includes installation prices, as well.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of that motion – it has a second, I believe. All
in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
29. Consider a request by Ms. Jean Lovell for an exemption from the City’s solid
waste collection program for the Gaskins Mobile Home Park, Augusta Estates
Mobile Home Park and Carmell Mobile Home Park.
Ms. Lovell: Hello, my name is Jean Lovell. I have, I live at [inaudible] Drive in
Augusta, Georgia, and I am the vice president and director of our company, which we
have three manufactured home communities. I am here to try to request to be exempted
from the solid waste pickup that we now have. If you will look at the letter that Ms.
Bonner has given you, it explains to you why I’m asking for this request. We have a lot
of elderly people, also we have low income people that lives in our parks, and we have
tried every way in the world to try to give them a decent and secure place to live. And
we cannot, you know, go up on these people on their rent any more than what we already
have, because they just cannot afford it. And we can’t afford to pay the cost that these
solid wastes is costing us because we’re being charged for each individual resident. And
the apartment complexes aren’t charged that way. They have dumpsters and that’s what
we’re requesting to have, is we want to change from the canister for the residents, to set
up dumpsters. And we plan, if you will exempt us from this and I know it’s a decrease in
the income coming to the county, but with the expenses that we have, we’re trying to pay
for these communities and we try to provide security services, which the people need
very badly, and all the expenses that we have, we cannot afford this. This has gone – our
expenses on these parks for just solid wastes during the two years that you have enforced
this on us, that it gone about $7,500 a month and we was paying less than $3,000 a
month, and Mr. Brown here was, he was doing our pickup and everything for us and we
69
had not problems whatsoever. We kept clean communities and now then, this $7,500 a
month is just too much. We can’t afford it because we’re paying $22,000 a month
payments on the parks, plus our payroll, plus our insurance. Which is about $20,000 a
month for all three parks. And everything else we’ve got. I know that doesn’t concern
y’all but it does us because of the income we’re taking in. And we’re only taking in
about $50,000 a month, and for all of this to come out of that $50,000 a month, we can’t
afford it. I mean we’ll have to go bankrupt. That’s what my boss said. He told me, he
said if we don’t get some help somewhere along the line, we can’t afford these expenses,
we just can’t do it because we’re pulling out of pocket to put in these parks to try to pay
this stuff. With the taxes and everything that’s added to that, you know, that’s a
[inaudible] sum for us to have to pay monthly. So I want Mr. Brown here to tell you how
he will provide service if you would exempt us from this. And I sure would appreciate it.
The service is a good service y’all have set up. I don’t have any complaints with it
whatsoever, because I have the service at my home and it has cleaned up the county, but
as far as being charged per resident for each one of our residents that’s in our community,
we just can’t afford to pay it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Before I go to you, Mr. Brown, let me ask first – the
attorney had a question, as well as Commissioner Cheek. And we may need to
[inaudible] you may need to answer. We move to Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I may have encouraged Ms.
Lovell to come down here [inaudible] was a Commissioner, and I was remembering the
case of the Hickman Park Apartments which were early on exempted, and they
apparently had pre-existing trash service. [inaudible] and she said that was the reason.
This would be one of the first we would exempt after have had the service. And I remind
the Commissioners that there are discussions ongoing between the administration which
started last week and the haulers for a unit cost pricing system and a change may be in the
offing during the contract year that ends on, I think it’s June 3 or June 4. I think that
because, now we have some information that this gentleman provided her service before
she was – for the parks she represents – put in the container system. I would strongly
recommend that we’re going to have to have some kind of exemption policy and I think
Ms. Smith would join my recommendation that during the course or renegotiating these
hauler contracts we also have a policy established exemption so that everybody gets
treated the same. And like I say, I may have encouraged her to come forward at this time
and I’m, I don’t want to, don’t want to indicate that more inconsistent than I already am,
but I think because we decided to revisit the contracts since I talked to her, then an
exemption policy ought to be part of that process. And I know that’s not a good thing for
you, Ms. Lovell, but I think if you exempt this one, I don’t know where you are going to
stop. So with other situations, that may be similar. I think you set a rule and you treat
everybody the same. She has a complaint that is costing her parks too much money. But
I am, I’m of the opinion that after the discussions have moved forward with the haulers
last week that we come back with an exemption policy and not do it piecemeal. So I
70
would not say that we necessarily deny her, but that we not take action until after the
policy is established as to what the price is going to be, how we’re going to have
contracts after the negotiations. And I know the administration has said this is going to
be on a fairly fast track and I think the deadline [inaudible] Teresa, you and I met last
week, [inaudible]?
Ms. Smith: That is correct. And we are actually looking at having some
preliminary solutions identified for this within the next 30 to 60 days if at all possible.
That’s the direction we’re working in to cause that to happen.
Mr. Shepard: Sixty days would be mid-July. I thought it was going to be earlier.
You have a recollection of the meeting as well as I do, but I would suggest that this
matter be handled in the process of the renegotiation of those contracts when public
works comes back with its recommendation. I [inaudible] the lady, and you may want to
give her [inaudible], but I have to just indicate to you that if you give this one that relief,
there may be others coming forward. You have a situation where you are trying to keep
the cost of the service to the consumer reasonable and you’re also wanting to cover your
expenses in this program. So my recommendation would be to withhold action on this
until public works comes back with is recommendation.
Ms. Lovell: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: You know, I would be remiss if I did not tell the board their
options, and – if I could address it, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I have got to say I did
encourage you to come down and state your case, but since I gave you that indication,
either as a Commissioner or as attorney, not your attorney, but as city attorney, I’ve got
to say I think the whole process needs to be a consistent, a consistent [inaudible] package,
so if somebody does want the exemption, everybody gets treated the same who qualifies
for those exemptions. If there are other trailer parks out there and you grant this
exemption, then where are you going to stop? And if you authorize it, then that’s fine,
too, but then how are you going to cost out your service so it pays for itself? Those are
financial questions and [inaudible] questions and I don’t want to ignore it totally but I
think you’ve got others who have to pay for the service if she doesn’t pay a part of it.
And here again, I’m just laying out those options for you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Engineering chairman?
Mr. Cheek: On this [inaudible], there is a cost impact [inaudible] solid waste of
$59,475 as a result of the three parks being exempted. They have come here with
probably the plan that needs to be the template for any exemption in that they’re looking
for the same exact services. Instead of trash cans, it’s going to be dumpsters, with
eviction coverage and I guess [inaudible] items, solid waste types of things and yard
waste, so they’ve done a very good job of doing their homework, and that’s one of the
71
reasons I feel comfortable with coming today and [inaudible] in light of this being a
business, we should mandate that they have this type of coverage, every business in a
residential area should have this type of coverage. They have Mr. Brown, who is the
finest of the finest in this city who literally has work – he works seven days a week to
keep his customers satisfied. Never in my life have I ever had so many people come up
to me and say they are happy with solid waste and know Mr. Brown by name because of
his work ethic and quality of work, and he’s one of the smaller guys that we need to
protect in the future. There is a cost impact on this. I don’t know how much of a delay,
how much y’all can bear in waiting on this until we get an exemption policy in place. It
is a legitimate concern for a small business. [inaudible] they can provide the same
service for themselves privately at a lower cost, which is a legitimate argument in my
case, in my book. But this is one I’m going to throw on the body of the Commission at
this time with solid waste being in negotiation. I don’t know that we can bear additional
costs, but there again, I don’t want them to go out of business because we’re driving up
the cost of doing business beyond their reach.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Brown, we’re going to hear from you at this time.
[inaudible] your name real well. Just state your address for the record.
Mr. Brown: 2212 Windsor Spring Road.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s James Brown.
Mr. Brown: J. B. Brown. They call me James Brown. Thank you for giving us
the opportunity to provide service for the county. I am one of the private small haulers
and it have been a privilege and a good opportunity to help provide service for this
county. This young lady called me about three months ago and she asked would I come
in a provide service for [inaudible] and I said yes. And she said she had to come before
the board and I know how you guys is so I said I don’t want to be part of that cause I’m
partaker of the system. I don’t want to put a bad taste in nobody’s mouth. But I do need
to work. Mr. Cheek said the beginning of the contracts, this would be a great opportunity
for the small haulers, but you guys can advance over and be partakers of other things.
And this opportunity here would give me a great opportunity to go in commercial
hauling. And I would love to have it, although we have to get you guys’ approval. I did
tell her that we would provide brand new containers, enclosed space for the containers,
concrete foundation, sterilize the units twice a week, and eviction – we would have a
[inaudible] truck come in and provide service for that. Everything would be in order,
everything would be on schedule. We would try our best to provide service for these
three estates as she requested.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any questions of Mr. Brown, any questions period? Mr.
Williams?
72
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. To Mr. Brown, who I know as
well, and I thank you for your service. And to the young lady who trying to get
something done, I sympathize with you but I’m listening to our attorney, who I’m in
agreeing with, and the reason I’m in agreeing with, there are a lot of people in your
position now. You’re not the only one. When, when we set this up, we thought about
how the low income and the people who maybe not owning a business, just low income
people as well – we may need to look at some things that we’re not doing as a
government, that we’re not collecting on some of those areas where we should be
collecting at. I’m thinking about the Laney Walker area now, when all those homes was
destroyed and they moved those cans. I walk out and see three and four cans in front of
some of those houses. I know you see it, Mr. Brown, cause you’re in the garbage
business. I got people calling me saying they won’t pick up my can and I go by there and
that’s not the right can for that house. But we have not been a good steward ourselves as
to making sure those cans are where they’re supposed to be and those people are paying.
We got private haulers such as yourself [inaudible] cans, and if they [inaudible], you pick
it up. If it’s off color, you might question a little bit. But I said all that to say that I’m
sympathetic but I’d really like to have a plan in place that if we going to do this, cause
this is going to be a floodgate. We done seen it before and we going to see it again if we
approve this. Also, to you Mr. Brown, being a private hauler, working for this
government, you know the history of previous haulers in this town and, and when you
work for a private firm, have your own private business along with the city, you know,
there’s some things happened in the past that we still have not got clear yet. So you
setting yourself up. Folks don’t want you succeed in anything it don’t look like. So I’m,
I’m, I’m being honest with you. I’m being across the table with you. You need to look at
what you’re doing. Once you commit to doing that, then your, your, your, your, your
other business going be watched as well, and, and, and I don’t put anything past anybody.
We [inaudible] day and time when may will do all manner of things and I see it coming
true every day. But I just wanted to make that statement. That’s all, Mr. Mayor Pro
Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Brown, I have questions. If you do decide to do this, how
would you pick up the bulk waste, the yard items, the limbs, mattresses, that sort of stuff?
Mr. Brown: Well, we have two [inaudible] trucks just sitting on the yard. I do
private hauling for Columbia County on Wednesday and have two trucks to provide
service for my private clients and I would use a rear-end loaded truck.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Brown: [inaudible] items.
73
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Brown: Well, that’s not part of it.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] have that.
Ms. Lovell: [inaudible]
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] evictions?
Ms. Lovell: [inaudible]
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Ms. Lovell: [inaudible] stuff like that [inaudible] has to haul it [inaudible].
[inaudible] things like that [inaudible]
Mr. Colclough: Thank you.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Just out of curiosity, because I don’t know how long it’s going to
take – somebody said July to come back with the proposal that they’re working on. But
how many water bills? Do these clients in there have a separate water meter?
Ms. Lovell: One water meter.
Mr. Boyles: One water meter that services everyone in there?
Ms. Lovell: [inaudible] we furnished the garbage and the water for each one of
our residents and this is one of the amenities that they have.
Mr. Boyles: So your water – your customers are not –
Ms. Lovell: They’re not billed for the water, no. They’re not billed for the water.
We are. We pay the water bills.
Mr. Boyles: The reason I asked that, because this went into effect the year before
I came down or came up, whichever way it may be. Today has been down. There was
some talk back then about instead of placing this on the tax bills, which got everybody
like you [inaudible] water meters, and I think at that time the software wasn’t available to
74
do that. So now it’s on everyone’s taxes and I think, in my mind, this is how the trailer
parks and the apartment places and apartment complexes all got involved in this. I just
really think what it’s doing, it’s placing a hardship on so many of the citizens. I don’t
even know where your place is, I don’t know where [inaudible]. I see 30909 but I don’t
know where it is. But you know, I would wonder what would happen if you did go
bankrupt and you did go out of business, what happens to these people that are living
there. And I didn’t think the intent of the solid waste collection was to create hardship on
anyone. And I’ll be dog gone, all over west Augusta and other places, too, it has created
on senior adults, little ladies who might have one bag of trash every two weeks being hit
with bills like that. And I realize it’s the best thing, it’s the best service probably that the
city ever got involved in. I know where I live, I use it well. And I think there has been a
great effort put into it. But I think there is still a lot of unfairness in the system, too, and
if we waited to July to come back, what would concern me would be the clock is still
running. This is the middle of May and if we’re going to wait and it just keeps on, the
clock is ticking. So we wait on this report to come back, what happens at that point?
And I do know in some conversations with the tax commissioner that they would
certainly prefer it go on our utility bills. Now that may be another policy decision the
Commission is going to have to make at some point, I think, but I certainly, I sympathize
with your case. I can understand where Mr. Shepard is coming from because it’s going to
open up a door. But if we could hold something until July when Ms. Smith and her
operation comes back and gives us the information that we may need, but I think this
needs to be looked at all across the city, though. And we’re just kind of caught between
the rock and the hard place [inaudible] do for several but what we’re trying to do for one,
we ought to do for several and it’s going to open a floodgate unless and until we get a
firm handle and a firm policy on it. I certainly sympathize with your case and I
understand it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: I have people that call me every day to have this luxury that you have.
I wish there was a way that we could take yours that you don’t want and give it to another
community that does want it. I don’t suppose there’s a possibility that that could even be
examined, is there? I have two neighborhoods that would love to have it, and probably
there aren’t that many homes. You know where I’m talking about, Ms. Smith. Is there
any way we could – I know it’s not okay through SPLOST, but if you’re going to lose
some or if we decide that some could be moved, could they be sent to another? I know
that’s a hard question [inaudible].
Ms. Smith: [inaudible] haven’t thought about it.
Ms. Sims: I mean why not? Listen, if they don’t want it, I’ve got people that do.
And I think – and so does Andy. So why can’t we get together and say okay, this is what
we’ll do? Let’s just think about it. Swap neighborhoods.
75
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Before you get to swapping that and answer that, let’s do
this. I, I sympathize with the hardship, but what I want to know, Ms. Smith, of what is
probably with all you’ve got on your plate, a maximum time that we are looking at being
able to reach an exemption policy, because I think that’s the real key in terms of dealing
with what we’ve got on the table today. Having a policy in place so that – what I’m
hearing is that there is sympathy for the cause, but you want to have a policy in place
before you do it, and I think what the key is going to be is how quickly you have a policy
back that’s in place. Now it may be when the policy comes back, it may or may not
relieve everybody who has a hardship, depending upon what’s in the policy. So I think
that needs to be [inaudible] to be clear. But what kind of time frame are we looking at
there? And if there could be, say for instance if, if you’re looking at one in terms of
bringing it back, is that 60 days at max?
Ms. Smith: 60 days max before we come back with a policy?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If you’re going to do one, cause what is concerning me, and
I’m not, I’m not saying everybody who has come before us has not had a hardship, but
we’ve dealt with a hardship and I agree [inaudible] we’ve not dealt with at all to handle.
But I think also to a point we need to get a policy that if you going deal with situations
like this and change it, we need to get a policy and stay there, because what’s going to
creep up on you is this, and I think y’all know – I’m not planning on voting [inaudible]
increasing any more on what’s out there with the, with these prices on these contracts. I
said that the last time we had discussion [inaudible]. But what I think [inaudible] make
sure you don’t exempt yourself out of business. So I think y’all need to get to a point of
doing that, because everybody is saying, you know, we got to have them and we want
them, but then if not then I think Ms. Sims’ idea is not real far out of the box, because if
you going to [inaudible] the exemptions, we need to start looking at bringing in some
who are readily wanting, to offset the number that you’re going to exempt. Because
[inaudible] exemptions going to add up. [inaudible] you all are in an area where you’ve
got mobile homes in there, I’m talking about the ones for one reason or another that have
come back and we [inaudible] somebody got four, somebody got two, somebody got ten,
to a point they going to start adding up. [inaudible] policy some point soon that
hopefully deals with it or at least is flexible enough to be able to take some merits on its
own and be able to deal with it so it’s not hard written in stone, that it’s totally absolute,
but I think to move on one, where Steve’s coming from, if you move on one to satisfy out
of sympathy and then come back with a policy to a point that where what we’ve done has
exempted somebody out of the policy, but then you’ve got somebody you can’t help with
the policy, and I think that’s a time frame we need to say [inaudible]. What I’m looking
at is numbers they may have that may be pro rated to say if when we bring something
back that maybe we’ll have something, Steve, that we could look at that said [inaudible]
continue to pay and then you come back and you, you end up with – I’m not saying this is
where it’s going be, but one that might end up say, we say [inaudible] from the standpoint
76
that they would not be in that predicament, what they’re doing. That could go back in the
deal of some type of crediting aspect at that point in time to at least look at it. But I think
whatever needs to be done, it doesn’t need to take, you know, forever to get done. I’m
just, I’m just looking at the numbers. If the numbers are correct in what they have down
here, [inaudible] per month [inaudible]. If that’s correct, then that analysis, $4,500 and
above, old folks [inaudible]. That’s a lot. I guess what I’m trying to get into where y’all
are going to get back to dealing with the exemption policy.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, the haulers are coming back, like I say, by the
end of the month and the first meeting in July is July 1. We changed the calendar slightly
th
to protect July 4 week. So you’re going to have three Commission meetings before the,
th
before July 4. So my recommendation would be first meeting in July. I think Ms.
Smith is a little more conservative and probably wanted more time, but I’d offer that, that
day [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m listening, but I’m kind of where I was before. It was
always my feeling before we started dealing with increases [inaudible] contract
[inaudible] during budget season. [inaudible] out of budget season that some folk, either
they cover the stuff they don’t seem to remember what happened during budget season
about anything, but it, it, it, it’s strange. We talk about increase [inaudible] contract but
really this vote is not really on the contract per se. The exemption part of it gets into
what the Commission decides to do, that gets before us. So I mean having them to say
one thing is good and how you deal with the contract hauler, but to a point that if we
going to have a policy that deals with exemptions to cover certain things, then that’s
going to fall more in our bag of how we are going to do. We better look at what we’re
expecting to get out of this deal and the whole amount to operate the service. And that
was my whole argument from the very beginning to a point of how much money were we
talking about. And I said then and still say now, I thought it was a three letter word
backwards [inaudible], how we dealing with it [inaudible]. But you know, I want y’all, I
just think you need to get [inaudible] good example of one but you got some others going
to keep popping up. And you going to have exemptions as long as you have people to a
point you have people say I need to have an exemption, to deal with it. And I think that
you need to [inaudible] but [inaudible] get one in place. Cause what I’m afraid of is we
are going to start making exemptions and you cannot make rules as you go along. And
I’ve heard various reasons of why we excusing folk and in some cases of why we turn
them down. And hardship is a hardship. This one today is on finance. You know, if
there’s an alternative. But I mean [inaudible] make adjustments for people that had these
multiple situations in terms of apartment complexes and other things and you know, we
did that. So I think something ought to be there already that we can base that around.
And I’m not knocking where y’all are, cause y’all will end up having to respond to these
things every time we get somebody that needs a [inaudible] exemption. But I think at
some point we need to write one set of rules and go on and move with them. That’s just
my personal feeling on it. But today I guess I’d have to support what the attorney is
77
saying in reference to getting this back over some period of time, but I do think at a
difference of $4,500 a month to, to folk in business trying to provide a service, is not just
them, but we ought to go on and get something on board. Particularly if we’ve allowed it
some other places. And I guess my question is have we or have we not done that with
some apartments? [inaudible] multiple facilities of where we have gone back and
adjusted and folk have produced [inaudible].
Ms. Lovell: There’s [inaudible] –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, let me – hold on there. Let me get this out from
[inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: I understand where she’s coming from exactly. Here again, what
I’ve heard about solid waste, we want [inaudible] supporting itself, I hear that, too, but I
do remember that the apartments, the apartments on the hill that were represented by Mr.
Beman were already in a pick-up situation and they continued with that and they were
granted an exemption on dumpsters. But she has made the change to the containers, and
now after making the change –
Ms. Lovell: I had no choice.
Mr. Shepard: -- and so –
(End of tape 1)
(Beginning of tape 2)
Mr. Shepard: What we have to deal with today, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, is that she
gave up, and Mr. Brown, that was apparently a decision that she thought best at the time,
but now things have changed, so that’s why I’m suggesting we have an exemption policy
as opposed to just grandfathered in policy. Because the way the decision was made on
the apartments represented by Mr. Beman and it was that they had it already there and
they brought it to our attention, so I don’t think they ever got containers at all.
Ms. Smith: That’s what I understand.
Mr. Shepard: That’s what I understand. So I’m not opposed to writing her an
exemption policy or anybody that would qualify for it, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of
the Commission. What I’m saying is if you do it ad hoc with her today, I can’t tell you
there won’t be others coming down the line. Now if we have the policy written out and
she becomes, in fact, the way Mr. Cheek [inaudible] template and other people qualify,
that’s, that’s fine. But here again, the more exemptions you grant, the less area of
revenues you’re going to be able to get out there to handle the solid waste as an enterprise
fund. So I think we are not going, we are not going to leave the concept this is an
78
enterprise fund. In other words, it’s going to pay for itself. And that’s where – I mean
she’s impacting that with this request. And how many other impacts there might be like
hers I can’t say. I don’t think Ms. Smith can say.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me, let me, let me ask the young lady a question. She
was trying to respond to something else. But you know, I, I agree with you for what
we’ve got to deal with today. I’m absolutely on that. And I think whatever we do it’s got
to be a policy. The point I think [inaudible] answer to deal with this today, but I’m
curious to the point of seeing what she gave up in that situation. Sometimes I guess
falling under the category of you can’t fight city hall, I’m interested to the point that they
give this up, but to a point when we put in the system they were told this is what they had
to do and there was no other option for them to do other than to comply. Now there’s a
big difference cause they been having trash [inaudible] they been having people. So I
mean somebody was over there getting it, carrying it or whatever. If you carried it in one
of those little red wagon that you pull, somebody had to pull trash. What I’m getting to is
the point when we say they gave it up, I, I hate for them to be penalized because they
followed the law per se but had the hardship when the whole situation started. And I
think that’s why we need a policy, not just to deal with them, but we need a policy and
then it may cover them, it may not. And I preface what I was saying in the beginning. It
may not cover their situation, but I think to a point we need to get [inaudible] what we
going to deal with with exemptions. If not, this will be the hearing board for exemptions
and you’ll start hearing them every month, almost to a point like you’ve got a zoning
issue and you’re correct, you will totally dissipate an enterprise fund if that’s what you’re
attempting to create and to make that [inaudible]. But there needs to be some policy and
I think that. I’m kind of curious to know and I’ll let you speak to that, to where we were
getting ready to do before.
Ms. Lovell: I want to say that I did not give Mr. Brown up. I had the parks and I
had him as the service in the parks. The different contractors, like A1 and Augusta Solid
Waste and I forgot who else I had, who else I’ve got, but anyhow they came to my park,
they told me nothing other than you are commanded, demanded to take our service, we
are going to put our cans in, and you have to have him pick up his cans, you can no
longer use his service, you have to use our service. We did not give him up. I have
fussed for two years. If Avis and one of the other girls, Shawna, they know I have
[inaudible] for two years. I have called them, I’ve called Teresa. Teresa could never talk
to me because she has her table full, anyhow. But anyhow, they talked to me and for two
years I’ve been fighting this thing, trying to get Mr. Brown back and not use this service
because I could not afford it. And I’ve fought it for two years. And this makes the third
time I’ve been to your meeting. Last week I didn’t get in because y’all were busy and
y’all had me on the agenda so I had to come back today. And I’ve sat here all afternoon
through this. But anyhow, that’s beside the point. But I did not want this service. I
wanted to keep Mr. Brown, but it was forced on me, so you can’t [inaudible] penalized
79
me, Steve, because I gave him up. I didn’t give him up. Y’all forced this on me, forced
this service on me and told me I had to take it.
Ms. Smith: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am?
Ms. Smith: If I may, I actually did speak with Ms. Lovell on two occasions.
When the contract was initially put in place. It was specifically in reference to the
Gaskins mobile home park where we did discuss whether or not the, that particular
establishment would be required to participate in the citywide service. The information
that was presented was that they would have to have dumpster service if they were not
going to participate. If I’m not mistaken, at that time you did not have dumpster service.
Ms. Lovell: No, we did not have dumpster service. We had cans.
Ms. Smith: And when the cans were delivered, they were not allowed to be
placed on your property with respect to distribution within the mobile home park. They
were placed along the right-of-way.
Ms. Lovell: They were put in every person’s yard. They put at every person’s
yard. Y’all brought them in, the man set them at each mobile home.
Ms. Smith: Okay. That’s what I recall about Gaskins specifically, about Gaskins
mobile home park. Because we actually did make a visit out to try and determine just
what the issue was associated with this particular park. I can’t speak to the other two, but
in that particular one –
Ms. Lovell: You came to [inaudible], too, I think that was your big thing. You
came out there when the bridge was out and I was fighting with y’all, trying to get you to
help me build that bridge back cause the creek washed it out with the flood and I had to
build it back.
Ms. Smith: I’ve been out on three occasions for that, also.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yeah, I was out there too, on that one.
Ms. Smith: Yes. But there have been, there were, with the initiation of the
contract exemptions issued for multi-family facilities, and this would be a multi-family
facility, that had dumpster service. And at the time –
Ms. Lovell: Yeah, we had canisters.
80
Ms. Smith: At the time, you did not have dumpster service.
Ms. Lovell: No, I did not have dumpster service, but I was not told that.
Ms. Smith: But I understand that you also did not have a can per unit.
Ms. Lovell: Yeah, I did. He had cans for every unit in our park, every unit had a
can. We had the same service y’all are giving. In all three parks.
Ms. Smith: Okay. There were cans, but there wasn’t dumpster service and it
wasn’t the same services provided.
Ms. Lovell: We had the same service. He picked it up twice a week. Same
service. Twice a week. We had no changes except y’all came in and said y’all have to
use my service.
Ms. Smith: And the services provided under the city contract also provide for the
bulky waste, the recycling and the yard waste.
Ms. Lovell: Yeah, he picked it all up.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Pro Tem, I’m going to go way out on a limb. I’m going to move
that we approve the exemption.
Ms. Sims: I second it.
Ms. Smith: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, the only thing I ask is that a funding source be
identified to replace the funds going into, with respect to our ability to pay the contractor
based on the way our current contract is set up.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s so noted for the record. There is a motion and a
second. Is there any question, any discussion on this particular item?
Mr. Grantham: I’ve got a question. Based on what, based on what Ms. Smith just
said, that we will, we will need to find fundings to replace this money with the contractor
picking up the trash right now –
Ms. Smith: Either a fund for it to come out or it will also have to be included in
the calculations for rate increases for everybody that continues to have this service.
Mr. Grantham: And I know you’ve asked a couple of times, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem,
but Mr. Attorney, when do y’all plan to have that meeting with the Mayor that y’all are
talking about now to get this done? I think we need to maybe defer this thing until that
81
time and now, and maybe just look at a reduction in charge to these people. If that’s the
case, during this interim that we’re speaking of, and not have as much money to have to
find.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: To answer your question, we’ve already had the first meeting. And
they’re going to be back in two weeks. The first meeting was last Thursday [inaudible]
and that’s why I was making sure – I didn’t have a full calendar up here, but the haulers
and administration will be back in two weeks from last Thursday.
Mr. Grantham: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: So we’re going to have it [inaudible] end of the month. I mean in
terms of getting the information and getting a policy up here, I was thinking that July 1
was when, you know, we could deliver such a policy after we get all the information.
The information will be back. We have started it. Every hauler attended. And people
were really enthusiastic about doing the new policy. So that’s – I would say that we
couldn’t have it back really before the first of June. That’s why, why I went with July 1.
Ms. Smith: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, a point of clarification. The meeting that we’re
having with the haulers is not for the purpose of developing a policy, but it is for the
purpose of identifying and discussing with them potential contract changes or contract
amendments that would support a policy associated with exemptions. So they’re having,
and they’re looking at and they’re going to bring back to us ideas and we’re doing the
same, and opportunities to address how we can modify our existing contract to better
financially compensate them for the services that they are actually providing and the
number of homes, units that they’re providing service to, instead of this general service
area number. So that’s what we’re going to be discussing at the next meeting.
Depending on what consensus is reached about what it is that we can potentially do, that
will play a role in how our exemption policy [inaudible] because of course as
Commissioner Mays has indicated, we don’t want to write a policy that we can’t afford.
Mr. Shepard: Because if we start exempting folks, there are going to be fewer
people that can collect from.
Mr. Grantham: I understand that.
Mr. Shepard: And I just, I understand very well where the applicant is coming
from, but now having charged to be responsible for the stability of the system, the
financing of the system, I’ve got to take that into consideration as well.
82
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other questions on motion that is on the floor?
Ms. Sims: Mr. Mayor, I have one question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am?
Ms. Sims: Do all of our haulers go to our landfill?
Ms. Smith: Our contract requires that all waste collected under this contract is to
be disposed of at the Richmond County facility.
Ms. Sims: Has it always been that way?
Ms. Smith: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Sims: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Don?
Mr. Grantham:
I still have a problem with this to a point that I don’t want to
leave Commissioner Boyles out on that limb that he has elected to go to. And I’m in
]. I’m in hopes that you can, you can hang
sympathy with the petitioner here [inaudible
on one more month for us and I would, I would certainly you know like to receive
this information and that we stay in constant contact with them, with Ms. Lovell in
this regard and that we inform them as to when and how we are proceeding on this,
on this re-establishing our [inaudible] with the haulers, and also to, to let you know
that in the event that we are not ready by July 1 that we would like for you to come
back to this board with your petition, and I think you’ll find in that regard a more
favorable situation or some solution other than just saying [inaudible] change or
whatever. There may be something that we can do for you in that meantime. And
Mr. Chairman, I’d like to put that in the form of a substitute motion, that we ask
Ms. Lovell to cooperate with us for that period of time
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second on the substitute. Commissioner
Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just in – I think there is a lot of empathy on the board for the
situation. [inaudible] but the other side of this coin is from what we understand,
rumblings, that there are as many as 305 units, plus a few more, which would be a net
impact on the system once we create a precedent without thoroughly researching and
83
working it out of over $100,000 which will have to be borne by the entire city. And I
know this is difficult. We want to support small business, but we need some time to sort
this out and try to make it work. And if you can bear with us, both of you, in this, for this
time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion or question on either one of the
motions? We’ll take the substitute motion. All in favor of the substitute motion will do
so by the usual sign.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think Mr. Grantham is right. I was just trying
to get something off center. I think if we can hold on for one more month, and I know
that’s a hardship, I realize that. That’s what I had in the back of my mind. But I think
it’s the feeling of the Commission, and they’re absolutely right, so I’m going to vote yes,
Madame Clerk.
Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams out.
Mr. Smith, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Mays, Mr. Cheek, Ms. Beard, Ms.
Sims and Mr. Boyles vote yes.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Boyles: But I hope we’ll keep this on the front burner.
Ms. Lovell: Okay, I hope you do, and I thank you all for hearing me today. I
appreciate it and just I appreciate your consideration and I hope and pray that y’all help
me in some way in this because we can’t handle it much longer. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I think one thing that matters is you started with the
opposition when this first came out. It’s not as though this just started the last week or
two. I think that will have some bearing. But I hope you understand we would like to
have some policy in place.
Ms. Lovell: Right. I understand that. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, 35.
The Clerk:
35. Update from the Utilities Department regarding the request from
Judge Herbert E. Kernaghan, Jr. regarding the Rae’s Creek Sewer Line. (Referred
from May 4 Commission meeting)
Mr. Hicks: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, last Friday, Commissioner Grantham and I met
with Ms. Kernaghan at her home and looked at the situation in the back yard and made
84
certain promises as to what we would do with replanting cypress trees and azaleas and
work with the adjacent owners, that is the Boardmans, the owner of that property to
maintain a screen along Calhoun Expressway in that area and to plant trees back as we
could along the Boardman property to maintain, I mean as well as we could the area. It
cannot be maintained the same way, it’s really a rather dense little wood right between
them and the Calhoun Expressway. But that was the situation as we left it last Friday.
Commissioner Grantham might want to address it or add to it, but that was the situation
that we left it at the time.
Mr. Grantham: It was mentioned and discussed with Ms. Kernaghan that we
would put in writing for them what we would do and I would get in touch with Ms.
Boardman, Elizabeth Claussen Boardman or whoever she is now, to talk with them about
that property next door, and that we would sign off on that with Ms. Kernaghan and once
she received the information that we talked about, then they, too, would sign off with us,
and once that project started that if she was not pleased with what was taking place and
what was happening, that we would certainly make sure that it is corrected and done
properly and that we want their yard put back in as close and good a situation as we can
get it in and we talked about species of trees, we talked about height of trees, we talked
about taking down trees that were not desirable right now in the yard that she would like
to have down. That one old sweet gum tree that we talked about needed to come down.
But anyway, we did discuss everything and we said we would put those situations in
writing for them and that she would, she would certainly look at that with us and sign off
on it in that situation. That letter in writing has not been presented back to them because
we’ve not been able to get the contact with the Boardmans next door so we can get that
information to include that in the letter for the Kernaghans.
Mr. Hicks: There was a large oak tree that was in the way also, and we agreed
that within a certain amount of time of the construction that should that oak tree die, we
would take it down at no cost. I mean we would take that tree down. That was one other
item.
Mr. Grantham: And I think one of Ms. Kernaghan’s concerns at the time was that
she was misinformed, or misinformation was given in regard to the allotted time of the
project in her yard. And I think someone had indicated it was going to take a year. Well,
I think the year was alluding to the entire project as far as time of completion, and not the
time they would actually be in her yard during the digging and the construction of the
sewer line. And so even though that will necessarily need to be a temporary easement
there for the work, for the construction to be done, I think Mr. Hicks indicated that she
should probably be about ten days, somewhere along in there, as far as being in your yard
doing the work.
Mr. Kernaghan: You’re telling me that you’re going to be in my yard no more
than ten days?
85
Mr. Grantham: With the big equipment and with the work that they will be laying
the pipe, that’s what I’m told by Mr. Hicks, Mr. Kernaghan.
Mr. Kernaghan: Well, there are eight trees in my yard that are coming down.
Mr. Grantham: Bear with me just a second. And I think we told Ms. Kernaghan
this, that the actual time that the big machine to dig the ditch and lay the pipe would be
approximately ten days. The tree work, as far as taking down trees, is going to be another
period of time. And Ms. Kernaghan, we did talk about that.
Mr. Kernaghan: Okay.
Mr. Grantham: Just wanted to clear that up.
Mr. Kernaghan: I’ve been down here today nearly five hours, and if I’ve heard
one time I’ve heard at least 75 times about the budget, the money, and the financial
situation the county is in. And it’s beyond me, beyond my comprehension, and I’m going
to help y’all out. I want you in turn to help Jean and I out. If you move it to route sewer
line A, you save $389,000. So that will help y’all. And then when you move that sewer
line out of my yard, you will help us.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, what am I missing?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to let Mr. Hicks respond to those numbers.
Mr. Hicks: I think what the judge is referring to is when we looked at routes A, D
and C – I think it was three or four routes we looked at. One route was on the other side
of the lake and one route was on the judge’s side of the lake, and out of about at that time
we were estimating $9 million total contract from one end – not just [inaudible], but it
was estimated that [inaudible] it could cost $300,000 less. However, those were
preliminary project estimates. Now once we looked at the route for the two and got down
to comparing those two, and we looked at the fact that on the other side of the creek we’d
be going through a condominium complex, where the sewer line would be deeper than it
would be going through Mr. and Ms. Kernaghan’s, Judge and Ms. Kernaghan’s back
yard, and where it would be in close proximity to two condominium buildings. We
would be going between them with 54” pipe, it would be in that instance I imagine
around 12’ to 18’ deep, then the cost, that $300,000 would be quickly overcome. So the
most cost effective route was to go on the side away from the condominium complex, and
that’s the route that we have designed and have taken bids on. It was that route that truly
was the most cost effective.
86
Mr. Kernaghan: Mr. Hicks don’t like it [inaudible] I obtained a copy from the
Raes Creek sewer project from Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, and I looked at that
thing about 10 or 12 times. And every time, with my adding and subtracting, it came up
$389,000 less. That’s what it says. I’m trying to give y’all $389,000.
Mr. Hicks: No. That line was estimated cost around $6.5 million. That was
based on difficulty and as it turned out the low bid was around $5.7 million or $5.8
million, so we’ve got [inaudible] prices with it being where it is. Had it been across the
creek. I don’t anticipate [inaudible] prices at all because it would have been in a much
more difficult laying situation, which is what we had to avoid.
Mr. Kernaghan: Well, coming [inaudible] those costs been revised?
Mr. Hicks: No, sir. We only did one route, and that was the route that turned out
truthfully to be the most cost effective. The one that stayed away from the
condominiums and working in close proximity to those.
Mr. Kernaghan: Well, I’m at a loss how you can say route A has been revised
and route B has not.
Mr. Hicks: We had to pick a route to design and we designed on the most cost
effective route and that was route B when you got into the actual estimated cost of
construction. I shouldn’t say route B, it was the route that stayed where the construction
was more shallow and stayed on the side of the creek that it’s being planned for.
Mr. Kernaghan: And the fact that it was $389,000 more expensive didn’t figure
into it?
Mr. Hicks: That $389,000 dissipated when you looked at the actual cost that it
would have been to go on the other side of the creek. Those are preliminary figures
[inaudible] a range of costs to be set aside in a budget for this project.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are you comfortable there with those numbers? I mean
from the standpoint – and the reason why – I heard [inaudible] any time somebody
talking about saving some money, I want to hear it and I think you want to hear it, too.
Mr. Kernaghan: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And at the same time, from the standpoint of those of us
that are [inaudible] if they’re going to guarantee that those are the most cost effective
numbers, then we have to end up supporting that position. But I want to make sure that
even if we are on the route that we’re on, that we at least have an agreement on what was
being done with the items that you have brought up, Commissioner Grantham, and
87
through Mr. Hicks, as well as with Mr. and Ms. Kernaghan, and that those items are
taken care of. I yield to the chairman and then to Commissioner Boyles.
Mr. Cheek: Let me yield to the attorney and reserve my rights.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I didn’t see your hand.
Mr. Shepard: That’s all right. Should I – excuse me, I will talk into the mic
better. Could we take a short recess? For one reason, I’d like to talk to the judge and to
the director. I’m not sure that some information that I know the judge brought me, I
hadn’t heard about right now, and I, if I could have a five minute recess with both of
these gentlemen, I want to make sure that [inaudible] got to utilities. I mean, I know
we’re speaking of routes A and B and Mr. Kernaghan didn’t show it on the little diagram
he gave me, but I would like not to make a mistake here. So if we could have a five
minute recess while I talk to both parties here, it may be helpful. It may not, but it also
may help some members of the board in other ways and the lawyer would appreciate it
because he hasn’t been out of the chair in five hours, either.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, after five hours I’m not going to debate with you
about five minutes. I got to drive back to [inaudible] and Columbus tonight cause I’ve
got a 7:30 class in the morning. So it’s granted, the chair will grant that, to do that. I’d
rather you –
Mr. Shepard: If I could, I want to clear up something.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead. That’s not a problem. Okay.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We stand in recess.
[RECESS]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We need to resume conversation back on the item that we
were on.
Mr. Cheek: How long have we been going at this? Over [inaudible] months
now? A couple of months?
Mr. Hicks: How long have we been trying ---
88
Mr. Cheek: Discussion between our utilities department and the judge here?
Mr. Hicks: Probably about – what would you say, a month-and-a-half? Month,
month-and-a-half, I guess.
Mr. Cheek: Okay, now we’ve got a consent order that we’re under to get
sewerage out of Raes Creek; correct?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: Y’all have provided us with the very best engineering and cost
information and this is your recommendation?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: We have bent over double backwards the same as or more than we
would do for anybody else; is that correct?
Mr. Hicks: Well, we tried to give Judge and Ms. Kernaghan the same
consideration we would for others. We pointed out when we were talking with Ms.
Kernaghan that, you know, I pointed out – Commissioner Mays and others of you might
remember that episode on the line north of Tobacco Road, the gentleman had a Christmas
tree farm, and we told him he could continue to grow Christmas trees on the sewer line
because their roots are not real deep, so there are certain things that can be done over a
sewer line that to provide a buffer. You just wouldn’t want any big old, you know, oak
trees or anything directly over the line, but there’s ways that we could mitigate, you
know, the effect adjacent to the Judge and Ms. Kernaghan’s property. It’s just that we
would have to discuss it with the Boardmans before we could it. But this is – we’ve done
for them what I’d say what we’ve done for others, like the guy with the Christmas tree
farm and the fellow with the music store at the intersection of Berckman Road and
Washington Road, and we’d pay for his oak tree if it died within a year of construction.
So these are things that we’ve done for others. We just try to give good consideration.
Mr. Cheek: Max, I’ve seen that you guys have tried to do the right thing, and I
don’t, you know, I understand the judge wanting stuff in writing.
Mr. Kernaghan: May I say something?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir?
Mr. Kernaghan: I’m not the only one. I have neighbors, [inaudible] Chuck and
Penny Ballas oppose it, they’re out of town, couldn’t be here. So I don’t want your
remarks to indicate everybody is bending over backwards trying to accommodate me.
89
Mr. Cheek: Well, I’ve been told that everybody else was happy with this and –
Mr. Kernaghan: Well, that is absolutely untrue.
Mr. Cheek: We have, on item 42 we have passed the construction bid on this
project. We are under consent order. The government has done its due diligence in
trying to provide as low a cost with the current engineering information and route we can
do this to do the least harm to citizens, just like we would anywhere else. [inaudible]
Mr. Kernaghan: Have you read the consent order?
Mr. Cheek: I read about this much paper a week and then I have my real job. No,
I haven’t read it, but I trust staff to provide that information.
Mr. Kernaghan: I think the consent order that I read required you to get
[inaudible] water [inaudible] permit. Has that been done?
Mr. Hicks: No, the consent order that Commissioner Cheek is talking about is the
Raes Creek consent order where we put ourselves on a time table to complete the
construction of interceptor sewers in Raes Creek. But that’s the one. And we’re going
by the dates that were set forth in that consent order once we started design and
construction. Once we started that effort.
Mr. Cheek: And the whole point is that we are touching Raes Creek every time it
rains, with raw sewerage. We’ve got probably 25,000 or 30,000 homes on this line. We
have got to run this service. We are trying to accommodate every possible need that we
can. Rerouting based on information from staff, and I’m sure everybody up here trusts at
some level their staff to provide accurate information, which ours do. We’ve been on
time and on budget or below budget with every project we’ve done under the new
[inaudible], but we have – what is the fine for not complying?
Mr. Hicks: I couldn’t tell you that right off, in my head.
Mr. Kernaghan: $50,000.
Mr. Cheek: Is that a day?
Mr. Kernaghan: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: So if we – we might call you for advice on other projects because –
90
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a three way conversation going on. The
Commissioner has the floor. Judge, I’m going to let you have it then, and then the floor
will be open at that point for discussion or either to make a motion. But one of y’all will
– please go one at a time.
Mr. Cheek: I think we’ve covered that it’s $50,000 a day if we don’t make the
deadline on this. I want to do, to recommend the right thing. I think we’ve had
information from staff. I think that we’ve tried to research this just short of changing the
route, which would cause us to rebid and redesign, which would cost several million
dollars, I’m sure.
Mr. Hicks: I don’t know. The redesign wouldn’t be that much. The redesign
would be in tens of thousands, but the rebid would be subject to more difficult laying
conditions, and as it is we got a price of $5,651,231 on this route, whereas we felt like it
would certainly cost that much or more to go the other way. So we’re now within the
budget funds for the project.
Mr. Cheek: And if we rebid, that’s what, a couple of months to go out, further
delay?
Mr. Hicks: It would mean additional design. It would have to be delayed until
we could redesign the whole route and then take bids that way.
Mr. Cheek:
Advertise it for 30 days and – I just – we’re up against the wall here
on this time line. And I don’t see any other way but to recommend that we proceed with
it as done, pending the agreement, that utilities will make, concerning revegetation
appropriate to meet the needs of the judge and those neighbors there. And knowing that
you guys are interested in customer satisfaction and that you’ll do a good job. And I wish
we could run sewer lines away from everybody’s house, but I probably have 300 or 400
in my district that’s had them run under theirs and they don’t like them, either, but we got
to have it. And I don’t see any other way to accommodate. Quite honestly, I don’t know
But I’m going to make that motion that we proceed
if we have the votes today or not.
with the project, that we’ve debated and discussed this long enough, especially in
light of the fact that we passed the construction contract today to award that, and
we’re under consent order to complete the project. We do have rains and other
things that will happen that will delay the work. I just feel that staff has done their
due diligence and very best to provide the lowest cost, best solutions to the city’s
problems, while trying to take into consideration the needs of the neighbors, making
sure they don’t end up with an eyesore as a result of our work. I’m going to make
that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Williams: I second it.
91
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, one clarification, if you don’t mind. That
when I did meet with Mr. Kernaghan first and then I met with Ms. Kernaghan, and Mr.
Ballas was there, and I left with him and went with him to his house to, to view his back
yard project as well. And his comment, and judge, I say this because he was, he was very
elated to the fact that we were going to actually remove all his trees, he didn’t want any
left back there, and that, that was one of the comments that he made and he wanted just to
make sure that we did replace the items and things that were necessary. He didn’t want
any trees replaced, but he did want his yard certainly not to be flooded if Raes Creek or
that lake did rise. And so I discussed that with Mr. Hicks as well. And we’ll do the same
thing with him. Now Mr. Spears, to my knowledge, has not been in touch with me or
with anyone on the board, so I don’t know what conversation he’s had with you or with
anyone in public utilities. However, they can be assured, too, that we’ll do everything
possible to make it as easy as possible. I know it’s not going to be easy, as I mentioned
to Ms. Kernaghan, and it’s not going to be a very pleasant site, but hopefully within the
time all this is resolved and done that judge, you and I will live just a little bit longer and
be able to see these things develop, better for you as well as for all of us. I just wanted to
clarify that and have that information for the record.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other Commissioners?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Pro Tem, you were going to hear from Judge Kernaghan again?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If he needed – I was going to ask Mr. Hicks [inaudible].
Mr. Boyles: There was an exchange between he and Mr. Cheek. You said that he
–
Mr. Kernaghan: I would just like to say one more thing about –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, judge.
Mr. Kernaghan: -- about the time limit. It is in fact been extended five separate
times, the time limit, so that’s nothing new. [inaudible]
Mr. Boyles: The time limit -- may I? The time limit on the consent order?
Mr. Hicks: He’s – the judge is referring to the – we’ve been working on the Raes
Creek issue since probably about 1998. If you remember, that’s the year we had such bad
occasions up there and we had a lot of sewerage overflows and that’s when the state put
us under that – what I call the big consent order. And during that time they worked with
us on an interim basis to get to the point we are now where we could say we will replace
92
that line in this amount of time, and it’s a question of them wanting to work with us, just
like we’ve tried to work with the judge, but then you reach a point to where you have to
go and that’s where we are now with them, but the state did work with us, since 1958 – I
mean, excuse me, since 1998 they have worked with us to come up to this point where
we could tell them we will have this line constructed in this amount of time and it will do
away with the overflows in Raes Creek. That’s what the judge is referring to, and they
have worked with us. They have. So we’re now at the point of finality. They want to
see us do what we said we were going to do, the final solution.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other questions? Any this way? The only question,
Mr. Hicks, is that you’re comfortable in that all of the [inaudible] of the conversations
that we’ve got, and I think you’ve got two different situations, one in terms of if it’s on
this route and of dealing with whatever plan that, that works in the aftermath of the
beautification. But to go back to the rounding in the numbers, you are absolutely
professionally comfortable with route and numbers that we’ve got in this project?
Mr. Hicks: Absolutely.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Motion and a second. All in favor of the motion
will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Mays, Mr. Cheek, Ms. Beard, Mr. Williams and
Ms. Sims vote Yes.
Mr. Boyles and Mr. Smith vote No.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Kernaghan: Mr. Mayor, I appreciate the time and effort y’all have given.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, judge, and I believe that we are going to be
keeping our eyes on this particular project.
Mr. Kernaghan: You ain’t got to worry about that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I know I got a extra set. Order of the day, ma’am.
The Clerk: Going back to item 28?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Wherever we fall on the numbers.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
93
28. Recommendation from the Administrator regarding funding for renovations
to Fire Station #7. (Requested by Commissioner Don Grantham)
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, as you see in your backup on item 28, after
review of the funding sources for this particular project, the renovation of fire station
number seven, it’s the recommendation of the administration that necessary funds be
coming from Phase III of SPLOST. Some restrictions on Phase I and II would not make
those funds eligible because they did not include public facilities, recreational or cultural
facilities. Phase III was expanded to include these type facilities, and therefore the
funding will be appropriate to come out that particular phase of SPLOST and funding is
available, is my understanding.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And the amount, Fred?
Mr. Russell: $960,000, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The chair recognizes Commissioner Grantham and then
Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I yield to the chairman of public safety, then
I’ll speak.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Grantham, for your yielding. I’m not opposed to
the, the project, the renovation of the fire station number seven to make a museum or to
make it a facility we can use. We just built two brand new fire stations, in fact we built
more than two. We built several. And, and, and I can’t, I cannot understand for the life
of me why we turn around and take $1 million now to go back into that facility to make a,
a, a museum or something of that nature. If you build a museum, it’s got to be staffed,
it’s got to have a lot of other different attributes to go with it – you got to have – I mean
there’s so much other stuff. Here we are talking about our budget, how, how we are tight
and things are not going well, how we don’t have the money to do the necessary things
we need to do. We going create this building that hadn’t been sitting there five months,
maybe six as the most, been sitting there, and I don’t think we ought to leave it sitting. I
think we ought to get innovative. There enough inmate labor, inmate crews to start to do
some maintenance work on this thing, until we can get some grant money in or until we
get some other, other means of support. To take $1 million at this time to put in that
facility, I think we be doing an injustice to the taxpayers. If we have to come back to
them, we know what the budget going be like. We [inaudible] about maybe raising taxes.
We getting into the budget crunch here or we going to get into a crunch cause we know
what the numbers already projecting. So I’m very opposed to that amount of money. I’m
not opposed to the project. I just think that we need to be, to be a little bit smarter in how
94
we do, what we doing, to not create another dependent for this government to have to
fund. Now once it get set up, the money got to come from somewhere. If it’s going to be
an annual grant to take care of it, then somebody need to say that. But if have to go into
the money – now we just made some real harsh decisions and I think we ought to keep
this on the burner. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be something that we ought to restore. But
we got, we got enough facilities in house, I’m thinking now, Mr. Mays, that when we
went to Atlanta, the commission for trade and industry and also the commission for
inmates – what is that gentleman’s name in Atlanta we spoke with? I can’t think of his
name right now but he was over the –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] animal control situation?
Mr. Williams: When we talked about animal control, we had –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That was Tommy Irvin.
Mr. Williams: Okay, we had inmate forces that was willing and ready to come to
Augusta to build our animal shelter. We can get something done with this building. I’m
not saying we ought to abandon this idea. But I don’t think we ought to spend taxpayers’
dollars for a project and stuff we already got on the table we can’t complete, to create
something that’s going be an additional tax burden on us. We ought to get creative.
There, there are inmates that’s incarcerated, that do all types of work. We, we, we, we
talked about building the animal shelter, but they have built fire stations, they have built
court houses, they go around the state of Georgia. And that’s what we ought to be doing.
We ought to be trying to bring somebody like that in to do the work on this building to
preserve it, not just the outside but the inside as well. So I thank Mr. Grantham for
yielding. I know I got some Commissioners who is in favor of this. I’m not, I’m not
opposed to that. I just think the timing ain’t right. Now we going to talk about we take
$1 million and put in this facility, we might as well [inaudible] stay where they were and
put $1 million in the facility and save some money. But if, if, if, if we move them out
and spend sales tax money, now we going to take sales tax money again to renovate a
building, to create another museum, who don’t have the staffing, don’t have anything to
go with it, I think we putting a burden on the taxpayers we should not put on them. And
that’s, that’s my comment, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other Commissioners? I’m sorry, we yielded from
Don.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I appreciate Commissioner
Williams’ comments and I appreciate him being in favor of this, preserving this fire
station number seven. It is a historical location, it is a facility that I think needs to, needs
to be preserved. I have one question before I make some other comments. When we
talked about a museum, we talked about the museum from the standpoint of not only
95
having some of the older equipment that we’ve had, kept around in the past, that we
could put into that location so it could be used for educational purposes for school kids,
but then my main question is that we were looking at it also from the standpoint of
administrative offices that your staff would use, so I don’t see us having to increase any
staff to put in that facility, unless I’m totally misled or wrong in that regard. Would we
need someone for the museum location other than staff you presently have? Would we
need someone, administrative staff, other than the ones you presently have? Or would we
have to go get others to do that?
Mr. Gillespie: Let me start with that question, Mr. Commissioner, rest of
Commissioners, Mayor Pro Tem. Because they all kind of tie together. The short answer
to that is no, we do not need any more staff. To answer Commissioner Williams’
concerns from our point of view, and we’re trying to be good stewards of the money,
also, and I think I started this process in May when I came here, first in April and stepped
on something I didn’t want to step on when I first got here. But just to help clear that up
a little bit, yes, we just did five stations, relocation of stations. This particular station we
knew needed a lot of work. It was also in the wrong spot. When we combined the city
and county government, we needed to adjust where our stations were at to better cover
the entire population we’re protecting now. The station company that was there at this
time is now in the south part of the county. The station that is now over on Highland
Road came from off of Central behind the shopping center there. So it wasn’t just a
matter of money for moving that station. The other issue, being good stewards of the
money, that’s something we’ve been trying to do all along with project. We need a
permanent home. Right now we’re paying rent. We paid rent where we were at before.
It is working for us, but we’re paying $60,000, $65,000, $68,000 -- I don’t remember the
exact number – right now in rent every year. It’s about what we paid where we were at
before, but we have more space now. We moved more of our offices over there. So our
intent, while this comes across as a museum, which is important to us that we have some
museum space there, it’s also going to be our administrative headquarters for our people.
Not a response station out of there for our fire engines, but to cover for our administrative
people, which includes our training which does our public education, which leads back to
the museum piece. As you’ve stated, we intend to put in some artifacts from our fire
department. We have a fire station, excuse me, a fire engine that belongs to us from the
1930’s. There is a gentleman in the local community who has acquired many of our fire
engines from the past and he has brought those up to mint condition and has agreed to
rotate those in the second bay so we can have different displays there. Currently we have
one fire safety house. That’s where the children learn how to escape from a fire, how to
get below the smoke and how to find ways out. Rather than move it around to all the
schools, our intent is to put it in one location so they can come and get educated there and
get a chance to see some of the artifacts. So no, we are not planning on adding staff for
this. We have people who are assigned to community education right now and with your
assistance earlier today, by helping our people who are injured and allowing us a light
96
duty policy so that if somebody can’t go out in the field but they could assist us in those
areas, they’d be available for that, also. I hope I answered your question.
Mr. Grantham:
If I can – the neighborhood, they seem to be very supportive of
wanting that facility to remain as close to the original look that it’s had and certainly
trying to preserve that in that area. To some degree I say it that way, I wish that Judge
Kernaghan had stayed around because I recall he was a captain on the junior fire
department as a, as a teenager when we were in grammar school and at that particular
station. And I think there’s a lot of memories that go back that can be utilized from the
standpoint of possibly support from the community, that we could use, with some type of
contributions or whatever in a facility like this, and I think it would be worthy of us
investigating that particularly. I just, I would just like the opportunity to do something
good for our community in this regard, and I think we would be applauded by the people.
I don’t think we would be foolishly spending this money. This money is certainly in
SPLOST III that has been identified for use of this purpose, and I would like to see that
I’d like to put in the form of a motion
we do that, and Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if I can,
that we approve the request of the $950,000 to be used to renovate fire station
number seven.
Ms. Sims: I second it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Ms. Sims?
Then Commissioner Boyles and then Commissioner Williams.
Ms. Sims: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I, I’d like to say that in the beginning
I probably am the reason that someone had the wrong impression of it being a museum.
That was totally inaccurate and never was to be a staffed museum. It was to be a place
that children could come and have an educational experience. It was also a place that the
fire department administrative, administrative part could come on the second floor. So
they did not pay rent on that building. It’s ours. It’s the city’s. So it’s a natural thing to
house the department in a building that we already own. So that is, I take full
responsibility for having misled Commissioner Williams into thinking perhaps this was
going to be a museum that had to be staffed. For that I’m deeply apologetic. I would, I
would really ask that this fire station could be renovated, could be used for the offices on
the second floor, and yes, it could have places for education for our children. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles, then Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I don’t see the budget that was in here, but I
think I recall some of it was architectural and design work. I think that’s normal and they
put the plans together, and then at that point I tend to agree with Commissioner Williams,
when we get ready to go to actual construction, to talk about with the Department of
Corrections, because Robert Leverett has certainly been able to handle that for us, and
97
what we tried to do at the animal building, but, as he likes to say, we kind of got our
backs to the wall on the animal control building, but at this time we’ve got enough lead
way in this to where when we get it ready to start construction we could make contact
with the Department of Corrections and see what they could do it for and just because
we’ve got $960,000 or whatever it is, close to that, that doesn’t mean we would spend it
all. But I agree that – and coming from Recreation, we used a great deal of inmate labor.
We’ve got county facilities that were built with inmate labor and this is just repair and
renovation and construction, minor construction, so I think as we get into that we ought
to let our architects know, whoever gets the job, that we need to look at that. Just as a
thought to back up my Commissioner from district two.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and I said it earlier, I’m not against the
project. I just think we need to do some things. If we going to do something, let’s just
say what we are going to do. I mean if we wanted to make a place for the fire
administration building, we need to say that’s what we want to do with it. First of all,
Highland Park was supposed to been designated for a, a, a fire administration building up
there this last round of money we supposed to had, that $600,000-something. I mean
that’s been, that was argued on this floor right here. Before we went to Laney Walker we
tried to get it for one year, we ended up getting it for two because we, we, we danced
around it. But I mean we act like we blind and we can’t see up here. I mean I’m a lot of
things, but I’m not blind. Next thing is, Commissioner Sims, I understand what you’re
saying. Children been visiting fire stations since the history of the fire department. And
one of the greater things about Augusta, we got several different stations. Now if
children going to go to one location, you going to keep them out of the other stations?
Then I say okay, well, I can understand the other side of it. But children visit fire stations
from, from the east to the west and the north to the south, as far as the eye can see, from
headquarters being on Reynolds Street now to sliding a pole and doing everything else.
Children enjoyed that and believe it or not, I think some inspired to be firemen because
they had that experience. You talking about renting. We renting right now and we done
saved half of the money we rent. We paying $20,000 a month in one facility and we
moved now to another facility and pay $10,000. So we getting there. I understand that.
But we got places out on Marvin Griffin Road, we got places on Bay Street, we got
places all over this government and we paying an astronomical amount of money to be
renting. So I mean, I think my problem is when we don’t put on the table, to say what it
really is, we try to dress it up, be something it’s not. And that’s not what it is. So if we
going to keep that building, I got no problem. I think the neighborhood would appreciate
it. I think that it would be an asset but I think we ought to do it smarter, we ought to try
to find some ways for us to save money and not just spend money. We got –
Commissioner Cheek and I was talking in our private little session awhile ago about
recreation, how we fight for those entities. We got people who are suffering, who have,
who still don’t have the basic they supposed to have yet in this city, but we don’t fight for
that. We want to do some things good. I heard [inaudible] opportunity for him to do
some good. I applaud that. But what about the basics that folks still don’t have? Never
98
had them. Not in the history of this city. But we going to spend $1 million on a building
that we moved out of and ain’t going to try to get no resources from nowhere, no grants,
no inmate forces or even no volunteers. We don’t know what’s out there. But because
the money’s there, we going spend it. My good friend, Commissioner Sims, I support
you in your effort, but if they had laid it on the table in the first place, I probably could
have understood it a little better. I just can’t understand, cause all the stuff we
mentioned, [inaudible] fire station to Highland Park, talking about that place for fire
headquarters, fire administration building supposed to be going, I guess if we do this,
then, does that mean that that’s kicked out? Is that right, chief?
Mr. Gillespie: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: The fire administration building, we talked about on Highland
Avenue, it’s going to be off the drawing board now if we talking about a fire
administration on, on, on Central Avenue now.
Mr. Gillespie: That’s correct. Last I heard, Commissioner, that project was not
approved by this body.
Mr. Williams: I understand. Now I think we [inaudible] earlier still thinking that
the fire administration building or the, that we talked about is still coming up there.
Mr. Gillespie: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] last meeting, the last meeting they had, they was still
under the impression that they are still going to get that fire administration building with
the $2 million we talked about, putting in the sales tax, with indoor pool and all this, this
fancy stuff that we dressed up for them up there, these people are still thinking that. Take
it from me. In fact, they got another meeting this Thursday, I believe, if you want to
come up.
Mr. Gillespie: I’ll be happy to be here. But that won’t cover that expense,
believe me.
Mr. Williams: Well, I understand. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about
the proposed – the people are saying, the people have been thinking they’re still getting
that and –
Mr. Gillespie: I’ve been to several meetings and –
Mr. Williams: Okay, I was at the last one. We, we, we, we, we don’t want to
debate how many, how many meetings. But I was at the last meeting and what I’m
saying is people still under the impression that that’s what is going take place, even as a
99
Commissioner I was under the impression. Now I’m hearing that we going use it for a
fire administration building and I thought that would be good, too. I hope we not going
have two administration places. So –
Mr. Gillespie: That’s correct, we won’t have two.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, I can [inaudible] so I can get some clarification to
them. That’s all, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I’d like to say I think I voted the last time against this because I felt
[inaudible] budget, and now I have found that they have come up with funds from
SPLOST III. My understanding is that those funds were supposed to be for things like
drainage, infrastructure, and things of that nature. Now I talked, I have a problem in my
district, and it is that Sand Bar Ferry floods every time it rains and the children have to
cross the street in the water. Now that project is going to cost about $1 million. They
told me they did not have funds, that I would have to wait for SPLOST V. I don’t
understand that.
Mr. Gillespie: I don’t have an explanation on that, either.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, I’ll try to answer Commissioner Beard’s question, Mr. Mayor
Pro Tem. That apparently is that when we went through this the first time, the suggested
funding source was SPLOST I, which is restricted to roads and bridges, because that was
the state of the Georgia law at that time. The categories for SPLOST were broadened,
and so there is a category in the Phase III, which apparently is unspent, there’s an
available balance in the area of facilities, public facilities, as opposed to roads and
bridges. So my suggestion is we had to leave the Phase I monies alone in the context of
this fire station project. If you have a problem down in District 1, like I know you do, we
should look at maybe the unencumbered balance of Phase I in a road project down there,
and it disqualifies – and George did call me a while back and said I’ve found it in Phase
III under facilities. I said well, I think that would be okay, to reprogram it within those
categories, because you can’t move from category to category. But you can move funds
around within the categories, which are within the permitted purpose of facilities. So
that’s what the administrator tried to find, was the funding that fit this category, because
the last time it came before the board, I indicated on Mr. Williams’ [inaudible], I believe,
that this category of Phase I money did not meet the purpose of the fire administration
building. And that’s – so you have to match the purpose of the funds to the project. If
that helps you.
100
Ms. Beard: In my opinion, I can’t understand that SPLOST funds could not be
used for a project like Sand Bar Ferry under any conditions.
Mr. Shepard: In order to get it passed every time, especially III and IV, the
Commission has committed itself to have categories of funding so that those categories
remain intact within an entire list. So like I said, the categories are roads and bridges, and
in that Phase III as well, and then there were these public facilities that were in Phase III.
So when they indicated to me that there was unappropriated money in Phase III available
for this purpose, that’s when I said I withdraw the objection that I made previously in
response to Mr. Williams’ question about the use of Phase I money. Because Phase I
money was roads and bridges. So I would think we’ve spent it since then. Maybe we
should look at what remains in Phase I, if it’s unencumbered, for what your need is.
Ms. Beard: And I do understand you to say that Phase III encompasses both, is
that correct?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Beard: [inaudible] I think my project is more important.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other questions on this particular item? [inaudible] I
just want to make sure that in finding the funding source – I’m not familiar with the
categories, but I had a long debate [inaudible] in reference to making sure some of these
things went in the proper category – was there an identifying place that was found in a
category, that I wanted to make sure we didn’t match money with a category, and that
category [inaudible]. That’s a big difference [inaudible] and you’re absolutely correct.
But I want to make sure to a point. I guess I’m a little curious as to where was close to
[inaudible] as a leftover amount on the facilities project, and if so I want to make sure
that it’s not a leftover amount that’s attached to anything that we may be dealing with in
reference to [inaudible] or court order activity [inaudible]. And I’m just searching for
that for information.
Mr. Shepard: And that information, in reference to this agenda item, was the
subject of the letter that Mr. Kolb sent as backup in this item. It’s what I used.
[inaudible] that’s what I relied on.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We just had some items to come up with facilities
[inaudible] I just was trying to find out to a point of where the [inaudible] and just a lying
around status came from under [inaudible]. I just wanted to make sure before it’s taken
[inaudible] point because [inaudible] nearly $1 million lying around in facilities, our sales
tax [inaudible] and it was a [inaudible] and I agree, [inaudible] but I was just curious as to
where it was found and what it was surplus from.
101
Mr. Shepard: Let me –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think we need to find that out, and particularly this one
we’re dealing with [inaudible] end up in the middle of the summer with a half million
dollar chiller problem or something jump up down at the jail and then [inaudible] finding
a source to deal with it. Cause there was a certain amount of net money left over in that
one, that was a reserve budget, that we didn’t [inaudible] Phinizy Road [inaudible] about
$3 million out there. We been kind of using that as little nest egg to deal with stuff when
we’ve had breakdowns and other things that been over there and we’ve had to put them in
and the rest of it’s been drawing interest. I just wanted to make sure that that wasn’t the
category where that came out of.
Mr. Shepard: Well, now –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir?
Mr. Shepard: To make double darn sure, and I agree with you, in the material I
reviewed is in the agenda book, but I think I can ask a question that will clarify it. If you
will just table this matter and let me make one inquiry I can come up with the line item.
Here again, I did not search for the line item, I asked Mr. Russell if he searched for it and
he did not. And the correspondence we’re relying on here is from our administrator. So
I’d ask the body to table the matter because I don’t want you to spend money on an
improper, improper expense myself.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I definitely [inaudible] right place to [inaudible] it, I just
want to make sure. [inaudible] left over out of some category, that’s not highly unusual.
That could be on a project [inaudible]. When it gets to be $1 million out of, out of your
facilities use, to a point where either we did spend it and we had a net surplus [inaudible]
somewhere and I just think it ought to be identified to a point where it was pulled from.
And my reason for being so persistent is that [inaudible] issue and [inaudible] dealing
with this project but we were trying to make sure that we were not over into a category of
where we had some surplus for a particular purpose that we [inaudible] and [inaudible].
And I just wanted to make sure that it’s free and clear and something that’s not attached
to anything. I think [inaudible] accounts. You’re certainly 100% right on one account.
But I think you ought to know the source of where it’s coming from, particularly when
it’s $1 million and you’ve got limited use [inaudible] that’s all I’m saying. Don?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I was looking and reviewing
the letter from Mr. Kolb that the attorney was alluding to, and in paragraph [inaudible] he
indicates – and I don’t know if this is maybe what you’re looking for or maybe what we
possibly need. We may need a little more definition to is. But he says from his review of
the financial status of Phase III there are more than enough funds remaining to complete
projects already scheduled. There are excess funds which are composed primarily of
102
interest and other funds such as more sales tax collected than anticipated. And so with
that information, I don’t know if those dollars are identified as earmarked dollars
[inaudible] either came from facilities or came from roads and bridges if they were extra
funds collected. Why couldn’t we use them where we deem necessary?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I think if they’re out of facilities, then you are correct.
But this is [inaudible] I want [inaudible] same argument prior to. And there was an
attempt to use funds because they were excess [inaudible] collected and we had interest
on them, and what we found out was that yes, they were excess, but they could not be
used because there was not an identifying source of making sure that it could be traced
back to how they were divided up. And they were [inaudible] and not able to identify
and it was not in a source to say okay, we build three buildings and out of the three we
saved $1 million or half a million dollars. And if that’s clear, I’m with you, I don’t have
a problem with it.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] recognize [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: I make a motion that we table this until we, we find out from the
attorney or whoever. We been here all day now, but if [inaudible] motion stands and we
find out something and we can move on it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion to table. Is there a second?
Ms. Beard: I second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second.
Mr. Shepard: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yeah, Ms. Beard seconded it.
Mr. Shepard: Well, my suggestion is due to the hour, tabling will continue to the
end of this meeting, which I know that the sources I’ve got to consult are not available
right now. I suggest the motion be to postpone until next time and we’ll verify the
funding source.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I just want to make sure we [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] find out right away. I mean [inaudible] .
103
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] but I think David has left, Commissioner, and the memo
I spoke – spoke to the issue that I raised last time is not in Phase I.
Mr. Williams: Well, I change my motion, then, that we just postpone.
[inaudible] postpone until we can get some information. If the funds there, then
[inaudible] can do it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] hand up [inaudible] want to recognize
[inaudible].
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, let me apologize. I agree firmly with
Commissioner Williams at this particular point in time. When I questioned Mr. Kolb just
prior to leaving, I felt [inaudible] transfer [inaudible] those funds were available. I did
not get the information that you’re requesting and I apologize for that. I do not know
exactly where those funds were coming from and I think it is prudent on your part to go
ahead and postpone that until we can get that information and I apologize.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And I don’t think it’s a problem. [inaudible] our of that
particular tax [inaudible] with what we use some of that funding for and to deal with,
with a particular type of facility [inaudible] we need to make sure that that’s not where
that has come from, because if it’s used we won’t be able to return to it in order to do it.
That was my only question in terms of how we work with it, not in terms of knocking
what’s there in the project. Tommy?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mays. As the finance chairman, I had requested a
report from our internal auditor, Mr. Cosnahan’s here, and from Mr. Persaud, and from
the administrator that gave us a total availability of funding in all phases of the sales tax.
th
That report hopefully is due back to us Monday, the 24. And I think it’s going to tell us
there are funds in a lot of different areas that are not committed. Some of them are
recaptured, some are over-collections, and I think it’s going to probably surprise us as to
what – I don’t want to let the cat out of the bag, but I think we’re going to be a little bit
ahead and we’re going to have the money to do some of these projects that we’ve been
talking about. And I just want to let you know that that is due back. I hope it’s going to
th
– J.T., we’re supposed to have it back the 24, which is our next finance committee
meeting, and so we might be just a little bit – since there are so many questions we could
be just a little bit premature with this. So if we want to postpone, I think maybe we could
just postpone two more weeks because it wouldn’t be that big a problem. I think we’re
going to find, we’re going to find the answers to all of the questions that I certainly had,
and I wanted to know before we go to the people again, I wanted to know how much
money was actually available and I believe, and I have full faith that we’re going to get
that Monday.
104
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think that was a very prudent move, Mr. Finance
Chairman, in order to request that. We all share with that. But I think at the same time,
having that clarification and [inaudible] particular project, but then at least we know to a
point that if we got some mandatory [inaudible] situation [inaudible] and that’s what I
wanted to make sure of.
Mr. Boyles: Well, you may recall when this committee was set up, when Mr.
Beard was with us last year, the latter part of last year, when that committee was set up to
do the research down on Sand Bar Ferry Road and to try to eliminate what we were
calling the green water, to try to get all that done, that’s when we requested that we get
this information. And it’s taken a while because there are certain commitments with
projects that have been on the drawing board, some projects that have been funded, and
some projects that have not overrides, but it may be money that is – what do we call it? -
- recaptured, that didn’t [inaudible] money, so I think it’s going to be a very good report
that we get Monday.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion and a second to do that, to postpone that,
and I think it was a substitute motion [inaudible]. [inaudible] to approve.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And the substitute is to postpone. All in favor of the
substitute motion will do so by the usual way of voting. And that is to postpone.
[inaudible] identification.
The Clerk: [inaudible] funding, yes, sir. Clarify the funding.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson out.
Mr. Smith, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Mays, Ms. Beard, Mr. Boyles vote Yes.
Ms. Sims and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Motion fails 5-2.
The Clerk: Motion fails.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion fails. Return to the original motion.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And that is to approve.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The original motion is to approve the allocation of $960,000
from Phase III SPLOST.
105
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of that motion will do so by the usual sign.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson out.
Mr. Grantham, Ms. Sims, Mr. Boyles and Mr. Smith vote Yes.
Ms. Beard votes No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Mr. Mays votes Present.
Motion fails 4-1-2.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, with the information that the finance
chairman has that’s coming back to all of us, and if we could [inaudible] proper
committee to deal with that, discussion. Okay [inaudible] at that time.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
The Clerk: You want it on the [inaudible] two weeks?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
The Clerk: The report will be on finance.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. Put on the committee’s agenda.
The Clerk: Okay. The next item, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, is item 21.
21. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Ford Explorer for the Director
of Emergency Management Agency from Bobby Jones Ford for $24,880.00 each
(lowest bid offer on Bid 03-121). (Approved by Finance Committee May 10,2004)
The Clerk: Mr. Williams pulled that.
Mr. Williams: I had one question on that Explorer, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The floor is yours.
Mr. Williams: I just wanted to make sure it wasn’t an Eddie Bauer [inaudible].
106
Mr. Speaker: No, it’s not.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] came back with all these whistles and bells on it, but
it’s not?
Mr. Speaker: Basic. Very basic.
Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. No discussion before the [inaudible],
all in favor do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
44. Update from staff regarding the theft at Fleet Management. (Requested by
Commissioner Marion Williams)
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, our internal auditor, Mr. Cosnahan, will speak
to this.
Mr. Williams: Before Mr. Cosnahan speak, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a
couple of comments.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. And the reason I asked this put on, we been
dealing with this for quite some time and not being closure that I know of, I wondering
why it been taking so long, wondering was [inaudible]. I know the last time [inaudible]
committee there was a police investigation done. But there has been other deceptions and
[inaudible] things done in this government had not taken this amount of time. I’m just,
I’m leery about what is taking place. I see fleet management is here. I’m sorry they have
to stay so late, but I’m glad they are. They have proved to be a fine company to do
business with this city. They was the one who uncovered this, I believe, but I just need to
know where we are, when we going to get some closure, and what actually happened.
You know, nobody talks about the amount, nobody talks about what was done. We
107
talking about the sheriff investigation [inaudible] do with that, but this government ought
to have some kind of [inaudible] on people who working for us and to come back with a
report. So with that said, I’d like to hear from Mr. Cosnahan exactly what his status is or
what he’s found out, where we out with this.
Mr. Cosnahan: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Before Mr. Cosnahan proceeds, I’m going to recognize the
attorney and I’m going to ask that when Mr. Cosnahan does proceed that it be discussed
within the confines of that which can be publicly discussed and whether or not
[inaudible] ongoing situation [inaudible] whether or not that jeopardizes that. So I’m
going to say that as the presiding officer of the meeting. That’s not, not to stifle any
discussion, but I’m as concerned as anybody else [inaudible] but I want to make sure that
we get the max out of what we’re asking everybody to do in this situation.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, that’s exactly
the point I wanted to make. I think [inaudible] Mr. Cosnahan and [inaudible] respect the
integrity of the prosecution process.
Mr. Cosnahan: The last time I met with you, brought you up to date on this
matter, I told you at that point we had requested documentation to further our
investigation that had to come through the sheriff’s department. This is not something
we can go out there and get. They have requested. We have been in touch with them
pretty much on a weekly basis since then [inaudible] let’s get rolling with it. We are
waiting on this documentation that comes from Philadelphia. I got an email [inaudible]
today that [inaudible] yesterday and today. The status that we’re at right now is exactly
where I’d told you that we were back when I talked to you before. The source we’re
getting these documents from has requested payment be made for the copies. The
sheriff’s department has already got that approved, sent the payment, we understand it,
off probably today. The copies will be forthcoming. The investigator said expect two to
three weeks before we have the documents in hand. So we are still really at first base
waiting on these documents, and we can’t go any further until we get that.
Mr. Williams: If I can respond, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Cosnahan, and I know you not the sheriff, you probably don’t
know anything about that position, but there some folks that been in jail, done got out of
jail, and probably going back to jail from committing crimes such as this one right here in
the city of Augusta, and I know you don’t have any jurisdiction over the sheriff, but I find
that kind of hard to swallow, I guess is a nice way of putting it, that we have not come
forth with what happened. This was fraudulent stuff that was done in this government.
108
And here we are, I mean, you know, and I know you live in this town. I know you know
about this town, you seen the stuff some of it yourself. But here we are with a situation
been going on for months, and I don’t mean two – at least four, maybe five months now,
that we been dealing with this back and forth. Had I not asked for it, we still would have
had no report of where we are. So I kind of, I’m, I’m, I’m, I’m a little worried. I mean
maybe we need to talk about it in legal, Steve, maybe there was a murder involved in this
thing that we don’t know about, either. Maybe they found somebody along when they
found the fraudulent stuff going on. But somebody need to say something and, and, and,
and be honest about it. It have not come out to, to any level of any magnitude that we can
understand yet. All we know is what the street talk is, that was fraudulent situation.
Look like it been done in the past. Look like it was done whatever time. Thanks to the
service we had with fleet management, who uncovered it and brought it to our attention,
brought it to the administrator. Their home office even came down. It was that serious.
For the home office to come to Augusta and spend time with the administrator and others
here to discuss it, it had to be a serious issue. We ain’t talking about $5 or $10. if it were
$5 or $10 [inaudible], Steve, but I got a serious problem with this. Cause it ain’t adding
up. And I hate to be a part of this government when folks ask me about what’s going on
and I got no clue, no idea. Other folks in this government been arrested, they got out of
jail, and, and, and probably on house arrest now to go back before the judge for
something even smaller. But we have not addressed this issue, so somebody laying down
on the job. That’s all I can say. And I’m not [inaudible] J.T., he didn’t have anything to
do with the sheriff. He said the sheriff department – how, with all the technology, all the
stuff we got, [inaudible] computer age, and with emails and fax machines and everything
else and overnight delivery and all that kind of stuff, and we still talking about we
waiting on something to come from – we waiting on something to die down, but this is
not going to die down. I’m, I want to know what happened. Cause some folks get
treated one way and some folks get treated another way and I think if you wrong,
whoever you are, ought to be brought to the light. It don’t take that long to do nothing.
Man, I could have walked to New York and back by all this time.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Mr. Williams, I would again urge you and the
other members of the Commission to accept this report from Mr. Cosnahan. The burden
of proof in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. We
similarly would have a civil burden, not beyond a reasonable doubt, but I think we would
have to have an excellent case for whatever we may use, the information, what it is. I
would just ask that you accept his explanation. If you have to talk about it in legal, I can
share with you some other experiences that I know of in the profession that does not
indicate that this is an abnormally long time to get records like he’s talking about. And
I’ll be happy to share that with you. Here again, I think he is proceeding in good faith
and [inaudible] about that, but I would ask that [inaudible] no [inaudible], that the do
have the burden of proof, that we not, we just monitor the situation as you have and not
ask any further questions about the matter.
109
Mr. Williams: Steve, I can’t do that. I hear what you saying, but I mean we got a
company [inaudible]. Now if they was wrong or they made a mistake, if they wrongly
accuse somebody, if they did not have no evidence, no proof, I don’t think they would be
in this chamber today or make those statements, because – I, I, I, I, I’m not that far off the
mark to tell me that because we investigating. Now if you look at the history of this
government and what happened with our Aquatics Center, what happened with Savannah
Place, what happened at the tag office, what happened at the dock, at the marina down
here, less than 24 or 48 hours, all that was all over Augusta. But now here we are, and I
don’t care – the sheriff, the sheriff got a job to do, he should do that job. But I’m talking
about this government. I’m not accusing nobody. But [inaudible] here but if there’s a
wrong every been done here, they need to say what it is and we need to address it as
Commission and let the sheriff do his job as far as arresting them. [inaudible] arrested
anybody.
Mr. Shepard: Well, here again, I’m asking you to make a decision based on
complete information. Mr. Cosnahan does not have that information yet. Therefore, I
would ask that you – you can bring it up every month, if you like, but that’s –
Mr. Williams: I got enough on my plate [inaudible]. I need to hear from fleet, I
need to hear from fleet, and, and, and, and [inaudible] Mr. Cosnahan did his
investigation, so maybe I called the wrong person. Fleet need to tell us [inaudible] this
government, what they was aware of, what they brought to the administrator, and where
[inaudible] as far as they concerned. But I’ve heard it too many times, over and over and
over and I don’t hear nothing. Just a bunch of noise. J.T., I appreciate your coming,
appreciate your standing there [inaudible] and I know you being paid, but I need to hear
where we are and what we going do.
Mr. Cosnahan: That’s exactly what I told you. The investigation we’re doing is
not complete. And until we get to that point, we cannot issue a report.
Mr. Williams: Well, I understand that. I’m not talking [inaudible] nobody has
said a word about how much money we talking about here now. We may be talking
[inaudible], we may be talking about something that ain’t worth talking about. But if it’s
something of any magnitude, at least that ought to be put out for our taxpayers to
understand that we not going to allow that, we have somebody [inaudible] this body and
we [inaudible] it. We can’t overlook stuff like that.
Mr. Cosnahan: We’re not going to put [inaudible] until we know the numbers
[inaudible].
Mr. Williams: So you have [inaudible] speculating?
Mr. Cosnahan: Certainly not. Not speculating.
110
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I’m going to address that. [inaudible] for just a
minute if you’ll hold on. [inaudible] in legal and what [inaudible] personnel in legal and
the case I think they brought us a ton of information before in legal. Now I sat through
the last time and heard it. There’s a ton that they can bring us tonight in reference to a
still ongoing investigation. [inaudible] that that’s where you need to hear it, and that’s
going to be the ruling from the chair. And I’ll be honest with you, we headed there, we
got some personnel issues we need to deal with, too, that we have put off. I’m going to
be the one to leave y’all tonight at a certain point in time, cause I’m going to have to
drive 250 miles tonight, so if we are going to hear that in legal tonight, then we can hear
it in legal, but it’s going to be item number 4 in legal. It ain’t going to be item number 1
in legal [inaudible]. [inaudible] we almost didn’t have a quorum before leaving and
[inaudible] bring that information then, and I think [inaudible] what they got to say. And
I yield to the engineering services chairman and then to Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Cheek: I guess in light of that, I wanted to request that we get a report back
from back from fleet on fuel consumption at the next meeting. And also to revisit the
mileage policy, look at [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I guess we can continue to,
continue to discuss this [inaudible] discuss it in legal or whether we receive this as
information and adjourn to legal after Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think it does need to be in there but I think questions need
to be asked on parts of it, if it’s, if it’s in relationship to where [inaudible] that is
[inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: And I have to say this, that my twin brother is right, it does appear
that we are more expeditious in the prosecution of other cases sometimes involving other
people, and I would hope that in five months [inaudible] paid for.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, it’s [inaudible] investigating that [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] doing something else with it, but I think to a
point of the people that you’ve asked to come tonight, I think [inaudible] in terms of it
expeditiously being done does not necessarily need to be made with the people that we
have called here to answer that. That is your internal auditor and that is the people on
staff that you hired to contract from fleet. Those are not the folk that’s going do the
prosecuting and investigating [inaudible] they’re not the ones to a point that where
[inaudible] and [inaudible]. Don?
111
Mr. Grantham: I’m going to ask Mr. Cheek to take a substitute motion that
will include his that we receive this as information but that we respect Mr.
Cosnahan’s position and the information that he has, that he can provide to us in an
open meeting, and we urge him to obtain this information that he has indicated to us
as quickly as possible and get back to us with that information so that we can bring
this case to a conclusion.
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and a second. We have a motion. But
before your twin brother [inaudible] to a point that if we really want to get to the nitty
gritty of what probably should have been done [inaudible] opportunity to deal with parts
of this when it was brought forward a long, long time ago and I think, Marion, you know
exactly what I’m talking about, even before [inaudible] that when people within this
government did not want to discuss it, did not hear it, did not want to deal with it. So
therefore, it was just ignore, and if we’re not [inaudible] from the standpoint of kicking
out the other folks and bringing in these folks, we may not have ever caught it. So I
[inaudible] the diligence that was done [inaudible] doing this in terms of bringing it up in
the very beginning. But I think that was an excellent start of where we could have saved
them some headache and time to a point had it been addressed properly when they
brought it through the proper channels and were not micromanaging at the time. I just
wanted to say that on the part of supporting it.
Mr. Speaker: Call for the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor of
the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Smith and Mr. Hankerson out.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What are we down to?
The Clerk: Item 45.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, I ask that we
take item 48 before we take item 45. Item 48 is a legal meeting, and I request a legal
meeting
48. LEGAL MEETING.
112
??
Pending and potential litigation.
??
Real Estate.
??
Personnel.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. All in favor of the motion will do so
by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 9-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
49. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Our meeting will resume. The Chair recognizes the
attorney for the purpose of [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I [inaudible] the Commission
[inaudible] to approve the affidavit, the closed meeting affidavit.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Shepard: For purposes of personnel, real estate and potential litigation.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. All in favor of the motion will do so
by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission,
for a motion to add to the agenda a motion to accept [inaudible] GBI property from
the state of Georgia subject to the city taking responsibility for the environmental
concerns on the property.
113
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion will do so. Did we get a motion?
Mr. Cheek: Yeah, we sure did. [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor, vote with the usual sign. [inaudible].
Mr. Hankerson out.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, in that motion, I asked for a motion to accept
the conveyance of the GBI property from the state of Georgia as, subject to the city
taking responsibility for the environmental [inaudible] .
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Any discussion? [inaudible] All in
favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Steve?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, [inaudible] Mr. Mayor Pro Tem,
members of the Commission, I’d ask for a motion to add and approve the settlement
of the consent order, expedited consent order with EPD with respect to five minor
spills at the – in connection with the water, I connection with the sewerage system
which has been presented to us, and that would be approved with a consent order
fine in the amount of $7,500.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
114
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any
opposed, the same.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, with the consent of Mr. Cheek, we need
to discuss item 41 and propose a motion that the parties involved in the [inaudible]
item 41 be invited to the Commission to show cause why the full implementation of
that project pursuant to the motion that was taken by this body, previously taken in
this body – I’ll attach a copy of the minutes – Madame Clerk [inaudible], do you
remember the date?
The Clerk: September 17.
Mr. Shepard: September 17 of 2003.
The Clerk: 2002.
Mr. Shepard: 2002. I’d ask in response to that item that parties involved in
that historic building and the application be ordered to show cause why they
haven’t fulfilled all the conditions.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, we were promised a nicely landscaped parking lot. We’ve
got gravel and chain link with no sign of doing anything better, and they took a historic
building down and made lots of promises and even lied to us [inaudible] good
explanation.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I’d just ask the motion be that they cause show cause and not have
any prejudgment of that issue at this time.
Mr. Cheek: I leave the door open. There is probably a good reason they put a
chain link fence up and graveled over it.
115
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other discussion? All in favor of the motion will do so
by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, one more motion. Addendum item 1
that needs to be disposed of. This was brought to your attention by the assistant
administrator. This concerned an unforeseen [inaudible] Fed-Ex Road. I ask for a
motion to add and approve the disposition of that, granting a change order
[inaudible] $8,000 to deal with the unforeseen presence of a cement structure in the
Fed-Ex Road.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair rules there has been adequate discussion on the
motion. All in favor of the motion, do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Shepard: One last motion, to delete item 45 from the agenda.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Speaker: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. All in favor of the motion will do so
by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 9-0.
116
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion to adjourn.
[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 May 18, 2004.
________________________
Clerk of Commission
117