HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-21-2004 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
July 21, 2004
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Wednesday, July
21, 2004, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Mays, Beard,
Williams, Sims and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Cheek, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Interim Administrator;
Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was presented by Rev. Norris Rouse.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Please be seated.
The Clerk: Rev. Rouse, on behalf of the Mayor and members of the Augusta
community, we want to thank you for coming in to petition heaven on our behalf. In
appreciation of that we’d like to [inaudible].
(A round of applause is given.)
RECOGNITIONS:
A. Employee of the Month Award - June
Mr. Otis Spence, Augusta Fire Department
The Clerk: At this time, we’d like to recognize the employee of month for the
month of June, Mr. Otis Spence with the Augusta Fire Department.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk: Mayor Young, the Employee Recognition Committee has selected
battalion chief Otis Spence with the Augusta Fire Department as the June, 2004
Employee of the Month for the City of Augusta. Battalion chief Otis Spence has worked
with the City of Augusta for over 45 years. He was hired on February 1, 1959 and retired
on July 1, 2004. His major duties included directing and supervising the activities of
multiple fire companies within the guidelines of federal and state law, life safety code,
and standard building codes. He coordinated and directed personnel in fire fighting,
rescue efforts, and handling hazardous material, in addition to training activities. The
Committee felt that based on Fire Chief Al Gillespie’s recommendation and Battalion
Chief Otis Spence’s service to the City of Augusta, he should be awarded the Employee
of the Month. The Committee would appreciate you joining us in recognizing and
1
honoring Battalion Chief Otis Spence Employee of the Month for 2004. Thank you.
Congratulations.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Want to make a speech, Chief? You may.
Mr. Spence: Yes, a little bit. I would like to thank all of you folks for this fine
award. It means a lot to an old man like man, when we’re getting ready to retire. This is
home. I was born in Augusta, raised in Augusta, and so this is my home, and there’s
nothing looks any finer than when you cross that Savannah River and see the city of
Augusta. I’m real proud of my city and I enjoy very much serving the citizens of the
community. I also want to recognize the help and cooperation that Chief Gillespie has
given me over time there, and I also want to recognize my fellow fire fighters that are
standing along the wall there in the back of the room. And I know that the greatest
satisfaction is the thought that they will not have to lay any more holes for practice under
my jurisdiction.
(Laughter)
Mr. Spence: I want to thank y’all again.
(A round of applause is given.)
B. Mr. Freddie Hagin
Augusta Utilities Department
Returning to AUD after having served in Iraq for one year.
The Clerk: At this time, we would like to recognize Specialist James O. Johnson
and Sgt. Freddie Hagin with the Augusta Utilities Department. Mr. Max Hicks, along
with others, please join the Mayor here at the podium. These certificates of recognition
are being given to Sgt. Freddie Hagin and Spc. James O. Johnson for proudly serving our
country in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Your commitment and dedication during this
st
mission is appreciated by a grateful community. Given this 21 day of July, 2004, Mayor
Bob Young, Mayor.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: We’d like to take a moment just to personally thank these fine
employees for their service to the city and to their country. Indeed, it’s not easy when
your government calls you and says we want to send you to war somewhere, because it
affects not only you, but the people you work with here in City government, it affects
your families and everyone who is in your extended family in the community. But
you’ve served our country proudly, with honor and distinction in Operation Iraqi
Freedom. We’re glad to have you back safely. I know Mr. Hicks has a lot of work that’s
been piling up and waiting for you. But please know that the heartfelt thanks of this City
2
go with those certificates in recognizing the mission that you have completely. Thank
you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if I may, in addition to these fine gentlemen who
worked real hard, we have other employees of our City that are serving presently and
have come back. We are making arrangements to recognize them in the near future as
they come back and work with us again, safely, we hope. Thank you.
C. Mr. Howard Willis, Director
ARC Emergency Management Agency
For successfully completing the requirements of the Georgia Certified
Emergency Manager Program and is recognized as a Certified Emergency
Manager for calendar year 2004
The Clerk: Mr. Howard Willis, would you please join the Mayor here at the
podium? Mr. Willis is being congratulated on completing the requirements as outlined in
the Certified Emergency Management curriculum. As a result of your accomplishments,
you have displayed a commitment to excellence and education in the field of emergency
management. This is to certify that Howard Willis, director of the Augusta Richmond
County Emergency Management Agency, has completed the requirements of the Georgia
Certified Emergency Managers Program and is recognized as a certified manager for
calendar year 2004. Congratulations, Mr. Willis.
(A round of applause is given.)
D. Mr. Max Hicks, Director, Augusta Utilities Department
Recognition for successful completion of the Self –Assessment and Peer
Review as part of the QualServe Program sponsored by the American Water
Works Association and the Water Environment Federation.
The Clerk: Mr. Hicks?
Mr. Hicks: We wanted to express to the Commission today our appreciation for
your support as the Augusta Utilities Department moves forward in our benchmark 2010
program. One of our efforts was to have a [inaudible] and a peer review from the
American Water Works Association and we have [inaudible] recognized for their
achievements and we are moving in that direction as a utilities department [inaudible]
step [inaudible] and we have [inaudible] as we not only continue to put in pipe and
pumps and treatment facilities, but also improve our management of administrative
[inaudible] this [inaudible]. We appreciate your support.
(A round of applause is given.)
PRESENTATION:
3
E. Mr. Howard Willis, Director
ARC Emergency Management Agency
Community Emergency Response Team
The Clerk: Mr. Howard, director of Emergency Management, and Mr. Williams,
as Public Safety Chairman, will you please join Mr. Willis and the Mayor here as we
recognize the Community Emergency Response Team. Today’s recognition is a
certificate of completion in recognition and dedication of the EMA -- of the Augusta
Richmond County certification program. As I call your name, would you please join the
Mayor and Mr. Williams and Mr. Willis at the podium? Mr. Bobby Jones, Jr. Marcia
Ferendez. Mr. Andrew F. Prestwood. Ernestine Locket. David Peacock. Catherine R.
Tanksley. Ronnie [inaudible]. Isabelle [inaudible]. [inaudible] Moore. Barbara
[inaudible]. John [inaudible]. [inaudible] Tanksley. [inaudible]. [inaudible] Egan.
Mr. Willis: Mr. Mayor and Commission, I’d just like to present these people to
you. This is our first graduating class for the [inaudible] Response Team. These people
in major disasters will respond and assist our professional people, such as fire, EMS and
police service in many different aspects. They have gone through nine weeks of training.
They have basic EMT skills, fire fighting skills. They have been real good. We started
out 18, finished the class with 17. I’m really proud of them, and they have [inaudible].
th
We have already used them on the 4 of July. We used them to assist us with the River
Blast event. I certainly thank y’all and thank all of you for participating in this class.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, once again, if you could ask those individuals to come
back up real quick, we’ll get their picture, a group picture.
Mr. Mayor: All of you [inaudible]. Photo opportunity. [inaudible]
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will take a moment to introduce -- to recognize
Commissioner Smith on a point of personal privilege. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A point of personal privilege, I’d like to
name three appointments from District 8. Mr. Gene Workman. Gene, will you stand up?
He’s a -- Gene is a retired colonel from the United States Army. He trains, breeds and
shows German shepherd dogs, and I think you’ll be a tremendous asset to this committee.
Thank you, Gene. And at the Daniel Field Aviation, Mr. Bill Woods. Bill, would you
stand? Bill is retired from the United States Air Force and also from the United States
Postal Service. I know Bill will be a big plus for the Daniel Field operation. Bill, thank
you for being willing to serve. And last but not least, Minority Business Development is
Rev. Cleve Garrison. Would you stand? He’s the pastor of Newberry Baptist Church.
He’s the owner of A-1 Iron Works. He’s a close friend of mine and I know that he’ll do a
4
great job. We thank you and appreciate you coming today and being part of it. Thank
you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Smith.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Before we move on with the delegation, Madame Clerk, I’d like to
take a moment to introduce to the members of this Commission these young people that
are entering the Chamber. They’ve been very patiently waiting outside. They are with
Camp Fix-It, which is a summer camp for young people. They’ve been very active for
the past several weeks and the visit to the Commission meeting today is part of their
summertime activities. Is there someone who would like to -- could I get you to come to
the podium and introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about the camp?
Ms. Scott: I am Aileen Scott, and this is the Camp Fix-It group from Dyess Park.
It’s about education group, education camp. They are presently studying Black history
and government. We wanted them to come here today so they can see how their
government works, meet they Mayor, and their councilmen and women, and just get a
feel for government and understand how it works. These are our young leaders for
tomorrow. They’re going to be sitting in positions where you’re sitting, many of you,
lead our city, our nation and the world, and they’re very excited to be here. Thank you so
much. We worked so hard to get here. And they’ve been asking to meet Mayor Young.
Children, here is your Mayor.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Boyles: That was for them, Mr. Mayor, not you.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: I want to thank these young folks for being with us today. One of the
first things you’ll learn about the government is this meeting could go on for quite some
time, so if you young people get hungry and you feel an urge to leave, don’t let us keep
you from supper tonight.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll go with our delegation next.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
Ms. Mattie Mitchell
5
Bethlehem Neighborhood Association.
RE: Public Safety issues and concerns relative to the Bethlehem Neighborhood
The Clerk: Ms. Mitchell?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Mitchell, thank you for being with us this afternoon. Under the
Commission rules, you have five minutes.
Ms. Mitchell: Five minutes? Okay. It will be less than that. Good evening.
We’re here to talk about the problems that are happening in Bethlehem Community.
Originally I was going to let Ms. Gilbert speak to you. What I did, I went around and
talked to all the people [inaudible] we understand, we’ll do it in five minutes or less.
Mr. Mayor: Do you have some people with you? Would they like to stand? Are
there some others from the neighborhood?
Ms. Mitchell: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: How about if you raise your hand, those of you that are with the
delegation, so we can recognize you.
Ms. Mitchell: You have five minutes.
Ms. Gilbert: Good afternoon.
Mr. Mayor: Give us your name and address for the record, please.
th
Ms. Gilbert: My name is Corinne Gilbert. 1623 12 Street, Augusta, 30901,
Bethlehem neighborhood. Proud to live there. Bought the house two years ago, been
renovating it. Also work for Habitat for Humanity, so this is my job and my life. We
have some serious crime issues in our neighborhood, as you know. We also have only
one police officer who has to take care of this whole neighborhood. And I’m sure he is
well over-taxed. It is not uncommon in my neighborhood to have to do a roll-out-of-bed
and hit-the-floor when guns start firing. A couple of weeks ago, while lying in bed at
9:45 at night a gentleman [inaudible] Stop-N-Save and started firing straight down MLK
Boulevard at a car, not caring who was in the neighborhood or what was going on.
[inaudible] crawled to the back of my house to make sure my child was safe. [inaudible]
I’ll be there for them if I can. But they are petrified, and they, too, were laying on the
floor. Did we report this? Yes. Was a report made? No. For safety reasons, obviously,
we don’t want our names on any reports against any gang members in that neighborhood.
We know the gangs, we know who is doing this. They are not shy about it, they walk up
and down the street, they do not care. And we have one officer pretty much to take care
of it. I guess what we’re asking for is we need a substation in our neighborhood.
Desperately. It is under renovation. Through my organization and a lot of other ones, as
the Mayor knows, we are actively renovating that neighborhood, but we really [inaudible]
6
and it is not at this point very safe. And I just want to thank you all for listening to me
for a second. Thank you.
Ms. Mitchell: Thank you. I’m gong to kind of piggy-back on that. like I said,
these problems didn’t start just now, Mayor. They have been brewing for a long time.
What happened, these young men started out [inaudible] tearing boards off of property
and going in and taking the wires out and selling it [inaudible]. The second phase of this
scene they started, setting houses afire. Police will come and say vagrants. There were
three houses set afire on Maple Street alone in less than three days. Vagrants did not do
that. Thugs did it. Now the thugs have taken over the city. They are coming out with
.44s. My son’s -- [inaudible] only one investigator [inaudible] who cannot do any more
than [inaudible] cause he is not able to stretch out and do the entire city. Right now he’s
doing something on Broad Street where they broke in down there. You’re familiar with
that. But anyway, these thugs have come into Maple Street [inaudible] got behind a
th
house that’s up on Twiggs and 9 Street. My son [inaudible] in the process of shooting
thth
up 4 Street and 9 Street. He saw one man hiding [inaudible] behind a bush. The man
[inaudible] out of his truck, shot him in his stomach, and walked up to him and shoot him
th
in his head. They shot the entire Laney Walker area. That part down by 9. [inaudible],
they shot [inaudible] put her child in the bathtub, my son [inaudible] pleaded for
somebody to let him in, finally he got in. They shot up my work truck that I use to let
him work and hire people to clean up the inner city. These thugs do not want jobs. The
object is to kill, steal and destroy. That same week [inaudible] a young woman, this was
[inaudible] weekend, was drug in a car on Molly Pond Road. The same weekend
[inaudible] two doors from me was kicked in. A car -- okay, then they also had on
Saturday, [inaudible] Saturday, on Ash Street which is right there by me, a young lady
and her three-year-old boy, they were getting ready to shoot up his house, shoot up their
house. So all of these problems are going on, and all we’re asking you -- they’re not
getting any better, Mayor, Commissioners, in fact it’s going to get worse. [inaudible]
shoot all of us. [inaudible] it’s about time. I’m asking you, I really don’t -- I’m not even
angry right now, I’m really more hurt than anything else. My bill for my son is $50,000.
We don’t have that kind of money. These people need to be taken off the street.
Everybody in the community know who they are. What we asking is any type help you
can give us. We need police protection. Cause if we don’t get it under control now -- we
don’t want them to come to your area -- arrest them where they grew up and right there
where the crime started so they will not tear up our neighborhood. And that’s what’s
going happen if we don’t get this thing under control. We are asking you for any support
that you can give us. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. My obvious
question would be have you talked with the sheriff about this?
Ms. Mitchell: Yes, sir.
7
Mr. Mayor: Would you come back to the microphone, just so we can get it on the
record? Talked to him about these concerns and requested of him that there be a
substation there in the area?
Ms. Mitchell: Yes, sir. It was explained to me that there was only one police
officer in our area and that their hands are tied. I know -- and I don’t want to say who is
against who. I don’t really care. [inaudible] we getting killed, we’re getting shot up and
wounded. So we don’t need back and forth. The sheriff actually said, [inaudible] said,
it’s [inaudible] they don’t have enough, the police department, the policemen on the
force. Now this is what the sheriff did to me the next day after this happened. He did
send five or six police cars out and we all felt safe. So I’ve never gone to the sheriff and
not had things resolved. And also I told the sheriff I’ve never been here before you all
and not had the things resolved. I don’t know whose problem it is, but whoever it is, can
the two of you get together and get us some protection in the Bethlehem area?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams chairs our Public Safety Committee and
he’d like to be recognized.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Mitchell brought this to our
committee meeting. We did discuss it. The sheriff came in. He informed us that a
substation was going to be something that was pretty far out there. He didn’t know
whether they could do that. But he is supposed to get with Mr. Russell, if I’m not
mistaken, to go back and see what we can do. Ms. Mitchell is right, though, this is not
the first time this kind of incident has taken place in those areas. I keep saying, I keep
preaching about what’s going on in the inner city in District 2. It’s a bad situation.
People keep turning their heads. She’s not the only one. Not the only community with
this problem. The hospital is for those who are sick, I mean for those who need those
services ought to have those services. I mean and I don’t want to get on the band wagon
about how many officers you see other places and how you see them riding up and down
the street. And it’s a big, it’s a big area. But we got a serious problem when those young
people out there have to grow up with the type of stuff they have to endure in their
lifetime, and people don’t know what effect that have on them. So Ms. Mitchell, the
sheriff did come, he did come to Public Safety meeting. He is supposed to come back to
our next Public Safety meeting to give us some numbers, some places that we might be
able to do it. We also spoke about Rev. Leonard and using his church as a facility about
[inaudible] place for a unit. But even if we had just the unit, trust me, that’s not going to
solve your problem. We need to get tough on crime. We need to get tough on the way
we let our city go. There are some things we bring on ourselves because we are not being
held accountable. We give people places. Those abandoned houses that you spoke of,
and Mr. Shepard is going to address that today, that people got a place to go hide. And as
long as you got a place to hide, you are going to hide, somebody is going to hide. So we
need to first of all start to clean up, fix up, and get our police officers in those areas
[inaudible]. Now most people like you and me run to the police. Other people run to
police. We need to get, we need to have an understanding, if you break the law, you
ought to go to jail. If you haven’t done anything, you ought to be [inaudible] officers for
assistance. So it’s a very serious situation and I am worried about these young people.
8
[inaudible], Mr. Mayor, there’s a lady who was shot in her chair who died in a drive-by
shooting. On [inaudible] Boulevard about six, eight years ago. Mr. Mays, you may be
able to give me a year. I don’t remember exactly when. But those kind of things are
taking place in our neighborhood. Those are the kind of things taking place. And Ms.
Mitchell, you’re right again. It’s going spread. It’s not going stay there. Once they do as
much damage they can, it’s going to continue to grow. We’ve got to do something about
it while we can. And so where that problem lies, Mr. Mayor, between me and the sheriff
and Mr. Russell, we going work on it, we going try to do what we can, but there is a very
serious problem out there.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, thank you. Thank you, Mattie, for coming. Let
me, let me say this to get back on a little bit of what the Public Safety Chairman is
saying. It’s ironic out of that same District area that we would have a lot of young people
that are with us today for a positive reason. And there are so many other good kids still
[inaudible] majority of them that are in that area that are good kids. And they deserve to
be protected, they deserve a better chance, they deserve to live in better surroundings than
are there. It’s going to take all us to solve the problem that’s there [inaudible]. Now the
idea in reference to the substation is good, but I agree with Marion it’s going to have to
be more than a presence someplace than just filling out reports. It’s going to have to be a
network of working together with the neighborhood and law enforcement. Just in, to add
to what she’s just said, in the last -- less than a week, in fact, last Wednesday [inaudible]
that we know about, on Gregg Street alone, had been the drop-off place for stolen
vehicles that have come in, and I can attest to the fact cause one of them was mine. And
th
a young lady on 12 Street can attest to the fact it was right across from your house there,
is where I apprehended and got my car. And I’m glad I’m a little older fellow now,
because I might not have been present here today, I might have been in a little more
trouble than I needed to be in to the point of doing it. But you talk about the boldness,
it’s there. And I think what we need to do with neighborhood people, Sheriff’s
Department, Public Safety chairman, the Mayor and myself at least, we need to, we need
to meet on a strategy basis with some things. It’s good for them to come back to Public
Safety Committee meeting, but I think [inaudible] I don’t believe in telling messages to
with that you got to go to war with. There are some strategies, there are some undercover
things, there are some things that need to be done specifically in that area that are
different, even to the point of staffing and an experienced level of people who are
familiar with working that area, who know the territory and aren’t just there to a point, I
think we got some good people, all of them come out there to work with our community
[inaudible], but you got to have folk that know that territory, know the footage of it,
know where to get information from and how to get it. Those are some strategic things I
think privately that we need to meet, Mr. Mayor, Public Safety Chairman, along with the
Sheriff, and talk about, because there are some, there are some gut issues that are there
st
that need to be dealt with. I believe in the rights of folk, freedom, and in terms of 1
Amendment rights, but there is something wrong in a neighborhood to a point that when
you don’t live in a certain place, you don’t rent there, you don’t own anything there, you
don’t know anybody there, but you occupy space there 24/7. there is something that
9
needs to be done with that. And there is a difference community-wise and I can say this
because I think in terms of tenure and of being here, I basically support it, everything
that’s come before this Commission and the last Commission that’s dealt with public
safety in terms of staffing and still I realize that if you have a deputy on every corner that
would not solve every problem. But I’ve been supportive and I’m going to stay
supportive. But I think there’s some creative measures and some things that we’ve got to
do differently. Every neighborhood is not the same. I mentioned in one meeting to a fact
that if you break down in some neighborhoods by accident to a point you need to have ID
ready and everything else that you do. I can come home in some areas and see folk that
I’ve never seen before at all to a point and folk ride by them as though they just at four
o’clock in the morning there’s something you ought to be different than where you are.
But this is something that’s daytime and nighttime and to a point that we’ve got to
address it differently in terms of that particular [inaudible], so I think we need to go with
you. We need to have the type of meeting that we can discuss some things that only
those trusted neighbors in that area could know, cause we don’t need to put you in danger
of some things that happen. So nobody in that area is immune, whether you, whether you
a Commissioner, whether you an average citizen. There are certain things there that we
have to fight, that we have to do. And cannot be afraid to deal with folk who mean none
of us any good. And you know it’s just a point that when I got mine [inaudible] the other
day [inaudible] I ain’t going to call her number, but to a point if the folk who stole my
vehicle were strangers to her, then it’s a different color than red, white and blue that’s on
that flag that’s over in there. You don’t sit on somebody’s porch, park a car in the
driveway, and back it up and then you don’t know nothing about it. You know,
sometimes to a point people also have to cooperate in that community and to take those
stands, too, and to say hey, if you going to bring havoc on everybody else then, hey, you
are going to have to leave, because that’s the only way that good folk – and like these
young people and adults there can have any peace. And that’s, that’s what’s happening
there. I got a little slow on my feet, young folk, cause I tell you what, I got within about
eight yards of them and they hit another gear and got away. But I got a good look at their
face. It’s a photogenic memory that clicked on up there and I know we’ll meet again.
But I got the car back. And to a point that when I called to check on it the next day I was
quite surprised to a point that that report wasn’t even in, as I expressed to the
Administrator, that my car had been recovered. I had it, I got it back, and the police was
on the scene. But officially it was still missing. I said I want to sure make sure that you
know that I’ve got it back, so that if I’m driving it to a point that it ain’t still stolen. So
you know, those are the type of things that I think in a communication world that in
neighborhoods, that particularly where we have this problem, it’s got to be dealt with
differently and you can’t fight crime everywhere the same way. You got some different
predators, you got to deal with them differently. And where we going to need those type
of resources to do it. I supported it, the last tax situation that we dealt with with Public
Safety, some of us were criticized for that millage that we increased in Public Safety. We
put it there. Now we don’t control that, but I’m willing to work with the Sheriff’s
Department to a point as to how we can blend and make that work better that’s over in
there. Money alone will not do it, but we got to deal with I think a different level of
policing that goes inside the inner city and in high crime areas as opposed to those where
you may not have the same problem. And I think that if that can be arranged, Mr. Mayor,
10
through the Clerk’s office to a point of where we set up that meeting with the Sheriff’s
Department, Ms. Mitchell, in order to do that, then I would welcome that, but there are
some things that we are going to have to do in there that’s different than what is being
done now.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I’d just like to say, you know I’ve just been reelected and there are
some things that I would like to mention. I had so many young people, like the young
people you see out there, working in my campaign. As a matter of fact, I’d say from 13
to adult, and they basically carried signs, made a little money, and really enjoyed it.
There was one situation, though, that I want to mention. There was a mother who came
in and signed up to work. And she said I want to sign my son up. And so she signed the
two of them up. So when I called, everyone agreed to work and they were so excited,
st
except that when I got to this young man and in my 1 District, he said, well, my mother
isn’t here. And I called the next day. He said well, she still isn’t here. I said well, when
is she coming? He said I don’t know when she’s coming. I said well, take this down. I
said tell her to call me, my name is Betty Beard. He had told me was 14. He could not
write Betty Beard. And he could not write a phone number. I’m saying that to say we
are going to have to do something about the situations in that District, and it’s not just the
police. We are going to have to provide mentors, people who will get in there and see
that these young people get what they need in order to be productive citizens. What is
going to happen to this young man? We are going to have to take some responsibility
here. And I’m just not willing to sit and allow this to continue. We are making progress.
Some of the homes that have been built have made a difference. With the homes being
built, others are coming in and improving theirs. But we have a lot more that has to be
done. And I think I see the person in charge of Dyess Park – is that correct? Do you
work with Dyess Park in some way?
Ms. Speaker: No. We are a camp in Dyess Park working [inaudible] so I’m one
of the directors of the camp.
Mr. Mays: She’s one of our unpaid workers.
Ms. Speaker: Right. [inaudible] love children, we are there to provide this
program for them, that they might be enhancing their lives and they might be off the
street, learn a little bit about what’s going on, get involved, so that they can make their
community a better place to live. Not only their community, but the city, affect the
whole city, the state, even the nation, and make [inaudible]. They know that they are the
best, they are the cream of the crop. They know they are the leaders of tomorrow, and
they, they know, they are working toward improving themselves to make a difference.
Ms. Beard: I just would like to add one other thing. I didn’t have a victory party,
but I am going to have a thank-you party. And I’m going to have it at Dyess Park on
Friday from 6 until 9 and I’d like to invite you and all the young people that I see here
11
with their parents and anyone else who would like to attend, and we’re going to begin
there. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Ms. Beard: And the pool will be open.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams will see to that.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Anything further on this item? Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, if I could be very brief on this.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Hankerson: 15 years ago I experienced the same thing that this group here
experiencing today from Bethlehem – Barton Village was a place that you couldn’t walk
the streets, also. I think that, I suggest that from the comments that have been made from
both Commissioners and you also, Mr. Mayor, that the City just get tough on crime. It’s
going to take a “tough on crime” committee and the message is going to have to get to the
citizens of Augusta that we will not tolerate this any longer. When that activity began in
Barton Village, at the time Moses Todd and myself was working diligently to get rid of
crime, I said to the Sheriff’s Department, I said to the Sheriff at that time, we’re not going
to stop this problem until the ones that are, are involved in the problem, the drug pushers
and all these other activities, until they know that law enforcement are serious – not just
dressed up, riding down the street in a car and going right back out, and they jumping out
in the streets, back in a yard, saying that they are visiting someone. But until we have
some sweeps from Captain Partain – we need to get him, Partain, we need to get him
involved, with narcotics, and we need them to address the city from the air, from the cars,
from the street, and let people know that we are serious about cleaning up the crime and
the dope in the area, the gangs, or whatever and somebody’s going to jail. And also we
have to let the community know that you’ve got to get ready, if you want to straighten it
up, if you want to clean it up, it’s going to take the citizens of Bethlehem, it’s going to
take law enforcement, not only – not only the gray and black cars, but Narcotics need to
be involved, undercover need to be involved, dogs need to be involved. At that time they
call in law enforcement, drug teams for Columbia County, Burke County, they call them
in from other counties, they brought dogs in, they brought everything, but periodically
they had some sweeps. We need to sweep up the crime, get serious, and that’s the only
way you’re going to correct it, that drug pusher or that person that’s going to steal a
vehicle, know that it’s unsafe, it’s not a wise idea to do it in Bethlehem. And that’s the
only way. The message is going to have to get across so we get the citizens involved,
law enforcement involved, and then get various agencies involved that are serving
12
Augusta. Get the agencies for, also for the rehabilitation and helping in the community
and involvement with the church there, that’s already there, that have these community
programs in Bethlehem, to get involved with those so we can teach the children. As you
see these children that are here today, somebody is teaching them and trying to make a
more positive community. And I think, I think that we – I suggest that you organize a
“get tough on crime” committee consisting of the ones that you, Mayor Pro Tem,
Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Beard was talking about. Let’s get a
committee together and set up a strategic plan, how we’re going to involve law
enforcement, with Sheriff Strength, also with Captain Partain, and also get serious on
crime. We got to get tough as nails.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Do we have a motion to receive this as
information?
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All then please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much, Ms. Mitchell. We’ll be back in touch with
you as this moves along.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Commissioner Cheek will
not be in attendance today. He’s out with a virus.
Mr. Mayor: Before we move on to the consent agenda, Madame Clerk, waiting
for all the Commissioners to arrive, but I just wanted to express the congratulations of the
Mayor and the Commission to Ms. Sims and Ms. Beard on their election yesterday.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: You’ll recall it was just a few months ago that these two ladies made
history in this chamber when the City Commission elected them to serve in an interim
period until a special election could be held. And yesterday, the voters of Augusta made
history by electing the first two women to this body. And we congratulate both of you
and appreciate your presence and your contributions. Thank you. We’ll move ahead
with our consent agenda, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 41, that’s 1
through 41.
For the benefit of any objectors to our planning petitions, when the petitions
13
are read, if there are any objections, would you please signify your objections by raising
your hand?
PLANNING:
1. Z-04-54 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the conditions that 1) the zoning
classification shall revert to LI if the petitioner does not place a manufactured home
on the property within two years and; 2) the zoning classification shall revert to LI
if the petitioner removes a manufactured home for more than two years; a petition
by Russell D. Bonham requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry)
to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) affecting property located at 123
Pollard Road and containing .88 acres. (Tax Map 61-2 Parcel 5) DISTRICT 1
2. Z-04-55 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Rebecca Rice requesting a change of
zoning from Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) to Zone R-1 (One-
family Residential) affecting property located on the northeast right-of-way line of
Seago Road, 1,070 feet, more or less, north of the northeast corner of the
intersection of Ascot Road and Seago Road and contains approximately 10.0 acres.
(Tax Map 254 Parcel 1.15 & 1.16) DISTRICT 8
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions? The same will be
noted for our alcohol petitions. If there are any objectors, would you please signify your
objections by raising your hand?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
7. Motion to approve a request by Mary Sebastian for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with India Café located
at 503 Shartom Dr. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee July 12, 2004)
8. Motion to approve a request by Vanessa S. Rogers for an extension of time to
purchase the retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Savin
Haven #3 located at 3333 Mike Padgett Hwy. District 8. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee July 12, 2004)
9. Motion to approve a request by Pamela Zagar for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with California Café
located at 202 Hudson Trace. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee July 12, 2004)
10. Motion to approve a request by Richard H. Crawford for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the Eckerd Corporation d/b/a
Eckerd Drugs #6656 located at 3137 Peach Orchard Road. District 6. Super District
10. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 12, 2004)
11. Motion to approve a request by Ronald Brooks for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with GFGA
Management d/b/a Augusta Towers Hotel & Convention Center located at 2651
Perimeter Parkway. There will be dance. There will be Sunday Sales. District 3.
Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 12, 2004)
14
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor. We need a motion to
: No objectors are noted, Madame Clerk
approve the consent agenda.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Would you like to pull any of the items for
further discussion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull number 13, 15, 20, 23.
Mr. Mayor: All right. That was 13, 15, 20 and 23. Anyone else? Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Pull number 14.
Mr. Mayor: Number 14 for Mr. Smith.
Mr. Grantham: I have a question, if you don’t mind. Mr. Administrator, is the
item number 5, is that one that we need to discuss, to amend, based on a request from the
Daniel Field Aviation Board? I was not in attendance at that meeting. I was out of town
Monday. And Mr. Boyles attended that meeting for me. And I understand that there was
some, an adjustment to be made within that request.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if I may. Yes, sir, I was contacted day before yesterday
or yesterday in reference to that particular item. The board of Daniel Field has voted to
change that salary, the supplemental salary, from $10,247 to $20,000. Therefore, it
would need to be amended or pulled off the consent agenda and discussed.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s go ahead and pull that item then.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mays, can I add 35 to be pulled, as well?
Mr. Mayor: All right, number 35 for Mr. Williams. Okay. Anyone else?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On the approval of the minutes of the July 1
meeting, I guess it’s a technicality, but on page 15 of the minutes from those meetings,
concerning item 58, it says that Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams and Ms. Beard voted no on that.
They were really not in the meeting. I don’t know if that should be noted or not, but they
15
had left the meeting that day, and that was – I think the other votes are correct but maybe
the record should show that they were out.
Mr. Mayor: All right. The Clerk will make that correct and it will be correction.
Mr. Boyles: Want a no vote on that.
The Clerk: Okay.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PLANNING:
1. Z-04-54 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the conditions that 1) the zoning
classification shall revert to LI if the petitioner does not place a manufactured home
on the property within two years and; 2) the zoning classification shall revert to LI
if the petitioner removes a manufactured home for more than two years; a petition
by Russell D. Bonham requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry)
to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) affecting property located at 123
Pollard Road and containing .88 acres. (Tax Map 61-2 Parcel 5) DISTRICT 1
2. Z-04-55 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Rebecca Rice requesting a change of
zoning from Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) to Zone R-1 (One-
family Residential) affecting property located on the northeast right-of-way line of
Seago Road, 1,070 feet, more or less, north of the northeast corner of the
intersection of Ascot Road and Seago Road and contains approximately 10.0 acres.
(Tax Map 254 Parcel 1.15 & 1.16) DISTRICT 8
3. SA-41 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to delete Section 202 G & H and
add a new Section 203 of the Subdivision Regulations for Augusta-Richmond
County pertaining to performance guarantee and irrevocable letter of credit.
4. ZA-R-165 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta- Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to Section 3-12(s) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County to eliminate the
special setback on that portion of Wrightsboro Road that is not affected by the
proposed widening project and is presently five or more lanes.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
5. Deleted from the consent agenda.
6. Motion to approve Grant for fencing and Runway Maintenance at Daniel
Field. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 12, 2004)
7. Motion to approve a request by Mary Sebastian for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with India Café located
at 503 Shartom Dr. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee July 12, 2004)
16
8. Motion to approve a request by Vanessa S. Rogers for an extension of time to
purchase the retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Savin
Haven #3 located at 3333 Mike Padgett Hwy. District 8. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee July 12, 2004)
9. Motion to approve a request by Pamela Zagar for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with California Café
located at 202 Hudson Trace. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee July 12, 2004)
10. Motion to approve a request by Richard H. Crawford for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the Eckerd Corporation d/b/a
Eckerd Drugs #6656 located at 3137 Peach Orchard Road. District 6. Super District
10. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 12, 2004)
11. Motion to approve a request by Ronald Brooks for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with GFGA
Management d/b/a Augusta Towers Hotel & Convention Center located at 2651
Perimeter Parkway. There will be dance. There will be Sunday Sales. District 3.
Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 12, 2004)
12. Motion to approve a request to accept the bid proposal from PAC in the
amount of $1,888,981.90 for the relocation of the General Aviation Apron
Expansion /Taxiway “C”. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 12, 2004)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
13. Deleted from the consent agenda.
14. Deleted from the consent agenda.
15. Deleted from the consent agenda.
16. Motion to ratify an agreement with MACH Academy, Inc. for funding under
CDBG Program Urban Development Action Grant Funds. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee July 12, 2004)
17. Motion to ratify an agreement with De’Jour Innovative Solutions for funding
under CDBG Program Recaptured Urban Development Action Grant Funds.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 12, 2004)
18. Motion to approve retirement of Mr. James Coffman under the 1977 Pension
Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 12, 2004)
19. Motion to approve funding of a part-time position of
Agriculture/Horticulture Program Assistant for the Extension Service. (Approved
by Administrative Services Committee July 12, 2004)
FINANCE COMMITTEE:
20. Deleted from the consent agenda.
21. Motion to approve abatement of taxes on City property Map 59-2, Parcel
101. (Approved by Finance Committee July 12, 2004)
22. Motion to approve the update of Authorized Signers. (Approved by Finance
Committee July 12, 2004)
23. Deleted from the consent agenda.
24. Motion to support the effort/deny the funding request from the Chamber of
Commerce Military Affairs Committee and the Mayor’s Military and Veterans
17
Affairs Committee for City sponsorship as a 4- Star sponsor of Military
Appreciation Day on August 28, 2004 at the GreenJackets game. (Approved by
Finance Committee July 12, 2004)
25. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Bucket Truck for the Public
Works Department - Traffic Engineering Division – Street Light Branch from Altec,
Inc. of Elizabethtown, Kentucky for $69,373.00. (Approved by Finance Committee
July 12, 2004)
26. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering Department to contract
with MapTech, Inc. in the amount of $167,280 to provide technical support for the
Section 319 (H) FY03 Non-point Source Implementation Grant previously awarded
to and accepted by Augusta from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources –
Environmental Protection Division. Also approve corresponding Budget Resolution
in the amount of $232,280. (Approved by Finance & Engineering Services
Committees July 12, 2004)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
27. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 26-2, Parcel 119
which is owned by Robert Nelson Williams for a 3,989 square feet, more or less, of
permanent utility and maintenance easement and 1,997 square feet, more or less, of
temporary construction easement for Project 60110-Rae’s Creek Interceptor
Upgrade. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 12, 2004)
28. Motion to accept Deed of Dedication for Greenspace areas in Pinehurst
Subdivision. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 12, 2004)
29. Motion to accept Deed of Dedication for Greenspace areas in Evergreen
Subdivision. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 12, 2004)
30. Motion to approve deductive Change Order Number 10 with Mabus
Brothers Construction Company in the amount of $174,918.25 on the Laney Walker
Boulevard Reconstruction Project with the proceeds transferred to the project
Utilities Account (CPB#327-04-1110201812018). (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee July 12, 2004)
32. Motion to approve funds in the amount of $85,000.00 for the construction of
the sanitary sewer extension along Woodlake Road. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee July 12, 2004)
33. Motion to approve Change Order Number Two for the R Resurfacing
Various Roads Phase VIII Project (CPB#324-04-203824045) to address subsurface
problems on Spring Street in the amount of $63,053.18 to be funded from Project
Contingency. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 12, 2004)
34. Motion to approve the Utilities Department’s Water Line Replacement
Program Concept and Rating form. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
July 12, 2004)
35. Deleted from the consent agenda.
36. Motion to allow Augusta Utilities Department to authorize Systems and
Software, Inc to proceed with installation of Expanded IVR/IWR Capabilities in an
amount not to exceed $44,370. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July
12, 2004)
18
37. Motion to approve amended Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Ordinance as required by the Official Code of Georgia, Chapter Seven and waive
second reading. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 12, 2004)
38. Motion to approve the creation of the NPDES Oversight Committee and the
approval of the NPDES Committee’s Charter. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee July 12, 2004)
39. Motion to approve execution of Easement Deed from Martin Marietta
Materials, Inc, for the Dennis Road Water Tank and Main. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee July 12, 2004)
40. Motion to approve the creation of a Solid Waste Management Authority.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 12, 2004)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
41. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held July 1, 2004 and Special Called meeting held July 12, 2004.
Mr. Mayor: We have a consent agenda that’s been moved and seconded, minus
items 5, 13, 14, 15, 20, 23, and 35. Any others? Call the question then. All in favor of
the consent agenda, please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Colclough votes No on Sunday sales portion.
Motion carries 9-0. [Item 11]
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-4, 6-10, 16-19, 21-22, 24-34, 36-41]
Mr. Mayor: All right, Madame Clerk, we’ll start off with number 5.
The Clerk:
5. Motion to approve salary of $10,247 for work at Daniel Field. (Approved by
Public Services and Administrative Services Committee July 12, 2004.)
Mr. Mayor: Who asked for this?
Mr. Grantham: I asked this be pulled to discuss and ask the Administrator to
relay the information to us from the committee and I think we have the chairman of the
Daniel Field Aviation Committee with us, Mr. Isdell.
Mr. Mayor: If Mr. Isdell can come up.
Mr. Grantham: I think Mr. Isdell would like to present that to us.
Mr. Isdell: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and City Commissioners. It’s a pleasure to
appear before you today. The salary change was changed from $10,000 to $20,000.
Originally the $10,000 was to reimburse Bush Field for our airport manager’s time,
which Bush Field declined our offer. So we have to pay our airport manager free
19
standing base alone. So the $10,000 is not an adequate salary for the manager’s position.
We would like to move that to $20,000 and that would still be a $15,000 savings to the
City from what we currently pay.
Mr. Mayor: This money is in your budget?
Mr. Isdell: It is in our budget.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, a motion to approve.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor then please vote with
the usual sign.
Mr. Isdell: Thank you.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: Next item, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
13. Motion to approve a retirement of Mr. Larry Vinson under the 1949 Pension
Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 12, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked for this?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I don’t have any problem with this
retirement. This just brings to mind another retirement situation that have not come forth
yet and I don’t know if I need to take that on to legal or to discuss it or not, Mr. Mayor,
but I did want an opportunity to at least bring that forth. I have no complaints, no
problem with this [inaudible] retirement but I did want to make note of a retirement
situation that I brought up at the last meeting and I was told we need to bring it to legal.
And if that’s what we need to do, Steve, I don’t mind doing that.
Mr. Mayor: Well, that’s probably where it needs to go. That’s not germane to the
discussion of this item.
Mr. Shepard: That would be my recommendation, if you don’t have an objection.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: We have the standing article, agenda item on personnel in legal
today, Mr. Williams.
20
Mr. Williams: I just want it so noted that it –
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to make a motion?
Mr. Williams: I make a motion to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Second?
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Did we get a second?
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor then please vote with the affirmative sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item?
The Clerk:
14. Motion to approve funding request of Central Savannah River Resource
Conservation & Development Council (RC&D) Inc. in joint venture with South
Augusta Redevelopment Inc. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee July
12, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith, you asked to pull this?
Mr. Smith:
Yes, sir. This is part of a spin-off committee of Pride & Progress in
south Augusta, and it’s pertaining to the corridor there, Deans Bridge Road/US 1 from
Gordon Highway out. It was to Meadowbrook, now it’s all the way out to Gate 5.
Trying to redevelop some of the blight and we had three banks to close up and move, the
old Bourne Toyota building and so much other things there. Drugs, prostitution and so
forth. We been working with HND now for a year-and-a-half and this is a real beginning
I move, gentlemen, that we pass this.
for us. We’ve got a consultant already lined up.
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. How much money we talking about? I mean
I’m not against the program but I would – I mean it was on consent and Mr. Smith pulled
it.
21
Mr. Mayor: It’s $49,855 for Phase I.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: That’s coming from HND; is that correct, Mr. Russell?
Mr. Smith: Yes, it is.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further?
Mr. Williams: That was it.
Mr. Mayor: Need a motion to approve?
The Clerk: We have it.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor then please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk:
15. Motion to approve Economic Development Ombudsmen (EDO) (Business
Liaisons) Initiative. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 12,
2004)
Mr. Mayor: You asked that that be pulled, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I thought Mr. Smith or somebody can explain a
little bit in detail about this Ombudsmen and how it’s going actually operate. I’m not
against the program but I would like to get some clarification as to what duties, how this
going affect, and I’ve got a couple of questions I’d like to ask, too.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Warren Smith: Yes, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, this is an initiative that is
going to be utilizing special funding that we received actually a couple of years ago from
the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development under a predevelopment
program. It’s actually called a neighborhood, neighborhood initiative grant. The idea
here is that the Commission has been very concerned about working with businesses,
giving businesses a chance to work better with the City. We heard that, I talked to
several of the Commissioners, as well as the previous Administrator, as well as the
22
Planning Director and a couple of other department heads. And we came up with the
idea of creating this project which basically is going to be – it’s going to actually be two
very high powered consultant type folks that are very, very involved in business, very
business knowledgeable, will be working very closely with businesses that want to either
come to Augusta, stay in Augusta, expand in Augusta, in terms of their needs to work
closely with the City. They’re going to be helping them through the permitting process,
through the plans review process, through any and all aspects of working with the City so
that they can expand their operations. We have two individuals that I think are very
dynamic that we’re looking at and working with, one in south Augusta and one in
downtown Augusta, and this will be a, basically a six to eight month demonstration
project that hopefully we’ll gain some knowledge from, set some things in place,
including these two individuals will work with us, set up a team. What I like to call a
jump team, an economic development jump team made up of representatives of our
departments that work with development, to set that team up, get that in place,
experiment, look at that concept for implementation after the demonstration period.
Again, we’re talking about an eight-month period.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I looked in the background in this and I tried to mull it
over a little bit, I guess is the word, but it says the duties shall include but not be limited.
That kind of raised a little question with me when it, when it said it not going to be
limited to. I think what you’re saying, I’m in support. In my thinking back, in this city
we have not done this and when we tried to do this we did it with the businesses, in my
mind, that’s already been here. We haven’t brought any new business in. Even the small
businesses that exists in Augusta have been suffering because of what you’re saying, we
have not had that person. But I think the businesses that’s trying to, reaching out,
continuing to grow is going do that. But the small business who don’t have anybody to
go, the small business who don’t have the necessary means of meeting with the necessary
people, economic development is something we been way off in Augusta. Would you
agree with that, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Warren Smith: I absolutely agree.
Mr. Williams: Okay, so we’re on the same page. I’m not against this, I just want
to see that the Commissioners is not left out of the, the, the loop on whatever decision
going be made when it come to economic growth or small business. Now we been
accused of micromanaging and all that other stuff and I’m not suggesting that, but I need
to know, we need to know as elected body as to what’s going on. I’m afraid that people
will get ahead of you, you meaning this board, Mr. Smith, and doing some things that we
don’t know until after they have been done. And so that’s why I wanted you to talk, I
wanted you to share just a little bit with me about this new position that, that, that, that,
you know, that you brought forth. I heard it in committee. We didn’t hear all of it.
There are some more things that I think Commissioner Hankerson asked to be put on as a
workshop that we need to talk about. But I don’t want to let the horse out and then say I
don’t know how he got out. If I let him, I want to know where he going if I let him out,
where he went into.
23
Mr. Warren Smith: I absolutely welcome your support for this concept. It’s
something that I think is long overdue, it’s – there is a lot of room for all of us to work
together. One of the first things we’re going to do is sit down with this new staff and
we’re going to do a work plan of things that we want to target to be done within
timeframes, a couple of reports that need to be done, and feedback to you all, but also we
can work closely with the Commission and yourself to make sure that this initiative is a
short initiative, but that this initiative is something that’s effective and meets the concerns
that you have.
Mr. Williams:
I think most people think that we are asking to give a business or
give a person something and I’m not suggesting that at all. But there are small businesses
that been struggling for a long time and this community have not had any attention. Mr.
th
Mayor, you and I ate lunch several times over on 12 Street where a business been trying
to survive. Nobody have came over. I mean nobody have lend one hand. We asked
HND to go over there to try to assist them, not to give them anything. We even got them
with a bank to try to get their records and stuff straight. We have got the best cooks in
the world but there’s still nowhere in Augusta to get any place to eat except go to the
Waffle House. That don’t make good sense to me. We got people who are business
entrepreneurs who want to do things, but have not had the assistance, have not had the
assistance, even the guidance that they need. I’m just letting you know that I appreciate
. So Mr. Mayor, I’m going to
it, but I certainly be watchful and to see how this progress
make a motion that we approve,
but I did want some clarification. I thank Mr. Smith
for providing it.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I would ask you to include in your motion to
approve that there be a requirement that these consultants provide this Commission
with a monthly report on their progress and activities.
Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: If there is that much concern among the Commissioners.
Mr. Williams: I think that would be – it would be great.
Mr. Mayor: Particularly since the back-up information says they want to make
this permanent.
Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: We approved this in Administrative Services because of the
importance of having a business go-to person or persons in the community to promote
business in the city of Augusta, not only south Augusta, but the whole entire city. And as
24
you know, we had a budget deficit and we could not hire that fulltime person. This, this
position or these positions would last for six months. And after that, we hope that when
we plan the budget next year that we can look at fulltime, fulltime position that you
already have the job description for. And I stressed in Administrative Service meeting
that I would like to have a report. I asked for three months. You asked for month.
That’s fine. But I’d like to have a report back saying that we have contact some
businesses. I don’t want this to just go and bring back reports, because of the fact that we
like to see – we want someone to go and go to different businesses, restaurants and other
places and say do you want to come to Augusta or do you want to put a business in south
Augusta or a Sonic on Deans Bridge Road? Come back and tell me what Sonic says.
They say we don’t have any interest in Deans Bridge Road. That’s fine with, you
contacting somebody, but I want to make sure that they contact someone in these areas to
make sure we get some business developments in the areas and also as Commissioner
Williams said, to help these business that are struggling, would like to increase their
business, that already have business so that we will see a difference in the six months, we
know how to promote the fulltime position, also. So thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, a little housekeeping item here. I appreciate Mr.
Williams bringing this to our attention and Rev. Hankerson, too, in the fact that we have
an eight-month funding window, and if you look at the page, the last page on the
description here, it says [inaudible] demonstration [inaudible] made permanent after one
year. I think we’d like to change the language on that to say reviewed, adjusted after
eight months, and then at the direction of the Commission determine whether or not it
should be made permanent or not.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m fine with that, Fred, but when you hire and this is
going to be a part-time position in the beginning, is that right?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: I think –
Mr. Mayor: It’s a contract, actually. Contract employee.
Mr. Williams: Okay. But, and being a contract they know the time span on that.
What I worry with, we hire a part time, and now I hear the contract part, but we hire a
part time, we very seldom come back and say, we going let you go, we don’t have the
money. And we stick something else in our belt. But I got no problem. I think the every
month, Mr. Mayor, I think what Commissioner Hankerson said about that report, we
ought to look at it, we ought not just receive the information, we ought to have
information on what has happened, then we ought to be able to talk to that contractor to
say hey, you know, you not stepping up to the plate. And then that way, we talk about
crime earlier, we need to get tough on holding people accountable, whoever getting our
25
money need to be doing what they supposed to be doing, but for the money they getting.
That’s the bottom line.
Mr. Russell: I don’t disagree, sir. I think we also need to get tough on making
sure that we have businesses available and that come to the city. And I think we’re
singing with the same choir here and I think the [inaudible] partnership we can develop is
positive.
Mr. Warren Smith: Mr. Mayor, if I could just say one other thing.
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Warren Smith: I think – I really applaud Commissioner Hankerson because
that’s exactly what we plan to do. A proactive, very definite action plan that talks about
specific goal, things that are going to be done month-to-month is what I’m talking about.
I’m also going to suggest that possibly if you’re amenable to this, sirs, that the staff with
consultants make presentation to your committee every month. On progress.
Mr. Grantham: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. The chair will rule there has been
adequate debate. You have something?
Mr. Hankerson: I just want to make sure it’s clear. It’s not an evergreen contract.
In eight months, it’s over.
Mr. Mayor: The contract will have to come back before the Commission to be
approved anyway.
Mr. Hankerson: I wanted to make sure of that.
Mr. Mayor: We’re just authorizing the funding. All in favor of the motion,
please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, I’d like to skip, I’d like to skip over to item number
42, if we may. The representative from HPC has a conflicting appointment this afternoon
and would like to take up the appeal at this time, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
42. Appeal hearing for Mt. Calvary Baptist Church regarding the denial of their
request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of church property
located at 1244 Wrightsboro Road.
26
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Allen, you’re representing the church or the HPC?
Mr. Allen: I’m representing the church.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Allen: It’s our contention that there’s been an abuse of discretion. If you
take a look at –
Mr. Mayor: Can you give us some background and kind of fill us in on what the
issue is here?
Mr. Allen: Sure. What happened –
Mr. Mayor: This is the first time many of us are hearing about this.
Mr. Allen: This is a house located at 1244 Wrightsboro Road. It’s really a
dilapidated house. I mean there’s no one living in the house, no one has been living in
the house for a period of time. If you – and on both sides of the house, there’s a parking
lot and then on the other side, in the back of the house, there’s another parking lot.
There’s nothing in that block. If you take a look at it, and I thought you had – I can show
you a map and I thought you had a package of information that was given to you that was
prepared and presented at the last historical commission meeting. Do you have that
information? Or am I assuming too much?
Mr. Mayor: There are some forms in the backup, along with the memo and a
letter to the Clerk from you, Mr. Allen. We have some documentation.
Mr. Allen: You have some documentation?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Allen: All right.
Mr. Mayor: And as I understand it, there are two houses on the property.
Approval has already been granted for the demolition of one structure. You’re seeking to
demolish both structures?
Mr. Allen: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: The HPC has said no, you can’t demolish the one that fronts on
Wrightsboro Road?
Mr. Allen: That is correct. If you take a look at the information that’s been
provided, you’ll see that we also provide information showing that if you try to
rehabilitate the house it would cost in excess of $150,000. Also, we tried to move the
27
house. You’ll se a notice in the package of information given which stated that it wasn’t
feasible to move the house, to relocate it to another location because structurally the
house isn’t sound. And if you also take a look at the package of information that’s been
provided, you’ll see all around this particular structure, there is no residential property.
On one side is the old Mt. Calvary Baptist Church. Further down the same block there’s
a structure that used to be a store years ago. But there is no residential property in this
particular block at all. The church owns the property, the entire block. The church owns
everything there. All the lots. The bottom line is that there is an abuse of discretion for
several reasons. One of the reasons being that from a purely economic standpoint, it just
does not make any sense to try to rehabilitate the property, not when you have to spend
$150,000 or better. And it also is an abuse of discretion – our contention is that anytime
that you have such a tight restriction on what a property owner can do with his or her
property, that’s tantamount to taking. And there are constitutional provisions against
taking of property without adequate compensation. So that, we’re arguing there’s an
abuse of discretion. The bottom line is that earlier here today, you heard arguments about
dilapidated houses being in neighborhoods. Well, this is a dilapidated house that’s in a
neighborhood that if it’s not torn down, it can be a haven for people to go in [inaudible]
the house and do any and everything. So by allowing the church to demolish the
structure, what you’re doing, you’re actually helping the neighborhood, what you’re
doing you’re making the neighborhood safer, you’re going right along with the request
that the young lady made when she came before this Commission earlier today, and for
those reasons we take the position that this body should overrule what was done by the
Historic Commission and allow the church to go ahead and demolish the house that’s at
1244 Wrightsboro Road.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see – Mr. Bush, are you going to speak on behalf of the HPC?
Mr. Bush: Good afternoon. Yes, I am. Mr. Forest, I’ve got Alvin Forest, he sits
on the Commission with me as well. He is also going to address the Commission.
Basically, I believe everyone has seen my letter. Has everyone got a copy of the letter I
provided? All the Commissioners? So that’s basically our position statement
summarized on the letter. We would point out that this building was occupied until
recently. It sits very close to the church and we have no problem with the church moving
on with whatever projects it has, but at present time they don’t have any post-demolition
proposal for a use of that particular parcel of property after the demolition. So for those
reasons, their application did not meet the criteria of the ordinance because they did not
have a post-demolition plan, and I believe my letter addresses that. And if you have any
questions, I’m going to ask Mr. Forest to take this up because he is more familiar with
this particular proposal.
Mr. Mayor: The objection from the HPC is the post- demolition plan?
Mr. Bush: Correct.
Mr. Mayor: And not the historic significance of the structure itself then; is that –
28
Mr. Bush: The building has been determined to be contributing [inaudible] done
by a surveyor so we are – we are basically –
Mr. Mayor: The basis of your denial for the certificate of appropriateness is the
lack of a plan after the building is demolished?
Mr. Bush: That’s correct. [inaudible] the value of that building is already
determined to be historic [inaudible] survey.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams, I think you may have some interest in this.
Mr. Williams: A little bit, Mr. Mayor, since I represent that area. I need to ask a
couple of questions. But I’m hearing something now it’s not based on the historic
position of the house. I mean you’re talking about a plan now, this historic ain’t got
nothing to do with it? I guess the reason I ask that, cause I want to know [inaudible] a
home that somebody had famous lived in from Augusta or something, I mean what was
the historic?
Mr. Forest: Mr. Mayor and Commission, it’s the Meriwether home. And Mr.
Williams, that house has been there for years. Let me say a few things to you. Now I’ve
sat on the Historic Preservation Commission for quite a while. Now we go into
Summerville and they call them the cottages. I’ve traveled a lot. I was in Charlotte,
North Carolina, this week, and as I travel, I look at what they’re doing, other cities. But
if you continue to tear down your buildings, historic buildings, the children won’t have
nothing to look at in Augusta. Now we can say all we want to say and I been a resident
of Augusta for 44 years, and I [inaudible], I don’t know what happened to the Meriwether
house, if the house was deeded to Mt. Calvary, and I like Mt. Calvary Church – my only
uncle on my daddy’s side was a member of Mt. Calvary years ago. What we’re trying to
say, if you had a plan that you’re going to demolish the house, then you need to put
[inaudible] there, but just tearing those homes down, that’s why you have drug dealers
and everything else in there. I love Augusta. We need to make sure that we have a plan.
This is a historic area, this is [inaudible] it’s a lot [inaudible] but [inaudible] didn’t have a
plan. [inaudible] but that is historic, that’s the Meriwether house.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Forest, let me interrupt you just a minute.
Mr. Forest: Okay.
Mr. Williams:
People who live with this, Mr. Forest, and I know where you live
and I know how long you been in Augusta, so people who have to look at these type of
structures – I heard you mention that the children won’t have nothing to look at. If the
board feels so strongly about the historic area in Bethlehem or the inner city, why hadn’t
someone come together with some funds to put one of those structures back together
[inaudible] so people will always have one to look at? One? I don’t know about you, but
I done lived with them all of my life, Mr. Forest. Now you say you been in this town for
a number of years, but all of my life I had to live with that kind of stuff. If the church
29
owned the property and they want to, they want to tear this house down, then I don’t see
any reason that we even having this discussion, Mr. Mayor. You talking about getting
out here early, but we going to be here a while today. My point is, Mr. Forest, if they
have the property in their possession and they want to tear the building down, that
building is not a building where somebody was born in, somebody’s that’s, that’s, that’s
been famous, something that we really need to hold on to. I don’t see the significance of
I’m going to make a
holding on to that property. Mr. Mayor, we can talk all day.
motion that we go ahead and approve the demolition of both of those pieces of
property so Mt. Calvary can get about their business and get a plan and go on..
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Allen, I’m sorry, I don’t have
letters from all you folks who said you sent letters to each other. I’ve got a couple of
things in here. Mr. Allen, you say in your letter that the church needs this property for
parking; is that correct?
Mr. Allen: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: So the post-demolition use of the property would be for parking.
Mr. Allen: [inaudible] parking, but also keep in mind [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Would you come over to the microphone so we can get you on the
record?
Mr. Allen: That is correct. The church would use it primarily for parking. But
keep in mind, Augusta Richmond County has a planning and zoning ordinance in place
which would dictate what, if anything, the church can do with that property if the church
decides to build another structure to go on the property.
Mr. Mayor: And if I could ask you, the estimate from Blount’s Complete Home
Services for the renovation of the house, is this renovation consistent, is this estimate
consistent with the design guidelines for the historic neighborhood and those guidelines?
For example, this says vinyl siding on the exterior. You couldn’t put vinyl siding on the
exterior of the house. And it would seem to me that this estimate of $150,000 would be
extremely low to do a complete renovation.
Mr. Allen: I was going to tell you the same thing. From previous experience,
Your Honor would know that when you took at the houses, the Woodrow Wilson House
and –
Mr. Mayor: The Delaigle House across the street.
30
Mr. Allen: Yeah. Once you begin to do that kind of work, it is a sinkhole, and
unless you have a lot of money – we’re talking about half a million to a million dollars, a
lot of these structures you cannot rehabilitate.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can ask one more question.
Mr. Mayor: Let me recognize the Attorney and then we’ll come back, and Ms.
Beard also wants to speak.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, for the record, you
asked a question of me which I thought we ought to publish on the record, and this was a
case that was filed before we amended the ordinance to require mediation. So that’s why,
it was correctly stated by Mr. Patty in the backup. And I notice that Mr. Allen did quote
the correct standard and I was reminded of that earlier by Mr. Bush that earlier in the
Augusta Code, it says the Commission may affirm the determination made by the
Historic Preservation Commission or if the Commission finds the Historic Preservation
Commission abused its discretion in reaching its decision, the Commission may modify
or reverse the determination made by the – it says Commission, but that means Historic
Preservation Commission. Just so you have the legal standing before you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you had a question?
Mr. Williams: Yeah. I wanted, I give it to Ms. Beard. Go ahead, Ms. Beard, and
then I want to ask –
Mr. Mayor: Well, it may not come back to you.
Mr. Williams: Okay, let me –
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Forest, I hadn’t seen one case come through here with the
school board renovation property, and there was some homes that’s older than this home
[inaudible] but nobody from the board came with, you know.
Mr. Forest: Okay. What happened, the board property were not in the Bethlehem
Historic District. Now if that board property, I would have been down here. I look at the
Wallace House on Laney Walker, it hurt me to see that home torn down. But that is in
the Bethlehem [inaudible] Historic District. So [inaudible] the only thing about it,
though.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, my question is where is that written at, Mr. Forest?
Mr. Forest: What?
31
Mr. Williams: You just told me Bethlehem Historic District. I heard that 2012
times since I been on this seat. Ain’t nobody showed no papers. Now I can show you
where a ordinance was written at at one time that said that going be, but you show me a
state approval where that was written by that being historic. Can the board produce that?
Not today, just anytime.
Mr. Forest: I’ll let Mr. Bush field that one.
Mr. Bush: Mr. Patty has got all that information. I don’t know if he’s present.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I’ll check with Mr. Patty.
Mr. Bush: I mean once again, Commissioner, with all due respect, if you’re
interested, it is there. Mr. Patty works for y’all all the time. He’s available.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I just thought I’d ask that question cause I hear all the time
about –
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s hear from Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: Well, you know, I talked about finance maybe being restructured and
I want you to know I am pro-historical preservation. But I do remember when it was
determined when that entire area, just a huge area, would be considered, you know, a
historical preservation area. And I had concerns about that. Yet I want to see certain
structures kept. So Commissioners, I want you to listen. You know, we are redoing this
thth
wonderful canal and we are now between, what, 9 and 7 Street. Have we thought
about a Black Heritage Open Air Museum? Something similar to what we have in
Williamsburg. And if you go to Europe, you see them all over. Where we will move
some of the different structures into this area and make it a wonderful site for everybody.
And it will show all of the different things that Blacks have done in the city of Augusta.
The type businesses, the type homes, the type houses. Say we may even place the old
Lenox. But these things would be workable things where you would provide activities.
Some of the homes and what-have-you would actually be moved into that area. As a
matter of fact, on Barnes Street, which is right next to it, you have some already. I’m
simply I think saying that the entire area is too large and we need to have something that
we can focus on, something that people when they come in can see, and something we
can be proud of and we can take our children to. I would say something similar to the
canal museum. And all of this is going to be historical area and trails. Why shouldn’t
there be something to promote our heritage? And when we come to this area, and I don’t
know what the 20-year plan says, but I think it would be something that would be
wonderful for this community. And it would open up the other communities to be
developed for residential, high-income places.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
32
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Before any other Commissioners, did you want to respond
to Ms. Beard, Mr. Forest or Mr. Bush?
Mr. Forest: [inaudible] you are right. I can see not during my lifetime, but what
we need to do is really to rehabilitate Augusta and we need to – and I like history and
there are a lot of things we need to do. My only problem is that we – this is a historic
district here. Maybe we need to expand the historic district. I don’t know. We don’t
have time to argue it today, discuss. I think we need to sit around the table [inaudible]
but my only problem that – [inaudible]. And you just don’t go in and tear a house down
unless it just can’t be repairable. Okay. And they didn’t have a plan. If they had a plan,
then we would have gone along with it. That’s why [inaudible] vote against it. Okay, I
think you may want to delay that and compromise. That’s what I think we need to do.
And I hear you.
Ms. Beard: And I understand exactly what you’re saying. I simply think we are
probably at a point where we need to review these guidelines.
Mr. Forest: Right. I think we need to do that. No objection. He’s my friend, you
my friend, be my friend. It’s the only thing I’m saying, I’m glad [inaudible] brought it
up. And I have to go to another meeting, but I appreciate that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bush?
Mr. Bush: Just one thing briefly. I would just ask the Commissioners to look at
the demolition support information. They talk about what is the proposed use of the
property after the demolition. Temporary off street parking, what is the design of
proposed replacement building? This phase of the project has not been determined. This
is number 8A-B. And then C, what is the time frame for new construction?
Approximately one to seven years. So simply put, by the applicant’s own admission they
do not have any clear plan, they do not have any clear post-demolition proposal. And I
might add, on their own application, and under the project description, it indicates that
the building was recently occupied. Now as far as the deterrent to crime, you all know
that an occupied building is a good thing to have. This is very close to the church. I have
no idea whether they ran the tenant off or whether the tenant left, but apparently this
building is not only not falling down, it has been recently occupied according to the
project description. So it does not meet the ordinance. I’m not here to dispute whether
the ordinance is a good or bad thing. The application does not meet the criteria of the
ordinance. There is not a post-demolition plan and the building had been recently
occupied. And for those reasons, we clearly did not abuse our discretion. You know,
whether y’all find that we did, it’s obviously up to you. But that’s our position. We’d
ask that you stand behind us.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The chair recognizes Commissioner Smith, then
Commissioner Williams, then Commissioner Colclough, in that order.
Mr. Smith: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
33
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The chair has recognized three Commissioners, one that
didn’t want to be recognized, one that called for it, the floor is yours, we need to get this
wrapped up and move on.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I’m going to try to do that. But I’d like to ask a question
to either Mr. Bush or Mr. Forest. This is a, a, a problem in these communities. And I’m
still standing behind. We need to tear it down. I think the church own the property, if it
hadn’t been a church owned the property, if it had been a private taxpayer that owned the
property I would still support it. Because I can show you hundreds and hundreds and
hundreds and we keep them, and my question to the board is, who is going to come to the
plate if the property owner be German, regardless of who, what nationality, they’re not
going to come and put no money into these properties, so these properties going to
continue to sit there and they going to continue to go down. So tell me, I need to know
cause we getting a few of these. I need to know if we keep them, if we uphold what you
bring, who is going come in and fix these properties up? Cause if there is a grant, if there
is somebody that’s going come, because the property – Mr. Russell, what’s that, that
Lucky Street or Meadow Street over there, I’ve got some over there, too, that we going
tear down, that somebody need to come and do something with. Cause dogs don’t live in
conditions that some of these houses in. So my question to you is if we leave these
structures up and there’s a lot of them, the property owner, whether they live in that area
or not, don’t have the money to put it back in the status that the board want it to be in. If
they owned that property and it been rented out, they are not going to come back. Who is
going to bring the money to the table and fix them? Are they just going to stay there
from now on? They going continue to go down, down, down until we both leave this
side of the Jordan. And we going leave, but I don’t think those houses going be fixed.
But who, just tell me what plan have the board come up with, because you’re trying to
save the history of Augusta, so tell me who’s going take the responsibility of that – that
price the Mayor talked about was low, so to put it back like it was, have y’all got any
kind of plan, any kind of grant, even anybody that would come up to the table and claim
these properties?
Mr. Bush: Well, I think there’s a lot of ways you can attack that problem. We’ve
discussed this before. I told you I think if they’re not keeping them up they need to be
cited for Code violations. And then if they’re not paying their taxes, that those buildings
need to be sold on the auction, on the, on the courthouse steps and let the private
economy decide if anybody wants to buy them. You asked me a question and I’m going
to finish.
Mr. Williams: Go ahead.
Mr. Bush: Okay. So I mean there’s a lot of different things that can be done. Do
I have a short and concise answer on how to save the historic contributing homes in
Bethlehem today? Everyone on that Commission knows I don’t have that answer. And I
do not have that answer, sir. But what we’re talking about is this specific proposal today
34
and you know, we’ve been down this road before. We have to enforce the ordinance.
This is what the ordinance tells us to do. So that’s why we’re here and –
Mr. Williams: And I appreciate your answer and I think you right, but my
question, the reason I asked you that is, we’ve done done what you’re just said. We done
sold property on the courthouse steps and that same property gets in another hand it just
still sitting out there waiting. So we keep selling those properties and nobody do
anything with them. That same blight that that lady talked about earlier is going spread,
it’s going to continue to grow, we giving, we giving a rat a hole to go in. That’s all we
doing.
Mr. Bush: I agree with you. This particular property is different because it was
recently occupied, and then you heard from the young lady that spoke earlier. She
indicated that they are – she’s with Habitat for – what is it?
Mr. Williams: Habitat for Humanity.
Mr. Bush: Habitat for Humanity. It sounds like they’re doing some renovations
and they’re doing some revitalization. I hope that works for Bethlehem. I was just happy
to hear that somebody is doing something with those properties. You heard it today. So,
you know, but I understand your position and I respect you and, and – but we’re just here
doing our job.
Mr. Williams: I understand.
Mr. Bush: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m glad y’all ended that on a respectful note cause we are
going to try and wrap this motion up on a respectful note. I think, I’m going to agree
with Ms. Beard from the chair’s position to the point that this obviously is something that
need to talk about in a more extensive plan. And in a different time frame. Maybe the
same place. But there’s a lot that we need to talk about that’s there in terms of the fact of
determining a lot of things that we need to come together on. I made the statement to, to
the previous chairperson of their board and the same thing there, that cooperatively we
need to do some other things at this point in time in reference to how we deal with
historical property. But the question before us today, and there’s a motion and a second
on the floor as to whether or not we are going to approve a plan, and I believe that’s the
motion that’s there, and there’s a second, and the chair is going to rule that we’ve had
adequate discussion on it. All in favor of the motion to approve and that the church’s
plan goes through for the parking lot will do so by the usual sign of voting, and any
opposed do likewise.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, if, if we might, if there being no objection
from the Commission, we’ve got two other items that, that were pulled off the consent
35
agenda that I think that we can, we can handle here. But I’m trying to finish up guests and
delegations if we could. If there is no objection, we probably could take item 45A and
then item 46 off the regular agenda that would work with people that are here from
Southside Outreach and also work with the District Attorney on item 46. And come back
to the ones we pulled off consent. Go to 45A and then 46 in that order, and I forgot, I got
one gentleman here, I’m sorry, for two items. And the other one, I think you’re here, Mr.
Allen, on 49, to address as well?
Mr. Allen: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, we’ll recognize them in that order and come back to
those two that are there. 45A, 46 and then 49.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir?
Mr. Hankerson: If you would go to 40, the next item, I just requested the director
to return back to the chamber, to address 45. He’s not present. I asked the interim – the
deputy administrator to call him and ask him to return to the chamber so we would be
ready.
Mr. Mayor: I was thinking he had gotten back, Madame Clerk, but he has not.
Mr. Hankerson: I asked him to return or send somebody with word.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, cause we do need to have some direction from him
on that. Go to 46 and Mr. Craig at this time.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
46. Status report from the Interim Administrator on the Commission’s request
for a Grand Jury Investigation of the Fleet Management Department. (No
recommendation from Finance Committee July 12, 2004)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, per your request and the request of the
committee last week, we’ve asked Mr. Craig to come in and attempt to help us with an
explanation of this particular item at this point in time.
Mr. Craig: Good afternoon.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The chair recognizes the District Attorney.
36
Mr. Craig: Good afternoon.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hi, how are you doing, Danny?
Mr. Craig: Perhaps I should just take the way the agenda item was read as a
question and try to answer it for you. The grand jury, as you probably know by now, is
not an investigative body. Kenneth Starr’s federal grand jury that ran for about ten years
investigating Whitewater and the outgrowth of Whitewater was an investigative grand
jury. Federal law allows for a grand jury to conduct investigations. State law in all of
our 50 states prohibits grand juries from conducting criminal investigations. Now a
grand jury does have certain civil duties and responsibilities that they are required to
perform and that includes the oversight of the operations of government and the
operations of elected officials’ offices and the operations of specific government agencies
which are listed in the statute that governs the operations and the authority of grand
juries. That grand jury, as you probably see, if you read their presentments on a term-by-
term basis, the grand jury regularly engages their civil duties, but my understanding from
your agenda item is that – and from what I’ve read in the newspaper – your concern
about an irregularity, which I might even go so far as to referring to as a misappropriation
of funds at your city operations there, the vehicle maintenance department. And to that
extent, I have some familiarity. I have actually quite a bit of familiarity with that
particular issue because indeed it may involve misappropriation. Because it may involve
criminal matter, it’s certainly outside the scope of the grand jury’s civil duties and
functions. Now once an investigation, if there is an investigation, and I’m not here to
confirm to you that there is or there is not, but once an investigation is completed with
regard to a criminal matter, then the results of an investigation are submitted to the
District Attorney’s office, and the District Attorney’s duty is to prepare an appropriate
document so that a grand jury would be authorized to receive the results of that
investigation. A grand jury cannot receive testimony as a result of a criminal
investigation unless we first put before them either a special presentment or an
indictment. And so that is the order of things, that if there were a criminal investigation,
then that would be conducted by police investigative agency. I can list them for you.
They – you might be familiar with them. There would be the FBI, the GBI, the sheriff’s
departments, the local police departments, and we work with all of them and we receive
their investigative reports on a regular basis. And when those reports are complete, when
the investigations are complete and not before then, we receive them and then we prepare
the appropriate document, which we give the grand jury the authority then to take the
matter up in the realm of their criminal duties and responsibilities. I hope that answers
your question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Craig, let me, let me say this. Let me first thank you
for your time.
Mr. Craig: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And appearance. Maybe something was a little bit unclear
in reference to what the Commission was looking for. I think probably after being
37
investigated now through my, technically through my last term, cause I been here, I
might have got the impression that Ken Starr was looking for me. And I knew he
wouldn’t find anything cause I didn’t have anything [inaudible] for. But you know, what
I think what we were looking for was from the standpoint is just what you actually
saying. As to whether or not procedures from within this government were followed or
not followed. We made through a service contract decision, this Commission voted to
terminate the contract. Not terminate, but it was up. We elected to go with the firm that
is handling the fleet management’s business now. There were reports at the time earlier
that there were some things that were not being done properly. Long before this whole
situation started. And what we wanted to make sure of was the fact that we knew that on
the criminal side that would be something that would take care of itself. Now the
procedure as to whether or not one was in place before the other one, I can respect where,
where that goes. But with the number of people that we’ve had from this government
that have been before the grand jury in reference to how they have done their daily jobs,
with the grand jury making certain decisions as to whether or not they’ve been competent
or incompetent, whether they should be fired. This to us fell along the same lines to a
point as to whether or not certain things have been done in this department by supervisors
and all the way up to the administrative offices in terms of where some of this was
reported prior to this being done. And one of the reasons we had an extra concern was
the fact that when the new company came in, that was when it actually totally got
uncovered and to have had a situation going to nearly six figures of money on one side
and yet we see to a point where we’ve, we’ve terminated other folk, we’ve done other
things for lesser amounts, and for this to be ongoing as to whether or not there were some
things we needed – we actually invited and were looking for that type of help, for it to go
before the grand jury to say hey, do you have something in here, some irregularities that
need to be looked at and need to be checked before it got to a point of crossing over.
Now if it conflicted with what was there in the criminal investigation, I think all of us
know very well that we don’t want to cross that line and would not dare. But with the
amount that we’ve had to go before the grand jury, I mean some people have been 35 to
40 times, that we only made this request, that we look into procedure, and it was not to
deal with criminal activity, it was to follow just along the lines that you’re talking about
of whether or not procedures were followed in this department. That’s all that we were
asking in that request. And it may have gotten to a point in the vote of where we did it
and it seemed as though we wanted the grand jury to do criminal investigation on that
department. And that was not the intention of our motion to do.
Mr. Craig: And I have to be very careful not to violate the grand jury’s oath and
certainly not to violate my own, cause my own is to protect the integrity of investigations
that might be ongoing. All I can say to you is, first of all, you’re quite perceptive that
there might be an overlap. You would also be perceptive to understand that a criminal
investigation would always be given priority over a civil overview of a particular
department, especially where one might interfere with the other, and all I can tell you is
that your concerns have been publicized quite well. They have been relayed to me
through the deputy administrator, interim administrator. They have been given to the
grand jury. The grand jury is quite well aware of your concerns. There might be other
agencies that are also heeding your concerns and you are in good hands. And that’s the
38
extent to which I can tell you without violating my oath of office and possibly affecting
the integrity of other matters that I supervise.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I, I certainly would not want or request, and I don’t
think this Commission would want you to violate that in any way, and I hope from our
side that, that we are not going to do that. But I would request to a point, and I’ve done
this as you know more than one time publicly since I – I be leaving this public office in
one year and five months and I don’t know what the feeling is about anybody else, but if
y’all’s job from the grand jury that’s there is not to deal with anything that’s criminal, I
certainly would hope that somebody could make a procedural statement very soon to a
point that we are either on procedure over here, we’re not, and that if we’re criticized we
take it and that we move on. Because, you know, and that was one of our reasons for
bringing it, because we felt to a point that if, if we [inaudible] situation, quite frankly,
that’s gone on now better than four years, with no closure to it, that has gone to the
Attorney General’s office, to the Chatham County D.A., and nobody bringing any closure
to a point, that has been very divisive in this community, and quite frankly, I think still is.
And you know, I’ve said all along to a point that if myself or colleagues or anybody else,
if there is something wrong in that bunch and we need to deal with folk who are, but if
there’s not then somebody needs to bring some closure to that point and deal with that
from the standpoint, one, that if there’s nothing criminal and if there’s procedure to at
least line out to us these are procedures that need to be corrected, these are the
finalizations of what we reported on, list then one through ten or one through 100, but
give them to us, and I will be the first one to make that motion to say hey, this is what,
this is what we need to do. But you know, we felt to a point and I just have to admit to
you personally that if this was going on in our city and we had something like this in a
department that was happening and to a point that if anybody could basically take a
complaint into the grand jury and a few weeks later somebody else would be called
before it or we would get – and you mentioned about reading in the daily paper – I’ve had
predictions that the paper has made and I’ve even questioned if you talk about integrity as
to whether or not it has some leaks like Swiss cheese, because it’s strange to a point that
some things that can come out from down there in a secretive fashion that are supposed to
be secretive that they get talked about and printed prior to in that same paper. So now,
you know, I mean we going to talk about integrity to a point that was why we made that
motion to ask you for what we were asking for, because if this was going on, if we had
changed companies, if we had employees that [inaudible] brought before, the senior
administrator of this city, and nothing had been done, that we had to change them and it
was common talk throughout the building to a point that we were missing to a point
$80,000 to $100,000 and they were still counting, then we figured we were doing our
civic duty and duties as Commissioners to ask, hey, if the grand jury is investigating
everything else, including us, send that to the grand jury, too, and that was our real reason
for doing it, Mr. District Attorney. It was not [inaudible] sarcastic way or to get anybody
to violate any oath, but to a point if some things are going be brought to finalization, if
some are going to be laid to rest, and then some are going to be out of bounds, for it to be
handled at all or even looked at, then to a point I think [inaudible] if you’re not a criminal
investigating body, if nothing else, for the moral standards [inaudible] of this community
we should bring finalization to those things in which we can bring finalization to. At
39
least one Commissioner would appreciate that before I leave here after 25 years. I’ve
been accused of a whole lot of different things and I tell folk all the time I don’t need
nobody to help me make a mistake, I can make it on my own. But to a point I know what
the rules are and I pride myself in terms of dealing with that. I may not always agree
with other folk, but to a point of where the law stops and where it starts, I understand that
very well after three governments and three different position and to a point of being here
now a quarter of a century. I would like to at least see since to a point since it’s not a
criminal investigation, some closure brought to where we stand.
Mr. Craig: Well, actually, I thought we were speaking about the local garage, but
since you’ve expanded it –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, we were, Mr., Mr., Mr. Attorney, but you brought in
the fact of what you read in the paper and what y’all didn’t investigate, and if I’m sitting
here to a point of not knowing that and if you’re telling me what you don’t do but then
you all are telling the basic Commission that to a point after four years, nobody can make
a decision, that it has to go up to Atlanta, down to Savannah, still not through with it, and
we telling you we got somebody in here that’s basically stole $100,000 then I think to a
point that they mix together somewhere. May not be today, but they mixing together
within the community. And I think that to a point at some point that needs to come to a
head.
Mr. Craig: Well, I think I can answer some questions. You raised lots of them.
First of all, when I used the word integrity, I used it in the phrase integrity of an
investigation, and maybe it’s too much of a term of art. But one of my duties is to make
sure we don’t in any way invade the – and for lack of a better word , I’ll use it in the
definition – the integrity of an investigation – that it must be maintained because
ultimately it will determine whether or not possibly a grand jury could take the matter up
in the form of a valid indictment or whether a court could afford due process and a fair
trial to someone who might be accused. And when I refer to the newspapers, I was
referring to what I thought were your honest concerns that there –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: They’re still honest.
Mr. Craig: Okay. That there was possibly a misappropriation of funds from your
local garage. I have read reports of that and you have shared through the interim
administrator a concern in that regard. So that was the only thing to which I was
referring and that is local reports, recent reports that you felt that there might have been a
misappropriation of funds of our local government, and I have the same concerns as a
citizen as you would and then I have concerns as a prosecutor in that regard. And as I
said to you, if there were investigation of that, I can’t comment on it. However, I can
also assure you and I think you know from experience that we don’t just allow known
misappropriation of public funds to go un-redressed. And so that’s the extent to which I
can comment on that. You then did go further and you apparently reflected on the special
grand jury and you wanted to know when there would be closure. Well, there was
closure of the special grand jury in January, 2003, which is 1-1/2 years ago. That was the
40
date on which the Superior Court Chief Judge, upon the vote of all of the Superior Court
Judges, discharged the special grand jury. It no longer functions. And so to that extent
the grand jury, that grand jury’s service is over. Under their oath, the special grand jury is
only allowed to communicate with the public in one of two ways: that is, they can
communicate through criminal indictments or they can communicate through
presentments which are made. The special grand jury made nine separate interim
presentments and fulfilled its responsibilities and would not – was not allowed to and
would not have violated its oath to try to communicate further with regard to its findings.
So to the extent that you have alluded to the fact that you think you might be under
investigation, I assure you that first of all we don’t have criminal investigations in the
grand jury, as I started out by saying to you today and secondly, there would be no
further function of a special grand jury after its discharge in January of 2003. So you
would personally have no concerns whatsoever about that. Any other matter that might
have arisen in the form of a criminal investigation and concerning persons other than
yourself would be possibly in the hands of law enforcement, possibly in the hands of
prosecution, but currently there is nothing known to me or in my office that would in any
way address the criminal functions of a grand jury as a result of or arising from the
operations of a special grand jury. I hope that answers your questions.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I’ll turn the chair back over to the Mayor. I’m at least
glad to hear you say that part of it but since they were dismissed, I guess then the
question becomes then is the function then [inaudible] paperwork that was sent since the
dismissal that went before the Attorney General of the State and then was sent down to
Chatham County, then is that still something that’s ongoing or is that a moot issue
because the grand jury was dismissed? These are procedures, Mr. Craig, that were done
after the termination of the special grand jury, and the only thing that we’ve been trying
to basically say, you know, is it a game or is it not a game? Is it still on or is it off? And
I think to some point the community deserves an answer. You don’t ever have to give me
one. But I think the community deserves one because that’s still a hanging cord to a
point that if it’s never brought to closure as to where it went, then it does not say to a
point that we’ve ended it, but we’ve just left it over there so you form your own opinion.
And that’s what even supporters of many of us have said that to a point it’s been left there
instead of somebody having a testosterone level that’s high enough to say either I got
something or I don’t have anything. And that’s where I am coming from with it, and I
turn the chair back over to the Mayor.
Mr. Craig: I’d like to answer the question, because I think that it helps you then
to circle back, if you will, and cover some of the ground we’ve already covered today,
and that is during the course of the work of the special grand jury, there was a matter that
I think has been made public to the extent that the grand jury was not allowed to proceed
because it concerned something beyond their civil duties and responsibilities and so that
matter was turned over to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. My office was also
recused from that matter and so that is what would have gone to the Attorney General’s
office. Something that I’m recused in, I’m not allowed to participate in and I’m not
allowed to have knowledge of, and would not be allowed, therefore, to inquire.
However, you might have an idea that you could perhaps call the prosecutor that the
41
Attorney General has appointed in order to further review any findings concerning that
matter. If you did, and I’m sure that he would come cause he’s quite a gentleman, he
would come to you today and say to you that he is not allowed under his oath of office to
make any comments whatsoever and discuss in any way any sort of pending criminal
matter, not that he would say to you that there is one, because he’s not allowed to do that.
But at some point in time, if there is one, then it would be presented to an appropriate
grand jury. We have a continuity of the grand jury, by the way. The concept of a special
grand jury is something that is somewhat unique. We’ve had four or five of them in
Georgia over recent history, but by the same term, our regular term grand juries do run
from week to week and we’ve just sworn a new one this week. I hope that answers your
question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It gave me an answer. And I still appreciate you coming.
Still respect the grand jury. Still respect the office of District Attorney. But I still think
the people of this city deserve a lot more on this issue than they’ve gotten, Danny, and I
say that in all honesty. We’re going to be friends, but I think it’s left there at a hanging
point for folk to walk away with always a question mark, and I’m sure the District
Attorney in Chatham County, if they got as much crime down there as we got up here,
has more to do than worry about something that you all investigated for four to five years
and couldn’t bring it to closure and sent it to Atlanta and dumped it down there on him.
He’s probably chasing murderers and thieves and you’re right, he probably wouldn’t
come or shouldn’t come.
Mr. Mayor: Are you turning it back over to me?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, it’s all yours.
Mr. Mayor: Well, now that you’ve turned it back over to me, let me say let’s
limit our discussion to the agenda item that is before us today. I presume that’s item 46,
that sounds what you’re talking about, so let’s continue our discussion
Ms. Beard: Yes, but I do have a question.
Mr. Mayor: Does it concern the item that’s on the agenda, Ms. Beard? I mean we
can talk about all kinds of things with the D.A. here, but we have one item on the agenda
to deal with now.
Ms. Beard: Then I would like him added to our agenda in reference to the Ronnie
Few situation, that he is still down there and nothing has been settled in the city of
Augusta and nothing has been brought forth after about five years and it is my
understanding from one of the top lawyers in Augusta that even the statute of limitation is
over. We want to know something. Our community wants to know something. You
have really destroyed a person here.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard, I appreciate your concern and your interest in this but –
42
Ms. Beard: That’s it.
Mr. Mayor: If you’d like this on an agenda –
Ms. Beard: May I please add that to the agenda?
Mr. Mayor: -- you may ask the Clerk to put it on the agenda. But for the purpose
of –
Ms. Beard: I want some conclusion there.
Mr. Mayor: -- for the purpose of the meeting today we need to move forward
with the agenda item that is on the agenda today. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I was going to make that point, Mr. Mayor. The agenda item
concerns the fleet management department, and we have had the internal auditor here
before briefing us that he was obtaining evidence, obtaining documents and I had asked
the Commission with respect to that investigation, to walk a fine line between legitimate
Commissioner oversight and potentially compromising – not that I think anybody on the
board would – but the potential for the information being somehow useful in
compromising that investigation. The District Attorney carries the burden of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt in every criminal case. It’s the highest burden under the law,
and if that criminal investigation is now complete, then I think – and nothing is going to
be prosecuted, the termination of that could be I think reflected by your office.
Mr. Craig: It cannot be by my office because my office is now allowed to
participate.
Mr. Shepard: But it could by the current grand jury.
Mr. Craig: Not by the current grand jury, however, there was a prosecutor
appointed in that case several years and that was the Chatham County District Attorney.
He was appointed after my recusal.
Mr. Mayor: Not in fleet management now. We’re talking about fleet
management.
Mr. Shepard: We’re talking about fleet management.
Mr. Craig: I’m sorry.
Mr. Shepard: If I could, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we have had
the internal auditor up here indicating that he was gathering evidence in that case, and I
asked the Commission to give that prosecution deference and I did so because the
prosecution has to meet the highest evidentiary burden imposed by the law. And
therefore, I don’t think he’s been back to say he’s not working on it. He’s just indicated
43
he was trying to obtain the evidence so that if there is a prosecution, the appropriate steps
could be taken, which would be going through first the grand jury, and then Mr. Craig’s
office would have to carry the burden of proof with the evidence developed. If the
evidence is not properly developed, he doesn’t carry the burden of proof and there is no
conviction. And of course the jury in that situation would be the ultimate arbiter of
whether there is a crime committed or not, because certainly – certainly just because Mr.
Craig charges somebody, unless that individual pleads guilty, they don’t receive an
adjudication of guilt. They may well go to a jury of their own peers and be found not
guilty. So the investigation that I had been interested in and that I understood this agenda
item to be concerning was fleet management and none other.
Mr. Mayor: Well, that’s what I’m trying to move along with. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to try to get to fleet
management.
Mr. Mayor: Please, please do.
Mr. Williams: Enough of that other stuff been going on for five years. So let’s
go to fleet management. Mr. Craig, I need to hear from you what, what do we need to do
as a government body then. The attorney mentioned about the internal auditor, which I
lost a lot of confidence in. We have sent him over there after stuff had happened several
times. He didn’t discover this. But it was discovered. We done hired two or three
companies and two or three of the employees worked for both sides, worked for this
government and worked for the people we hired back and forth. Now it appears, appears
to be between $80,000 to $100,000 that we are in jeopardy, maybe – I’m trying to take
from my lawyer, sitting beside him, what I learned. I’m trying to explain this in lawyer’s
terms.
Mr. Craig: I understand. You have to pick your words carefully.
Mr. Williams: So all I’m saying is we have asked for an investigation of the
grand jury. Maybe we need to get a special grand jury. Maybe we don’t even need that.
But I need to know from you, Danny, what is it going take? We been investigated as a
group of elected official, from the animal control about a dog being stolen and bred and
had puppies and sold the puppies. We done been investigated in purchasing department.
We have been investigated in the tag office and something come of it. But this has been
so quiet. Now maybe you say, well, that’s a good thing. Not to me, cause I get scared
when folks get quiet. When it get quiet, Mr. Craig, something going on, something ain’t
going right. They sneaking. And I’m not accusing anybody. I’m saying that look like
that attorney who we paid good money should have been notified by somebody from the
Sheriff’s Department, somebody from some legal service, say look, y’all be quiet, too,
but this is what’s going on. We have heard nothing. And for less than that about a dog
being bred, we been in the newspapers. All I’m saying is we done fired two or three
people from the river dock down here on the water where [inaudible] misusing funds.
44
The tag office, the lady was stealing money from the time she hired until the day they
caught her, they don’t know how much she got.
Mr. Craig: Yes, we do. [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: Okay, well.
Mr. Craig: She’s in the penitentiary.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And somebody else may need to go. But we ain’t heard
nothing.
Mr. Craig: And I think I can help you now by taking your words and answering
your questions.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Craig: The publicity that was attendant to someone taking a dog from the
animal control and breeding the dog, that publicity came from information shared by
people who are employed in animal control, who are not in law enforcement, and they
have every right to share information that is known to them.
Mr. Williams: Hold your point, hold your point, Danny.
Mr. Craig: Okay.
Mr. Williams: I had five people to come in the Mayor Pro Tem’s office with
documents to show us where we have been double-billed in fleet management. They
dismissed it.
Mr. Craig: I’m getting there. I’m getting there. I’m getting there.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Okay.
Mr. Craig: Those people in animal control were not under the oath of office that a
sheriff is under. And that a district attorney is under. And to the extent that people who
work in the tag office became of the fact that there were irregularities there, then those
people were free to discuss those things, too, because they’re simply not under the oath of
a law enforcement officer or the GBI or sheriff or district attorney. They can discuss
those things, and they do become public. We know that. For a sheriff or for a district
attorney to discuss things that come within their jurisdiction, within the purview of their
duties and responsibilities is a violation of the oath, and it is a crime for which they can
be removed from office and they can be prosecuted. And so where other people in the
community are free to discuss things, and certainly this Commission is, and you should
discuss those things that concern you. You have every right to do that. But district
attorneys and sheriffs do not have the right to do that and we cannot do that.
45
Mr. Williams: The company that we hired, we paid them $3 million a year to do
preventive maintenance. That’s change oil, tires, whatever maintenance is. That
company came to us and was willing to share what they knew because they was the one
who discovered it. Not our internal auditor. But they was even told because there was an
investigation, don’t say nothing. So they was zipped up. We have not – had we not
known about it, and that’s probably a lot of stuff we don’t know about, but when we
know about this kind of thing, it’s, it’s our duties as elected official to address those
issues and find out if it continues to go on, has it been going on for a number of years,
who’s handling it? We don’t get into [inaudible] investigation, we got enough to do.
Mr. Craig: You want answers and you want them quickly.
Mr. Williams: We want answers and we, and we, and we need to know where the
process is going.
Mr. Craig: All right. And let me share with you that I am born and raised here
just like you were, and when something like that goes on, I want answers and I want them
quickly. I can give you the assurance that I move according to that, but I have to tell you
that I cannot share with you anything that comes to my knowledge during the course and
scope of my duties and responsibilities as your district attorney, and your sheriff cannot
either.
Mr. Williams: Can we call in the company, though?
Mr. Craig: Sure. Absolutely.
Mr. Williams: Cause they was told that they couldn’t say nothing. So if we can
put them on the agenda to have the company in, willing to tell us what they, the
participation and what they know.
Mr. Craig: You could. Now if the sheriff’s department or if a law enforcement
agency has met with someone, has gathered information from them and has said to them
– and I don’t know that they have – but has said to them would you mind not discussing
this until we can finish up our work here? And if they come in here and they ask you to
allow them to honor that representation that they made to law enforcement, then I’m
telling you that that would be because that might be in the best interest of the community
and it might be in the best interest of bringing a successful conclusion to what’s going on.
Beyond that, I can only assure you that there, I don’t know that there has ever been any
neglect on the part of the Sheriff’s Department in pursuing investigations here. I don’t
know that there’s ever been neglect on the part of the GBI in pursuing investigations.
And so I know that you want answers more quickly sometimes than they can be given to
you, but we have a reason for the law that governs the policies and the procedures and the
duties and the responsibilities of your constitutional officers.
46
Mr. Williams: Mr. Craig, if this had been just something happened last month or
six weeks ago, I could agree with you. But the time that this event has took place and
been going on, it’s way past time to have something – maybe not no closure, but you
could, you could dig up Jesse James and find out who he robbed when he was alive in the
time this done happened. So all I’m saying is we ought to have something to come
before this body because the people hold us accountable. People, I mean I get asked
about it all the time. I mean all this stuff, they talk about we micromanaging. When I get
as many phone calls – I got three phones that I carry. I got one in my car. Sylvia, I think
you wrote I had two phones. I said no, you wrong, I had three phones. But my point is
we have the, the, the people that elected us asking us questions over and over again. And
if we are committed like we was supposed to be, we want to know anyway. You can’t sit
here and operate a government and let people just do what they want to when they want
to how they want to do it.
Mr. Craig: I understand.
Mr. Williams: So you can’t tell us nothing other than there may be and there may
not be?
Mr. Craig: Well, I can tell you this. In 1999, I prosecuted a man for murder that
he committed in 1979. And he had not been arrested until 1999. He’s now in the
penitentiary and will be there for the rest of his life. And I don’t think this investigation
is going to take nearly that long.
Mr. Williams: Oh, Lord, I hope not.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, have we received from the internal auditor the audit into
the status of these funds?
Mr. Russell: No, sir, we have not at this point. I have not seen it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Craig, have you been furnished a final work product from our
internal auditor concerning the status of these funds?
Mr. Craig: I know that there has been work by an internal auditor.
Mr. Mayor: But you don’t know if that work has been completed, of your own
knowledge?
Mr. Craig: I’m perfectly satisfied that everyone involved in any manner
concerning a possible misappropriate of funds from this government is working
diligently.
47
Mr. Mayor: Well, my point is, and I think this might help Mr. Williams a little
bit. I mean there are two, two tracks here. There is a criminal track that the sheriff’s
office is involved in, the district attorney is involved in, and somebody may go to the
penitentiary. We don’t know. The other track is, there’s a civil track, that indeed perhaps
is an allegation this government has been defrauded, and we should proceed civilly by
filing a claim against the company, against the bond holder for the company, to recover
the money that was misappropriated from us and maybe, Mr. Russell, if we can get that
work product from the internal auditor, that perhaps this government could proceed down
that avenue while the law enforcement people do their business.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Just a suggestion, Mr. Williams, and maybe it would help [inaudible]
forward. I don’t know.
Mr. Williams: Do I need to make a motion to that effect, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Well, you can make any motion you want to.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry?
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the motion?
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, there’s a second. Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I’m a little bit slightly confused on when to call the district
attorney or not to call the district attorney, and since he’s here, I just like to get some
clarity on that. When should we, this government, call on you to assist us? I’m confused
because of the fact that I know in the past, in bringing up the animal control situation, the
last one that I heard that you were called on, many times I hear – I mean I’ve heard the
Mayor in previous incidents ask the district attorney to investigate this. Now my, I’m a
little confused now what makes this different to investigate than what he was calling on
you to investigate, or was it improper for him to call the district attorney to investigate
what was going on at the animal shelter versus is it improper for you or should we have
called on your first to investigate the fleet management, or – I’m going to ask all the
questions at the same time, I’ll be finished – or should we call the GBI and ask them to
investigate? And I think that, to me, I thought that would be the way that we can go and
we could even bypass you by going and ask the GBI as government officials to
investigate this case here. Now when should we call on you and when should we not call
48
on you? Because I know I’ve heard the Mayor say well, I’ve called, I’m going to ask the
DA to investigate this particular – so –
Mr. Craig: Well, first of all, it’s an honor to be here. So you can call me anytime
you want and I will come here as long as I’m in town or not trying a case downstairs.
Mr. Hankerson: I don’t mean just come and educate us on the grand jury.
Mr. Craig: I understand.
Mr. Hankerson: Cause I’ve listened to you many times educate us as pastors and
ministers in the community. We’ve met, breakfasts, and you educated us on the work of
the grand jury. I’m not talking about that. But I’m talking about on an action case. We
have criminal activity in the government and we need some action, we need some
feedback. Do we call on you for that or we don’t call you?
Mr. Craig: I don’t expect you to necessarily have the legal definition of terms, so
if you want to call it an investigation, that’s fine. Whatever it might be that concerns you,
you can call them all investigations and I’ll, you know, I will decipher the term as it
comes through. And we’re not going to pick and choose and criticize somebody for
using a particular word. But –
Mr. Hankerson: I’m just repeating what the Mayor usually say, I’m going to call
on the DA for investigation. So I’m just repeating whatever he said, that’s what I want
done, too. Whatever.
Mr. Craig: Well, you should feel comfortable, whenever you have a question I
will come as long as I’m not downstairs trying cases or out of town. Now the only
people under the law – here’s a statute again – the only people under the statute that
created the Georgia Bureau of Investigation that can call for a Georgia Bureau of
Investigation investigation is a judge of a Superior Court, a district attorney, or a sheriff.
So a member of an acting county commission or even the Governor’s office or anybody
else cannot ask for an investigation by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Actually, I
think the Governor is on that list, himself, but no one else within that office. So if you
feel like you need something investigated, you can certainly call the sheriff. I’m not
telling you not to call your sheriff. But if you call on me and ask me to look into
something and I see that it calls for a criminal investigation, then I’m going to make the
determination as to whether that can best and most efficiently be done by either the
sheriff or the GBI or the FBI or whoever might be necessary and I’m going to contact the
appropriate agency and you don’t have to worry about whether that’s being done. And
that might help you to answer the question about which you called me over here today.
Mr. Hankerson: Hold, hold that part right there.
Mr. Craig: Okay.
49
Mr. Hankerson: But can this Commission ask you to –
Mr. Craig: To investigate.
Mr. Hankerson: No. Ask you to ask the GBI to investigate?
Mr. Craig: Absolutely.
Mr. Hankerson: Now leaving it up to you, you have choices. You could ask the
sheriff’s department, the marshal or the citizens or whatever, but if we direct, say we
want the GBI to investigate or we want the sheriff’s department to investigate, we want
the FBI, it’s federal, we want that, then you follow that directive; is that what you’re
saying?
Mr. Craig: And again, you don’t have to pick and choose your words. If you call
me up and you say I want the GBI to investigate whether a burglary took place at a
certain residence in Richmond County, well, I am going to act upon your request. Now
you may find out after the indictment and during the trial of the case that the GBI never,
never heard from me at all, because I will have determined that the GBI, because I work
with them daily, doesn’t do house burglary work, unless there’s something else very
peculiar about it or because we simply don’t have the manpower to do it. And so you
would find during the trial that in that sort of case I would have called the sheriff. And he
would have conducted the investigation. But you can ask me anything, and to the extent
that I can honor your request, I’m going to honor your request.
Mr. Hankerson: But Mr. Craig, I would like to know that before the trial. I mean
if I ask for the GBI, and you know, I’m illiterate when it comes to all this law stuff. I’m
not one of Steve’s partners. I ain’t never been nobody’s partner in law. But if I ask for
the GBI, would you instruct me then, say well, no, the GBI shouldn’t investigate your
house burglary, I’m going to call the Sheriff’s Department? Or would you just – I’m
thinking that GBI investigated and then when the trial come up you say well, no, the
Sheriff’s Department investigated?
Mr. Craig: Mr. Hankerson, if I could tell you that I’m not going to call an agency
and I’m going to prefer another one without, without in any way affecting the integrity of
the investigation, then I would tell you. But if I felt that in any way it would affect the
integrity of the investigation to tell you who is actually going to conduct the
investigation, then I would not tell you that. I would simply receive your information and
I know to whom I need to know in order to get the job done. Does that help you?
Mr. Mayor: Our agenda item is about fleet management and we have strayed into
a workshop here on –
Mr. Hankerson: Well, this is about the fleet management, because of the fact, Mr.
Mayor, that it’s on the agenda about the fleet management and we’re not getting the
answers back about the investigation, so the reason I asked him this is to find out whether
50
we went wrong. Did we ask – you are here today and we still have not received the
answers that was –
Mr. Mayor: Well, I can tell you in response to a comment you made, Mr.
Hankerson, yes, I contacted law enforcement. I contacted the District Attorney when
information about the animal shelter was brought to my attention. I have not had one
communication back since then from law enforcement. But I haven’t asked them the
status of it, I haven’t asked them who they’ve talked to, what information they’ve
developed. I did what I was supposed to do and I reported the information. Now it’s in
their hands to proceed with it. What they do with it is, is – I don’t want to say it’s up to
them, that’s a little simplistic. But what they do with it is how they operate in accordance
with the law.
Mr. Hankerson: But Mr. Mayor, I understand that, but as a steward of
government’s property I think that we should have some closure or report or something.
If we keep calling law enforcement or calling the District Attorney and they never give us
no answers and just an ongoing investigation for years and years, I mean –
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Hankerson: Where we have employees involved, we need to know. Cause if
we have employees in this government stealing, they need to go.
Mr. Mayor: That’s true.
Mr. Hankerson: And they need to go in a hurry. So I don’t think we need to wait
for years and years. So I’ll be more concerned [inaudible] the way you call. I mean I
observed the seniors on this Commission and I consider you as a senior, Willie Mays, as
a senior, and the other senior Commissioners that have already spent almost eight years.
I mean I’m three years so I learn from what you all do and I follow suit of the way you do
it. And it’s not no offense to the way you did it, but I’m saying well, if the Mayor did it
that way, that must be correct. So maybe we did it the wrong way. We didn’t ask for a
specific, that’s what I mean.
Mr. Craig: Well, there’s no, there’s no art form that needs to be used in asking for
our assistance and we have never ignored you. And I think I can safely say to you that
there may actually be a conclusion – I didn’t personally participate with regard to what
law enforcement produced concerning the animal control, but if I’m not mistaken there
has been a conclusion to that matter, as far as the criminal investigation goes, so I might
can come back over at your pleasure and share that with you.
Mr. Hankerson: I’m not interested in that. I was just using that for an example to
know whether we did it the right way, because if I’m sitting on this Commission for
another four years and I learn by mistakes, I learn by other incidents, and I know which
way to proceed the next time, so we won’t be discussing it 30 or 40 minutes.
51
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Craig, is it not true, though, that you don’t need a request from
the Mayor, you don’t need a resolution from the Commission as a body, that any citizen
at any time can go to you and bring to your attention any allegation of wrongdoing,
present you any evidence they have?
Mr. Craig: About 20 times a day –
Mr. Williams: Clarification, Mr. Mayor. Clarification, Mr. Craig. What you said
about the animal control –
Mr. Craig: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: We have got all that information already.
Mr. Craig: Okay.
Mr. Williams: It’s in the wind, it’s in the streets, you hear it every day. We know
about who was hired, who, who was overturned, we know all of that, but we ain’t heard
nothing about this. And that’s what gets my attention. It been too quiet.
Mr. Craig: And some investigations take longer than others.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: You know, this is a subject I really shouldn’t get into, but he’s having
such a hard time with fleet management. But there wasn’t a hard time at all when you
were contacted to investigate my husband. There wasn’t a hard time at all when I had a
meeting out of town and he called and asked if I could meet with your grand jury at
another time, and you said well, maybe I could, but I could be put in jail. I’m saying that
to say I just don’t think things are fair all the time here. And we want it to change. You
asked, you asked no other Commissioner, but you asked us for our personal information,
and we had no choice but to get a lawyer and get it to you. I want the people to know
what I’ve gone through and what my husband went through. He went through that more
than a year and a half. And I’m just going to say, with the justice system here in
Augusta, we are tired. We want fairness.
Mr. Craig: Ms. Beard, as you probably know, I can’t answer those questions
because I wasn’t personally there.
Ms. Beard: Well, that’s fine, but I want the people to know about our system
here.
Mr. Craig: Yes, ma’am.
52
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor that was made by Commissioner
Williams. Is there further discussion on the motion? All in favor of that motion, please
vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham: Read the motion, please.
The Clerk: The motion was to direct the administrator to receive a report from
the internal auditor to proceed with civil actions against the bonding company of the fleet
management contract.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: We’re voting on the motion. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Before you vote, I’d just –
Mr. Mayor: We are voting. We’re voting right now.
Mr. Boyles: May I make a comment that since I’ve been finance chairman I’ve
been meeting almost weekly with the internal auditor, and along with Mr. Russell and
along with Mr. Persaud, the finance director, and I think that probably tomorrow and no
later than Monday we’re going to have some information back. So I just wanted to say
that, because I thought it’s my duty as finance chairman and it was my responsibility to
work with our auditors and I’ve been doing that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. If you want to vote on the motion, please go ahead and
vote and then we’ll ask the Clerk to publish the vote. Try to move forward here, if we
can. Madame Clerk, please publish the vote on the motion.
Mr. Grantham votes No.
Mr. Boyles, Mr. Mays, Mr. Williams and Ms. Sims not voting.
Mr. Smith out.
Motion fails 3-1.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move along then, if we can, with item number 23. Thank you
[inaudible], congratulations on your [inaudible] yesterday. Item 23 I think is the next
one.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, what we had done –
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
53
Mr. Mays: Yeah, we had asked for 45A –
Mr. Mayor: Okay
Mr. Mays Tem: 46.
Mr. Hankerson: 45A.
Mr. Mays: The director wasn’t here at the time, that’s how we skipped down.
Mr. Mayor: 45A is what we’re going to do next. Okay.
The Clerk:
45A. Report from the Housing and Neighborhood Director regarding funding
request from the Southside Outreach Community Program, Inc. (Requested by the
Administrative Services Committee July 12, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. Smith here with his report? Have you already had that?
The Clerk: No.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I am going to turn this over to one of my
key staff, Rose White, to give you a thorough report. She has been working on this and
has information she wanted to share with you. Rose White.
Ms. White: First of all, is there a specific question you wanted to ask me about it?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Hankerson: I think Mr. Smith know what we asked him for in the
Administrative Service Committee meeting, and I think he should inform his employee of
what we asked for. I don’t want to put her on the spot here of what we asked for, we
asked him to, to go and find the funds, $10,000 for this organization.
Ms. White: Okay. We have an agency that was funded for year 2004 who has
told us that they want to forfeit their $20,000 grant, and we are waiting for a confirmation
from them that they really want to forfeit their $20,000 grant. And at that time we would
bring it back to the Commission to award Southside Outreach $10,000 and Able/Disable
$10,000.
Mr. Hankerson: If I could respond on that.
54
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Continue.
Mr. Hankerson: We don’t want this coming back. We gave instructions in
Administrative Services Committee meeting and if the money is not – I mean we’re
waiting on this source, but there may be some other sources of funds. But this
organization is waiting on this money now to operate and that’s the instructions that we,
the Administrative Service gave to the director, so I don’t intend for us to go back to any
other meetings about it. I just want the funds allocated. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: If that’s your wish, that’s what will happen.
Mr. Hankerson: If that’s the case, then we can move on. If you have the funds
available to go ahead and approve it.
Mr. Mayor: The Commission has already approved the authorization or just the
committee?
Mr. Hankerson: We need to approve it here. A motion for approve.
Mr. Mayor: You’re making a motion for approval?
Mr. Mays: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. A second. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In the committee meeting, though, I
thought we was under the impression that Mr. Smith was going back to his office and
there was, I remember saying, someone saying that there was a group who was going
forfeit their money. Now I’m hearing from Ms. White that if they forfeit then we will
come back, and I know there’s been a motion to go ahead and approve, but where, I mean
where is the money going come from? We can’t do stuff just say that what your will, that
what the committee say. If that’s the case, we should have done it the first time, Mr.
Smith. Where is the funds going come from now?
Mr. Smith: Specifically, the funds will come from recaptured funds that were
allocated to another organization that is going to confirm the fact that they don’t want the
money. That’s the only place that we have the funds right now. We’ve got $20,000
otherwise obligated, that the organization that the funds were allocated to said that they
cannot use the funds. We were looking at that as a source for funding two projects,
Able/Disable and the Southside Outreach program.
Mr. Williams: You told us that at the committee meeting.
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir.
55
Mr. Williams: You said that, you know, that the funds was you know going to be
turned in from someone.
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Williams: But what we just heard from Ms. White was that the funds was
going, supposed to be turned in, they may not be, they had not done it as yet. [inaudible]
came down to committee meeting, and I’ve got some calls when we first heard about
MACH, MACH Academy, who was getting [inaudible] some other stuff and she didn’t
even get her paperwork, and I don’t remember all the details, but I do remember that it
was stated that you was going back to the office, you was going to see that this be done.
Now you going to just go ahead and take those funds, I guess you saying now?
Mr. Smith: No. What we have to do, in fairness to the, this other recipient, we’re
going to make sure that they have a board resolution to authorize their director to let us
know that they don’t want the funds.
Mr. Williams: And if that doesn’t happen, where is [inaudible] going be? Is she
going be back calling me or is she going to be calling [inaudible]?
Mr. Smith: We have no other funds, so if this doesn’t work out, then we have no
other funds that are available for those two projects.
Mr. Williams: But you just said if that what you want to happen, and I’m the
impression that’s going to happen cause you just replied to the Commission, if that’s
what you say – and then if that group says no, we changed our mind, we want these
funds, then I’m going to get some phones from Rev. [inaudible], too. Ms. [inaudible]
wasn’t the only one called. This is a program that they showed it was necessary, what
they was doing, how they been doing it. They been – Ms. [inaudible] you want to come
up and just help me out a little bit, cause I can’t remember all of the details that was
explained in committee.
Mr. Mayor: I believe the director has said that if it’s the will of the Commission
to appropriate the money, that he will find the money and it will be appropriated. Are
you changing that story? Cause it sounds to me like it was solved a minute ago.
Mr. Smith: Let’s be real clear. What I said, what I mean was that we, we are
looking to recapture those funds. And to the extent we recapture those funds, we will
provide those resources to Southside.
Mr. Williams: But if we don’t recapture? That’s my question. If those, if the
other entity says they want to keep those funds – you said if that’s what we want to
happen, that’s going to happen. Well, if that group don’t relinquish those funds, then
how are you going to make that happen? That’s what I’m asking.
56
Mr. Smith: Okay. We have limited funds. We’ve got a pot of money that we’re
looking at right now for these two projects, and we’re trying to be fair with the recipient,
the original recipient that we designated to get the funds. We’re giving them a chance. I
don’t think it would be fair and right for us to go back and to pull those funds if they
change their mind. We don’t think that they’re going to change their mind. This is just a
technicality. I wanted to make sure that they went back to their board and got everything
worked out. Mrs. White has been talking with them, we are almost there, we say let’s
make sure we get this in writing. That’s where we are right now.
Mr. Mayor: Could we – let me ask this. Maybe we could table this item and
somebody from your department could go use the telephone right now and call the
agency and ask them.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I don’t want to prolong this. All I wanted to know if
that’s not the case, if that doesn’t happen, then was there any recaptured funds
somewhere else to guarantee that this, this, this, this entity going get what we done told
them two weeks ago they was going get and have not got it yet. That was a misleading
statement to me. Maybe not to nobody else. But when you said whatever you say going
happen, that’s going happen, well, I assumed there was another pot of money or
something else that he knew about that if this didn’t go through that they would still be –
but right now, it’s going come back to us if that didn’t happen. [inaudible]
Mr. Hankerson: The motion said that he would get it. The record says it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me just ask this question. Maybe the director can clear
up something, something right quick. Did we set a, based on the fact of what the
committee did, and that’s not the Commission’s decision, but it is the recommending
body, from the committee. I made the motion in committee. Did we give them a
timeframe or did they say when they would be meeting or when they could have a phone
conference to determine whether or not they needed the money? Cause I mean I think
both of our experiences with, with, with agencies that need money, they know when they
need it and it’s usually past the time when they ask for it. So they either know whether
they needed $10,000 or $20,000 and were going to take it to a point when the call was
made. That would help me to clear up whether or not a call has been made, whether we
gave them a date to say, okay, fine, call us back by such-and-such a date, fax us
something, you know, or whatever. If we’d done that, that would help us I think clear
this process up.
Mr. Smith: This is something that can be cleared up fairly quickly. We didn’t get
a specific date, but this is something that we can contact that organization and get – come
to a meeting of the minds as to what is their decision. And that shouldn’t take long at all.
Mr. Williams: I make a motion to table this and let them go make a phone
call, Mr. Mayor, so we can get back and get this resolved so we won’t have to keep
57
coming back downtown, parking places, walking around this courthouse, everything
is congested, so I make a motion to table.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the motion to table? There is no second to the
motion, so the motion dies.
Mr. Hankerson: I seconded the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I’m sorry, Mr. Hankerson, I didn’t hear you. So the motion to
table has been made by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Hankerson. The motion to
table is non debatable, so we’ll move on to the question. All in favor of the motion to
table, please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Smith out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, if you would get the phone call made and then report
back to us, we’ll bring that back up.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, it’s not a part of the debate, but I think you maybe ought
to see this, because the motion that I made at the committee was to do what we doing, to
go get now. The motion was that it be brought back here to this Commission today. The
information should be here already. We should not be making any calls. That was why
my hesitancy was on voting to table. That should be in this Commission already. That
should be an up or down decision presented to us today as to what the other agency said.
And I want to help both agencies. But I think this gets back to a point whatever day and
procedure that information is to be gotten and should be prepared to us, departments,
whatever the department is should have that ready [inaudible] again like I told the
gentleman that was just [inaudible] deserve better.
Mr. Mayor: All right. So that’s on the table, and Fred, if you’ll get the call made
and we’ll take this up just as quick as you can get the phone call made. Ms. Bonner, I
think the next item was 43. Is that the sequence.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Item 43. 43, 49 and then 49.
The Clerk: Are you going to 43 now?
Mr. Mayor: 43 is the next one, is that right, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: We’re at –
Mr. Mayor: 49? Which one is next?
58
Mr. Mays: 49.
The Clerk: 49.
Mr. Mayor: 49 is next.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS:
49. Consider a request from members of the Augusta-Richmond County
Legislative Delegation to ratify the following appointments. (Requested by Mayor
Pro Tem Willie Mays)
Authorities, Boards and Present appointee Appointee
Commissions
Coliseum Authority Dr. Wayne Frazier Dr. Wayne Frazier
Coliseum Authority Ellis Albright Ellis Albright
Coliseum Authority Bill Maddox Billy Holden
Coliseum Authority Bonnie Ruben J.R. Riles
Personnel Board Vacant Dr. Willie Mazyck
Personnel Board Charles Walker, Jr. Craig Smith
Augusta Port Authority Jack Brown (resigned) James C. Murray
Human Relations Wilson Rice (deceased) Dr. Thomas Clark
Commission
Board of Zoning Appeals Bill Maddox Bill Maddox
Board of Zoning Appeals Harvey Johnson Harvey Johnson
General Aviation Daniel Locke McKnight David Fields
Field
Tax Assessors Board James Scott James Scott
Tax Assessors Board E.L. Thomas Robert H. O’Neal
Augusta Aviation Vacant Karlton Howard
Augusta Canal Authority Turner Simkins Turner Simkins
Minority Business Council Vacant Lester Lowery
Minority Business Council Vacant Ella Jones
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you asked that this item be put back on the agenda today.
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I’m going, I’m going to defer to former
Representative Allen. My representative asked me to place this on, and out of courtesy I
did. We gave the, I think we took a motion at the last meeting for some direction to be
sent back to the Legislative Delegation. I relayed that information to, to my
59
representative and I told him that we needed further information at least in reference to
how they were meeting, what, how they were doing that, and those procedures, and so
out of courtesy and to another elected official and another governmental body, I placed
that back on. But I defer to Mr. Allen.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Allen, the action at the last meeting of the Commission was that
we requested a resolution from the Legislative Delegation for ratification of these. Are
you here to present that resolution today?
Mr. Allen: No, I’m not. I’m here to offer information that I think will be useful
for this Commission to make a decision today on the appointments that’s have, that have
been requested. The normal procedure for the legislative body to do administrative
things – normally those matters, particularly with reference to appointments to
commissions, boards and authorities. Generally speaking, those type things have never
been done in a meeting. Usually what is done, a person – you want somebody to make an
appointment to a board of authority, you draw up a statement to that effect, you get the
requisite number of signatures which is a simple majority of the Legislative Delegation,
and present it to the appointing body, which is the Commission here. That has been the
procedure that was followed in this particular setting and is the contention of Rep.
Howard and those who signed off on that letter recommending those appointments. It’s
our contention that this body has the authority based on information that you have already
received to make those appointments as stated therein.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. The
additional information that was furnished between this meeting here and was furnished
by [inaudible] Brumby – you’ve seen that, Mr. Allen, have you not?
Mr. Allen: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: I would cite Code § 50-1-5, which talks about meeting by
conference or other similar means. And basically, this has been a part of the law for, the
history line shows that it was in the 1991 Code, ’81 Code, excuse me, and amended in
1996. And it was so that state agencies or any agencies, really, could confer by
teleconference or other way of communication of what I would call interactive. And it
says other similar means, means which allows each member of the board or body
participating in the meeting to hear and speak to each other member participating in the
meeting. And so I have, I have not received any new information that causes me to be of
a different opinion that this legislation, not legislation, but these appointments should
have been acted on by the Delegation as a body and it could be in my opinion very
simply accomplished by the holding of such a meeting and as I count the number of
signatures here, there’s sufficient numbers of members to convene a meeting and since
there are seven and these are four, I say that is a simple majority of that. But they have
,
not convened in a meeting on the issue that we have today hereMr. Mayor, members of
the Commission, nor do I see any evidence that they have had a teleconference where
60
they had an interactive communication. And that’s the law that was cited by, by Mr.
[inaudible] teleconference, and he just says, you know, a body of state government may
meet by teleconference or other similar means. I have a professional dispute with Mr.
Allen that other similar means has been employed, because the signing of the letter does
not, in my opinion, have the same force of allowing each member of the board or body
[inaudible] speak to the other members. So I think still the safest course would be to
have them furnish us evidence of a meeting or teleconference if they can’t get all
together, then I would have a lot more comfort. I just don’t want to be in a position of
having to defend a, an appointment which may be flawed. And clearly, if it were handled
by a face-to-face meeting or a teleconference, it would not be flawed. So by having those
activities from the Delegation, I would have no problem. I am an advisory, I sit in an
advisory position now, I have so advised you, if you, you know, you now make the
decision. But simply, if they would have a teleconference then I would feel a lot better.
But I think they have not had it. That’s –
Mr. Allen: And when you read the law, it didn’t require you to have it, either.
The only thing it stated was [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Allen, you need to direct your comments to the chair now.
We’re not going to get into a legal debate here between lawyers.
Mr. Allen: I understand that, but he made reference to me and [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: I understand.
Mr. Allen: But if you take a look at the law, there are two or three things I want
to apprise this Commission of. First thing, if you take a look at the law cited by our
learned counsel, it does not require you to have a sit-down meeting, it doesn’t require you
to have a teleconference meeting. It says all it takes is that you have a meeting of minds
basically by other means. That’s all it requires. You have a letter which states that a
simple majority of the local Legislative Delegation made an appointment. That has been
done. It’s been placed before this body. If you take a look at the legislation which
created the consolidated government, all it requires this body to do, this Commission, is
to up or down on the appointments, basically I take the position that you can’t even deny
the appointments, that once the local Legislative Delegation provides you with the
appointments, all you do is as a courtesy just ratify it and put them on the [inaudible].
That’s what the consolidated government calls for. It does not require, authorize you to
look behind the operations of another governmental body, and that’s what you’ll be doing
if you take the position of, of, of Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Mayor: The Commission, the Commission the last time we took these,
approved, the vote of the Commission was that the Delegation send us a resolution of
these appointments. And that’s the same, that’s consistent with the Delegation asking us
for a resolution when this body wants something. So until the Commission decides either
today or some other meeting that they want to handle this in a different way, the action of
the Commission at this time today is they’re awaiting a resolution from the Delegation.
61
Mr. Allen: But, but, if you take a look at, if you take a look at – I respectfully
disagree because if you take a look at the law –
Mr. Mayor: I mean if you check the minutes, there’s nothing to disagree. It’s
official action.
Mr. Allen: But if you take a look at the law which created the consolidated
government, it does not require, authorize you to authorize the only way that you receive
appointments through resolution. It doesn’t say that. It says that the local Legislative
Delegation make the nominations and basically you simply approve the nominations
made.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Allen, I certainly respect your
position and what you’re saying based on the consolidation charter and the rule or the
laws thereof. But I just don’t think that we need to get into the war that they’re having. I
mean we have enough problems of our own, and for us to try to, to try to start getting into
their conflicts I think it just creates a, a division more than what, than what they have and
what we have. And I just, I just feel like we need to, we have asked them for that
resolution. They have sent us several letters regarding those comments where they didn’t
feel like if they had a meeting, people would have been excluded, that’s what – we don’t
need to get involved in that. What we need to do is what you said. After they have met
and bring us a, a, a slate of appointments, then we are to ratify that slate of appointments.
And you’re exactly right. So I’m going to make a motion that we deny this request today
and that we continue the way we did at our last meeting and ask for the resolution with
this same list of names, but we want it in that form and in the same order that they request
of us and I’m putting tat in the form of a motion.
Ms. Sims: I second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. All right. Further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: The only thing I just, I just want to ask is are we doing this for this list
that they are sending us, or are we to communicate in this way until we, we change it or
from now on or what? Because like you said, and [inaudible] they got some internal
things they need to deal with, and I made that clear at the last meeting. But I also said
that, you know, I can remember to a point that it seems as though, and Ben, you would
know better about being a member of that Delegation for a number of years, but you
know, they have, they have met by polling each other, they’ve met by all kinds of means.
They’ve met while they’ve been in Atlanta and some of them have been in Augusta at the
62
same time. And the Commission has accepted it from the standpoint of what they’ve sent
to us, you know, before. And I’m just wondering is it because this time we are going to
meet and deal with the rules another way the next time? That’s the only thing I just want
to know about. [inaudible] colleagues whatever way, you know, that y’all, that y’all, that
y’all go. But I, I think to a point of saying that we tell them to sit down and, and meet in
the same room and deal with, you know, a resolution, I guess what I’m looking for is that
if they bring us a resolution back and it ends up with the same four people, do we accept
that as a resolution or do we say that because everybody wasn’t at the meeting then, you
know – cause I think the last meeting they had might have been down here, it may have
broke up down here. So you know, I’m just trying to get to a point of where, where this
is taking us on, on this motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham, you want to try to [inaudible]?
Mr. Grantham: Where I think we’re going is, is what has, what has been done in
the past along these lines? Have they presented a letter to you stating this is what, this is
what they wanted, and based on a meeting that was held, or was it based on just I saw Mr.
Allen on the street and he agreed with me that we ought to do so-and-so? You know –
Mr. Allen: You want me to respond?
Mr. Grantham: Yeah, that would be fine. But my point –
Mr. Allen: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Let the Commissioner speak.
Mr. Grantham: But my point is, you know, they require certain things of us to do
in a methodical way based on resolutions or any requests we’ve got of them. We have to
present a resolution to them in order to get something done. So my point is that what’s
good for one is good for the other. And that being the case, if we have to change that,
Mr. Mays, then maybe we ought to change it. And maybe we ought to get them to
present us with a resolution of names. I’m not against any of these names. I’m all for
these names. But when, if I’m excluded from a meeting that I was not a part of and
something is done in my behalf, then I’m opposed to it. And I think that’s what’s
happened here and that’s why I don’t want to get into a battle. But I think we should
require from them what they require from us. That’s my only statement, regardless of
what has taken place before now.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I got a couple of questions, and my first
question is has there been another list? Is this the same list we got each time? I mean if
there was two lists that was presented, then I could see the conflict saying well, you
know, somebody says this and – is this the only list?
63
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays will have to answer that. He put it on the agenda.
Mr. Williams: Is this the same list, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: This is the list that was, that was submitted by the Legislature. I
didn’t have one. It was a courtesy pass-on to my representative. But I hope, Mr. Mayor,
that at some point [inaudible] Mr. Allen [inaudible] maybe after Mr. Williams finishes
that we ask him about how they met for eight years and I think that’s worth noting
somewhere in the meeting, how did they conduct these meetings.
Mr. Williams: Well, and there been a lot of meetings and a lot of times a meeting
is scheduled and you don’t show up. If you know about the meeting and you didn’t show
up then you, you know, you, you, you gave up your privileges to voice your opinion or
whatever. I don’t know. I’m just tired. We need to go ahead and do something. Ben,
how did they do it? You said you was on there –
Mr. Allen: For the eight years that I was up there, we passed around a list. Once
you got the requisite number to represent a simple majority, we passed it on to you all.
That’s the way it was done.
Mr. Williams: Well, I’m going to make a motion that we go ahead and approve
this list then, if I can get a second to this motion.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the list. Is there a second to that
motion?
Ms. Beard: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Motion has been seconded to approve the list. Is there any further
discussion?
Mr. Boyles: Is that a substitute motion?
Mr. Mayor: That’s a substitute motion, yes.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to –
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Boyles: We also talked last time. It didn’t, it wasn’t a part of the motion but
if you take any one of these authorities, boards or commissions and the members of this
Commission wants to appoint someone, we have to have a talent bank form to do that.
And we had talked about that at our July 1 meeting I think when this came up. And
we’re kind of operating with two different standards, because there is not a talent bank
form on these folks if they’re new [inaudible]. [inaudible] addressing it the Mayor, I
suppose. But I thought that just made the act, the operations of the authority or the board
64
a little bit more in focus because we all knew where they came from and what they were
doing. But if the Commission is going to require that we do the talent forms, the bank
forms, the talent bank forms, and the Delegation is not, then we’ve got a little conflict
there.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I think it would be a conflict. I would, I would, I would ask that
that rule be observed. Every, every appointee that I put out here in six years had a talent
bank form. But what’s I’m trying to make, the point, to the Commission today is that if a
meeting were held or a teleconference meeting were held and this action was taken, I
would have no discomfort with it at all. But there is a dispute amongst the members of
the Legislature Delegation about whether this is the appropriate way to have
appointments made to this body. So therefore, I can anticipate potential challenges to the
slate that is being presented. Therefore, to insulate this body from any potential litigation
over the validity of these appointments, I have again suggested a safe harbor place to go,
and that’s a meeting or certainly a teleconference meeting, because I’m not, I’m not
trying to hang these up, I’m simply trying not to be in, in, in, in a challenge of any kind as
to any of these individuals. I mean I respect the appointment authority of the Legislature,
but I would like to see it exercised as acting in a body.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Shepard: We act in here as a body. They act up in Atlanta in a convened
body. And there is this teleconference exception, and if they had said they had
teleconferenced between last meeting and this meeting, I would not have the reservations
I have.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Let me, let me recognize you, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I just want –
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: One point of clarification. I hear we talking about what the
Legislature does and how we does. We are totally different. If you going look at those
thing, you talking about the talent bank, look at everything, too, now. I mean there’s
term limits on – not you, Steve, but on us. The Legislature don’t have those. I mean the
term, the, the, the, the Legislators don’t meet like we meet. They, they, they not
governed by the same rules and I think this is their appointment. And all we supposed to
do is ratify it. I don’t understand. Now if there was two lists out here that we got
conflicting names and we say well, this ain’t the right list, nobody else has brought
another list up.
65
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’m not suggesting there is any difference in the lists.
Okay.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: What I’m suggesting simply is that you’ve got – I think we’ve all
got to start from the point of view that there is a division of opinion amongst the
Legislature, members of the current Legislative Delegation, as to how these appointments
were made and whether they were valid or not. I am just trying to keep this body out of
any dispute to that effect. So I have offered this body –
Mr. Williams: Your legal opinion is, Steve, your legal opinion is then that this is
fraud, that this is not right, that these names been put down, that the body didn’t agree,
because if that what you saying, it need to be plain now.
Mr. Shepard: I’m – Mr. Mayor, I’ll respond to the chair, Mr. Mayor, members.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll move the evening along.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. But here again, I’m offering a safe harbor that I think
would be defendable in any – defendable in any court. But whether, whether this list
mechanism is defendable, I think is open to question. And the reason I say that is
because the dispute has already surfaced in the Legislature. So if it’s surfaced there, it
could well surface in litigation which, if you want to keep me out of court with this, with
these appointments, I would say have a meeting of the members of the Legislature, let’s
have a teleconference. I would ask that you just give them – my suggestion for a motion
–
Mr. Williams: Are any of those people present, Steve, that, that disagree? I heard
what you just said. There’s been some disagreement. Is any of those people present? Is
that letter from anybody that’s present? Is there anything here saying that the majority of
the Legislature didn’t agree on this?
Mr. Shepard: Well, in the backup material, there is the letter from Senator
Cheeks that questions the legality of that, of these appointments because there was no
legal meeting held. So that is evidence, it’s not exactly evidence, but it’s in our record,
so that what’s what I anticipate a dispute – I mean that’s how I anticipate a dispute
arising, Mr. Williams, because there is conflicting information from the members of the
Legislature. So I was just, quite frankly, hoping that during the two weeks that we had
postponed this that there would be a legal meeting, either face-to-face, or if they had
come in and said we had a teleconference, I’d say in my opinion they can go on the
teleconference. So I just don’t think that they have shown us another way that this could
be done other than a face-to-face meeting. But I haven’t again seen evidence that this has
been done. If you want, if you want to take the, if you want to take the list, I’ll stop
66
talking. I’ve given you my opinion, and you go to court and you listen to the opinion of
one attorney, the plaintiff, and another attorney, defendant, and the court decides. But if
you would follow my recommendation, we would not get into court. And if we did, we
could, we could dismiss it summarily.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I’m wondering when this list should have been submitted. When do
we normally do this?
Mr. Mayor: I don’t think there’s really a set timetable, cause some of these terms
expire at various times. They don’t all come due at the same time.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I could. I think we get to it when we get around to it,
is –
Mr. Mayor: A good answer.
(Laughter)
Ms. Beard: Are the signatures legal? Did they actually sign the letter?
Mr. Shepard: Ms. Beard, I am not questioning that there is an invalid signature.
That’s not what I’m questioning. I’m just
Mr. Mayor: Your question is about process.
Mr. Shepard: My question is this is not a, this is not a document that indicates
that a meeting or teleconference meeting has been held, and I would be quite comfortable
if either of those had been, been brought forth. They have not. And I respect the
members of the Legislature, but I’m going to give you my opinion, and I’ve given it.
And here again, if what, if what I recommend was followed, then I’m sure there would be
no challenge to the appointments. I can’t say that under this present method. So I’ve
said that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion, we have a motion on the floor to approve these,
so why don’t we move forward with that motion and see [inaudible]. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: It’s one thing, I think, though that we need to – not in, not in this
meeting, but we need to decide, cause I’ve heard about the talent bank procedure and all
of us follow that very well. But if we’re going to be that technical, now let’s be frank
about something, we get a lot of these other boards that we don’t have any jurisdiction
over that we have to ratify, and they’ve sent us sometimes names of folk, sometimes we
recognize them and sometimes they may be friends of our, sometimes they may be
strangers. But they pop up and they send us three names and tell us to pick one. Or send
us nine names and tell us to pick three. So now I think need to, when we start talking
67
about appointments, if we’re going to go back, maybe we need to do a list and send a
letter to every agency, whether it’s the Legislative Delegation or be it other places where
we make appointments to, hospital board or places like that, and send them a situation
that when they send us a name that they send it in accordance with what we have. And I
think that may clear that point of it. But now we’re not doing that all the time. We do it,
yes, we do it cause they’re our rules and we follow them. But I need to make that clear to
a point that we’re not doing that every time out with everybody who sends us a name
down here in order to do that. So that just needs to be there.
Mr. Mayor: The motion on the floor is to approve the list that’s in front of us, and
if you’re in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Boyles, Mr. Grantham and Ms. Sims vote No.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Hankerson abstain.
Mr. Smith out.
Motion fails 3-3-2.
Mr. Mayor: Do we – let me ask the parliamentarian a question. Do we need a
vote on the original motion if it simply sustains the action that’s already been taken?
Mr. Shepard: I think the policy of the board has been set in previous meeting, Mr.
Mayor. No.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion?
Ms. Sims: Order of the day.
Mr. Williams: Call for the question. Ready to vote, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I asked the parliamentarian if we go back to the original
motion because we in effect approved part of it now by turning this down and then the
other part just sustains what the Commission, restates what the Commission has already
stated. I mean we can vote if you want to, but it just didn’t seem like there was any
action there, doing the same thing all over again.
Mr. Shepard: I think the appropriate motion is to call for the order of the day.
Mr. Mays: Let me just ask one question, Mr. Mayor, of the parliamentarian. I
think in essence the motion is basically dead on either side. It’s going to end up not
doing it. But my problem I have parliamentary is this, there is a substitute motion and a
motion that’s on the floor. Now I thought we were to – even though action has been
taken on one side, are we going to universally, because one decision has been made on a
substitute motion, then not go back in other cases to the order of the day which would
then be the original motion that’s on the floor? Because it may deem it totally different,
because if you turning it down on one side and the other side still turns it down but it
68
means then that there’s just no action to what you have. I think it achieves the same
thing, but I’m just asking how will we do, though, when we’ve got a motion like zoning,
for instance, where we’ve got one on there that still gives us a yes or no ruling, do we
still, we will still go back and pull all that original motion, or will we not? And that’s all,
that’s all I’m asking there.
Mr. Shepard: And –
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] because there is, and correct me if I’m wrong, Madame
Clerk, but that was treated as a substitute motion, then you would have to go back and
dispose of the original motion.
Mr. Mays: And I just was looking procedurally, that’s the only [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: So you want to vote on the original motion. You think it’s
appropriate to vote on the original motion.
Mr. Shepard: I do. If that doesn’t happen, then we call for the order of the day,
that’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Then we’ll take – has anybody got any further discussion
on the original motion? All in favor of the original motion, then vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Sims: We need to hear the original motion.
The Clerk: The original motion was to deny the request and request a resolution
from the Delegation regarding these appointments, asking the Commission to ratify these
appointments.
Mr. Mayor: So if you’re in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
(Vote on original motion)
Ms. Beard, Mr. Mays, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson abstain.
Mr. Smith out.
Motion fails 3-5.
Mr. Mayor: All right, so we sustain the action that we essentially took two weeks
ago. That action is unchanged. Is that correct, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: We’re right back where we were two weeks ago. All right.
69
Mr. Shepard: Now I think it should be called for the order of the day, if I can call
it.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to try. We move ahead with the order of the day, and I
think Mr. Johnson has been waiting very patiently. Let’s go ahead and take that item up,
number 43, if we could.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
43. Authorize the Augusta Aviation Commission to utilize the city’s financial
team to assist the airport in the process of issuing bonds to finance the new airport
terminal. (No recommendation from Public Services July 12, 2004)
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor of the motion, then please vote with the
usual sign.
Mr. Smith out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Grantham: That was quick.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hankerson, Commissioner Hankerson needs to leave
the chambers, so he has asked that we go ahead and dispose of item number 45. So if we
can – oh, are we ready to take off the table? That item is? Okay. Let’s -- we’ll hold 45.
Let’s go back to – that’s item number 45A, is that correct?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
45A. Report from the Housing and Neighborhood Director regarding funding
request from the Southside Outreach Community Program, Inc. (Requested by the
Administrative Services Committee July 12, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: We need a motion to take item 45A off the table.
70
Mr. Mays: So move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there any objection? None heard. All right. 45A. Do
we have a report, Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I just spoke to Mr. Quincy Roberson of Olde
Town Outreach in reference to their forfeiture of the $20,000. He informed me that
because of internal reasons in their program, there is no way they would be able to spend
that kind of money and they did not want to just take that money and not see it go to good
use, so they are indeed forfeiting that money and will be able to give me that in writing
tomorrow. It’s not convenient for him to do that today, but I did speak to him personally
and he was able to confirm that verbally over the phone.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion on the floor that’s already been made to
fund the request of Southside Outreach Community program. That’s been seconded. Is
there any discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. One –
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Hankerson and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Hankerson: One point is that that is not on the reimbursement, that they will
be awarded the $10,000.
Mr. Russell: Yes, yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: Right. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that’s understood.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to get some clarification with staff, though.
Staff need to understand that when we give them some directions, that – and they answer
us and we assume that they going to do what was supposed to been done, supposed to
been brought back today, either yes or o on these funds, we tabled this, we held Ms.
[inaudible] and some of her support staff all day long here, and then it was even given to
us if that what you want done, so I think Mr. Smith need to understand what, what six
votes says up here is what we expect to be done. Not just say okay, if that what you
want, and then go out there and try to do it. You need to know whether or not there’s
funds or whether or not that’s feasible or whether or not that’s done. I was very
disappointed when, when, when that was stated, and if we had not stopped it, we’d been
another two weeks and it came back. If that group [inaudible] tomorrow, Fred, it’s too
late. They done gave you their word and the letter ought to be forthcoming, so if they
71
come back tomorrow it’s too late. But staff need to understand that. I think not just
HND, but all our staff need to understand that.
Mr. Mayor: Response?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Rev. Williams. Your point is well taken. We will attempt
to rectify that problem in the future and do better.
Mr. Williams: Call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In the information that was provided to us,
when will the pre-applications for I guess 2006 grant requests go out? I mean that
seemed to be a basis of contention was that someone wasn’t notified, and I just want to
make sure we don’t – that this doesn’t happen to us again and we don’t miss any
deadlines. I think Ms. [inaudible], when I talked to you, you know, that you weren’t
notified. I just want to make sure that everyone –
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, would you see that staff provides that information to
Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, I will.
Mr. Boyles: As long as it’s provided to the recipients. Not so much to me.
Mr. Mayor: There’s a public notice given on that, is there not?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. I’ll get you the details on that, Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion to approve. All in favor,
please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Smith out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s try number 45 again.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hankerson has a revival to preach.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. 45? Is that where we are?
Mr. Mayor: 45.
The Clerk:
72
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
45. Discuss SPLOST vote date. (No recommendation from Administrative
Services Committee)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham, you had brought this item to Administrative Services.
Mr. Grantham: Yes, I brought this item.
Mr. Mayor: And it came forward without a recommendation.
Mr. Grantham
: I appreciate Mr. Hankerson bringing it back to our attention
here, that we could get something done. We had the information provided to us by
counsel and it appears that we have missed a September deadline date for the SPLOST
rd
referendum and that the general election, November 3, I believe it is, would be the next
date in order for us to do all of the announcements that are necessary for our other cities
And so I recommend that we that we
and municipalities that are involved in this thing.
take a date of November 3 and proceed with obtaining that date as far as including
the SPLOST referendum on the date of the general election.
Mr. Mays: I’ll second that motion.
Mr. Shepard: I would ask that you incorporate the resolution language in the
motion.
Text of Resolution:
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO CALL A MEETING OF
THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY (AUGUSTA RICHMOND COUNTY AND THE
QUALIFIED MUNICIPALITIES (HEPHZIBAH AND BLYTHE)
WHEREAS, the Augusta Commission has held a series of work sessions to
develop a capital project list to be submitted to the voters of Richmond County,
Georgia for the reimposition in Richmond County of the 1 cent Special Purpose
Local Option Sales Tax after December 31, 2005 – which is known as “SPLOST V”;
WHEREAS, Augusta Richmond County is a consolidated local government,
and is deemed to be a County for all purposes of the calling of SPLOST referendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Augusta Commission hereby directs the Mayor to
deliver written notices of a meeting of the Governing Authority and the Qualified
Municipalities pursuant to O.C.G.A. 48-8-111.
Mr. Grantham:
appears that we have missed a September deadline date for the
rd
SPLOST referendum and that November – the general election – November the 3, I
believe it is, would be the next date in order for us to do all of the announcements that are
and so I
necessary for our other cities and municipalities that are involved in this thing,
73
recommend that we take a date of November 3 and proceed with obtaining that date
as far as including the SPLOST referendum on the date of the general election.
Mr. Mays: I second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Motion has been made and seconded. Discussion? Mr.
Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, both in the committee and on the floor of this
Commission, I probably as much or more than anybody else have been reluctant as to
when we set a date, because of some very serious concerns that I’ve had, not only with
presentations that have come from outside the government, but more so with those that
have come from large departments inside this government. I might add that I hope today
that we probably can pass this unanimously for this reason. One, I think we’ve, we’ve
got an opportunity that whatever we vote on in November, that we’ve got a second
chance if something does not happen positively to be able to do this a year from now.
And that we do not stop the revenue stream. But most importantly, I think that it gives us
an opportunity and I said this earlier more than one time that I was not going to be driven
by a date but I would be driven by thoroughness, and by an intelligence level that we
knew what we were going to be voting on. I was very pleased at the last sales tax
workshop from the standpoint that not only just with attendance, but I think it was noted
by Commissioners on both ends of this table, and I say this to – sometimes we criticize
staff, Mr. Mayor, but I want to, I want to say this on behalf of interim administrator, Fred
Russell, and also on behalf of Ms. Allen and as well as Mr. Leverett. We had a very
thorough presentation in terms of where our department is. We started – even though it
was just one department. There was a different tone, there was a certain air that I think
that the Commissioners who were present can attest to that was a refreshing note from the
standpoint that they spoke not just with authority and clarity, but they spoke with also a
sense of freedom that they were backing up numbers that finally they were bringing to us.
This is what some of us have been searching for all along, is that they be given the
opportunity to say where certain numbers will take us. I think with leadership up here,
that we can get together whatever package it is, and honestly, we got more requests than
we got money to deal with. But we’re going to have to come up with some things. But
the route that we were traveling was not going to be one that we were going to be
thorough and definitely not intelligent. Everybody stayed. We still had a quorum. I
mentioned this to the Mayor the other day. We had a quorum of this Commission before
we left here at the last meeting. And I think they got that from the meeting even prior to
that, that they needed to have a different change of course in the way the numbers were
numbers are being presented to this Commission. That’s what was done. That gets us on
a clearer path as to how we can finalize these numbers, particularly by three large
departments, recreation, public works, and in our area of public safety. That is a different
charted course and I think with that being done, this gives the opportunity for you, Mr.
Mayor, to be able to set along with the attorney to deal with the intergovernmental
meetings and the other meetings that have to take place that we’ve got to do on
successive dates. Information on that was very thorough, it was very precise, and also the
course that I think we will be taking in reference to how we finalize what we are going to
74
place into a budget for the rest of these departments. So at this point, and not just
because our back is against the wall of setting a date for this year, I am pleased with the
difference sense of direction and a different way that this stuff is being presented to us,
and I think we’ll get a clearer answer in terms of where those departmental priorities are
and get a chance to ask them in their finality where will these numbers take us and
demand honest answers so that before we vote on anything in terms of a package, we
know what we’re putting together for the people of this community. So I hope that we
can support at least getting this off and of setting that date.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Willie. Marion, did you have your hand up?
Mr. Williams: Yeah.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: He covered it.
Mr. Mayor: He did? All right.
Mr. Grantham: One other point. Let me just make it clear that the thing that I am
asking for is for the general election, whether it be November 2, 3, 4 or whatever date. It
is the date of the general election.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Grantham: Please understand that. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, did you have your hand up?
Mr. Hankerson: No.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any further discussion?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Shepard: I would hope that this can be done in the spirit of a friendly
amendment, but I just passed out a suggested resolution on this particular item. And I
would ask that –
Mr. Mayor: Can we incorporate that language in the motion?
75
Mr. Shepard: Can incorporate that in the motion. [inaudible] clear that the
meeting [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to incorporating the resolution language for all
of the intergovernmental meetings in the motion? None is heard. All right, we’ll proceed
with the vote then unless there is any further discussion on the motion. All in favor of the
motion then to hold the SPLOST referendum on the same date as the general election,
please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Smith out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll file that [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. And I will be in touch with the mayors of Hephzibah
and Blythe and set up that meeting [inaudible].
The Clerk: 47, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: I don’t know.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: We’ll go to 47.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
47. Report from the Mayor regarding joint Resolution(s) with the Richmond
County Board of Education.
Mr. Mayor: You will recall at the last meeting you asked that there be a joint
resolution with the school board concerning release of state funding for Fort Discovery. I
drafted that resolution and submitted it to the board of education, asking them to make
any changes that they deemed appropriate and to send back a copy that both their
president and I could co-sign, and they have not yet sent me back the resolution. So
that’s where we are with that.
Mr. Grantham: Do you expect it back anytime soon?
Mr. Mayor: Well, I expect –
Mr. Grantham: These people are on a short fuse right now.
Mr. Mayor: They could be having a meeting, Don, that they want to approve it at
the meeting. I don’t know.
76
Mr. Grantham: Would you mind making a call to find out what you can – speed
them up a little?
Mr. Mayor: Well, the way I left it with the school board president was that the
two of us would just sign it jointly so we wouldn’t be delayed waiting for other meeting.
So just to move it along. We’ll continue the dialog with the Board of Education. They
may have gotten stuck in that elevator over there in that new building. Thank you. Let
me ask you something while you’re here, and this is related to your funding. I’m a little
concerned that y’all are not maximizing the opportunity to make money with that parking
deck over there. That thing is not gated consistently weekdays, and in fact, the night of
th
July 4 when we had tens of thousands of people downtown you could park free in that
deck. I think y’all need to look at that as another way to generate revenue. We’re footing
the bill for it. We’re paying the lights, we’re paying the bond noted and everything else
and y’all are keeping the profits. So I’d look at maximizing that, especially when there
are events downtown and you can steer people to park over there.
Mr. Speaker: I’ll bring that up. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Where are we, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: If you want to go back to order, 44.
Mr. Mayor: Well, the order is on the consent agenda.
The Clerk: Consent agenda, that’s what I was going to say.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s take care of the vehicles on there.
The Clerk: Mr. Williams, can we take items 20 and 23 together?
Mr. Mayor: You didn’t do 20 then when the DA was here?
The Clerk: Uh-uh [no].
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk:
20.Motion to approve the acquisition of one (1) Crown Victoria automobile for
the District Attorney’s Office from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia for
$20,741.36 (Lowest Bid offer on Bid 03-131). (Approved by Finance Committee July
12, 2004)
23.Motion to approve the acquisition of two (2) Agricultural tractors for the
Public Works Department – Maintenance Division from Holley Tractor Company
77
of Aiken, South Carolina for $23,652.00 each (Lowest bid offer on Bid 04-065).
(Approved by Finance Committee July 12, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Number 20, Mr. Mayor, I needed to ask questions. I should have
asked of Danny. Why are we getting a Crown Vic for the DA’s office when there are
other smaller cars that’s just as comfortable, and we talking about the money, we spend
this like it’s nothing. So I got no problem if, if, if he can’t get in a compact car, then he
can’t get in a compact car then he needs to have a doctor’s statement saying he can’t get
in there, but something wrong when we spend this kind of monies for the compact. Ron,
you want to address is, you got something you can add to it?
Mr. Crowden: To answer the question about the size of the car, the district
attorney, probably more than anybody that I am aware of, or any of the departments, their
investigators do a lot of moving a number of witnesses to trials from their homes and so
forth. They provide a lot of transportation, more than just one person at a time. It may be
two or three at a time. Therefore, the requirement for the large vehicles.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I’m not going dispute that. That’s fine. And number 23,
are we trading, are we upgrading? What we are doing on the tractors?
Mr. Crowden: Well, you consider it an upgrade, sir. We’re trading two of the
older tractors that are costing us an arm and a leg to keep on the right-of-ways mowing
for two new tractors. And when I say that, it’s very easy on a tractor that’s used on a
right-of-way to put about $10,000 a year on repair to that because the, the environment of
the right-of-way is so hostile to any vehicle or any machine.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a motion that we approve 20
and 23.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor, please vote with the
usual sign.
Mr. Mays, Mr. Smith and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 6-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. And 35, I think Mr. Williams pulled 35, did he not?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk:
78
35. Motion to approve the execution of agreement between the Georgia EPD and
Augusta for regulatory testing at a cost of $26,500 per year for the period covering
July 1, 2004-June 30, 2007. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 12,
2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Why are we, I mean for that length of time,
those many years, why, why do we need to do a agreement for $26,500 per year for those
many years?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks, can you respond to that?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir. The Georgia Environmental Protection Division established
a lab to offer services for testing the drinking water probably, I know it was before
consolidation that they established that, and they do it in three-year increments. That
way, they can, if they need to, increase their fees. They increase their fees, either up or
down, adjust them up or down in three-year increments. So what we have done, each
three-year increment, is come to you and ask for approval to enter into an agreement with
them for the next three years at a cost per year. And if you’ll notice on your backup, they
offer this service to communities big and little. And that way, they have an economy of
scale that a private lab really can’t match. And so they offer these services to the
communities, be it municipalities or, or counties in Georgia to where they will perform
tests and some of them are really I would say difficult, if you don’t know what you’re
doing. They require precise equipment and what not. So they can offer this, and so at
$26,500 a year, you’ll notice we’re in the largest class. We’re over 100,000 in population
and we have three or more entry points. That’s what throws us into that category. If we
were over 100,000 but only had one entry point, then we would pay $14,500. But the
way the laws are written, you have to run the same test for each entry point, and so we
actually have three surface water, I mean three ground water plants and one surface water
plant, so we fall in that category of three or more.
Mr. Williams: . So move, Mr. Mayor, that we
Thank you for expanding, Max
approve.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor then please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Mays, Mr. Smith and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 6-0.
Mr. Mayor: I think the remaining items are on the regular agenda, Madame
Clerk.
79
The Clerk:
44. Discuss boarded up houses in various locations in the city. (Requested by
Commissioner Marion Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I talked with the attorney, I talked with
Rob Sherman. I’m trying to figure out a way to get with the attorney to get a resolution
put together where we can get tough not just with crime but with these boarded-up
houses. We’ve got absentee landlords, Mr. Mayor, in my community that’s it
overwhelming to see all of the stuff that’s sitting out there, that’s been boarded up for a
number of years. And what I explained to the attorney was I’d like to see a policy put in
place where you can’t keep a house boarded up over 12 months. And if it is, then we can
come in and take those properties, either for the tax value on those properties, and sell
them for that tax value to some [inaudible] who’s going to be guaranteed to do something
within 12 months, meaning that we got some stuff out there that’s been there for five, six,
seven, even ten years that been just sitting and coming more and more dilapidated. So
we’ve got to find a way to get tough with these kind of absentee landlords.
Mr. Mayor: Are you asking for some action today?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I’m asking for some kind of action. What can we direct
the attorney, how can we get an ordinance, or whatever is necessary? We need to get
something in place.
Mr. Mayor: Doesn’t Savannah have an ordinance like that?
Mr. Williams: I think so.
Mr. Mayor: I think so.
Mr. Shepard: I wouldn’t be opposed – I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: Trying to remember my decorum, Mr. Williams. If Savannah has
such a model ordinance –
Mr. Mayor: I think they do.
Mr. Shepard: If they have that, that will save a lot of attorney time and forces. I
receive the direction to look into that, going to Savannah, not going physically, but
calling Savannah city attorney, and I think he has about 42 years’ experience, if I
remember from talking to him when we were down in Savannah. And so yes, I accept
80
that direction for that specific kind of ordinance, Mr. Williams, if you want – I think
you’re saying that the property owner has 12 months and that sort of an absolute limit?
Mr. Williams: Absolute limit 12 months. We have got to find way – I been
talking with Rob Sherman. I see Rob [inaudible] about some of the stuff I get calls on
every day, and not only the ones you get calls on, but you ride by and see it. Mr. Russell,
th
along with the assistant administrator, have been out Essie McIntyre and the 15 and
Milledgeville Road area. And you wouldn’t believe people still live like that. That’s the
same place, Richard.
Mr. Colclough: I hear you.
Mr. Williams: I carried Richard through and he couldn’t, he could not even
believe that [inaudible] people lived in condition like that. And a lot of those people
want to live like that and a lot of people who have got nice homes can’t help it, because
it’s overwhelming, they can’t do anything about it. When need to hold people
accountable. I don’t care who you are, if you got a piece of property, all those empty lots
that done grown up, they need to be cleared down. If we going in there, we need to
charge it that, to that, to that tax base. We’ve got property that we went in and cleaned,
but because they never sold it, they been able to keep it and the cleaning fee have been
more than what the property value was. So we got to find a way to stop it. Rob, if you
can put anything in there at all, I need, I need this body to understand how serious this is.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman, you want to try to respond?
Mr. Sherman: Well, we do have the problem, just as Commissioner Williams
described. Oftentimes the properties are abandoned. They’re boarded up and that’s the
way they remain. If we have a policy where there is a period of time that they can be
boarded up, I think it would benefit us. How to dispose of the property, I think that’s
going to be a question that Mr. Shepard maybe can find the answer in Savannah. But it is
an issue that we need to address.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, one other thing. Some of those [inaudible] comes into
our meeting have already come out and looked at some of these areas and said they’d be
willing to come in and build and put something back on our tax books. But they can’t
take those small lots and do anything with them. They got at least have two of those
smaller lots in order to put anything that somebody would buy. But they are willing to
come in and buy them at a reasonable price to put them back on the tax books to bring
revenue into this city. But we’ve got hundreds and hundreds of them that just sitting out
there and not doing anything. And if we can get something, Mr. Shepard, I certainly
appreciate it.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, you’ll recall, Mr. Williams, that I rode you around in
my Chevrolet, as you remember, and the Planning Director was there and so was Mr.
Sherman. We saw firsthand what you were talking about and I take your directive very
seriously.
81
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anything further on this item. Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Yes. I’m wondering if you could possibly write the owners of the
property and offer to purchase it.
Mr. Shepard: I’m sorry, Mr. Mayor, I didn’t hear the councilwoman.
Ms. Beard: If, if the owners of these properties could be written a letter with an
offer, an offer to purchase the property, at a reasonable price.
Mr. Shepard: My reaction would be we first need to define a funding source. I
don’t know that we could do it quite that, in that manner. But I’ll look into it. I ask you
not to direct me to do that, just ask me to research that, please.
Ms. Beard: And there’s a chance there could be something through HND. You
know, this property was property that people purchased years ago and they thought
property tends to go up. But they have really been dealt a very bad deal here in Augusta.
And we can listen and we can shake our heads as much as we want, but we’ve actually
had homes that were repaired and brought up to standard and because of the
neighborhood they were torn down because no one would live there. There was a time
when a house was fine, but if you moved out of it, it was destroyed in two weeks. And
this is the truth. I think it’s just – it would just be a nice gesture for the City of Augusta
rather than going the other way, demolishing or moving toward that, then ending up
charging them a lot for whatever you have done and then taking their property.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Boyles?
Ms. Beard: I’m going to ask, please – could that be referred to HNC maybe?
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely. Fred, if you’ll see if that’s referred to Warren’s
department for a report back. Okay, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was having a hard time see you over these
beautiful flowers here, but I was thinking that last year we talked about maybe when the
next issue of the sales tax rolled around that we may put some money in the budget and
as our lawyer just says, our attorney just said, you know, a funding source, if we wanted
to offer to buy some of these places and eradicate some of them, I suppose. Maybe that’s
a question for tomorrow. But Rob, I think we’ve talked about that and maybe trying to
set aside a certain dollar amount in the, in the – to try to find a way. I mean you can ride
through some of the beautiful work that ANIC has done and you look at the house right
next door and it’s, you know, you go from the good, bad and ugly, you know. And I just
think maybe that we ought to try to find a source that we can clean this city of that type of
problem.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
82
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I hear what y’all are saying and I
agree with you to a great extent. But also, I agree with Mr. Williams, and I’m going to
go back to his point real quickly and I’ll tie yours in with it, from my standpoint. And
that is that there are pieces of property out there now that are 100% neglected, that they
have no care for, and they may be paying taxes on them but the only reason they’re
paying taxes on them is because they might think we’re getting ready to do just what y’all
are talking about doing, that we’re going to come bail them out and we’re going to come
pay for it and then we got out problems. What I’m saying is that we need to find out
where these delinquent tax situations are and where they’re boarded up and no one is
paying taxes on them, that’s the ones we need to attack quickly. That’s the ones we need
to take care of as soon as possible. And I, I think, I think we’re going to get to a point
that Santa Claus won’t keep coming. And if we just keep adding a little bit more here
and a little bit more there, then all we’re doing is just making our burden heavier as we
try to carry it for the rest of the year and as we try to – we talk about taxes, we talk about
increasing taxes, we’re talking about trying to do it sales tax, we got enough on our plates
right now for sales tax and all these other things instead of keep adding someone else’s
problems that we are going just go in and take care of them cause we going to be the
Good Samaritan. Now I’m not, I’m not trying to say that we shouldn’t help people when
help is needed, but let them come to us for that request, let’s just don’t go seek them out
and start bailing them out. Now that’s my opinion of it.
Mr. Boyles: I’m just looking at the overall aesthetic value, I guess, of the
community. And I know we have talked about it before, we’ve talked about it several
times in the last two years of trying to find a way to help Rob’s department get more
money in order to tear out this dilapidated housing that’s out there. I’m sure that’s kind
of what Mr. Williams is referring to. I mean he has always, he’s always brought that to
our attention, it’s been a problem.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Money is not the answer to
everything. First of all, before we going to ever change the appearance of our city,
especially our inner city, we got to hold people who own those properties accountable.
We’ve got good families and good property owners out there, just like Commissioner
Beard said. But we got so many others who absentee who don’t care and that good piece
of property that Ms. Beard is talking about that person owns ends up going down further
and further because we let – the same people you talking about, Don – inherit a piece of
property they don’t particularly care about. It goes down and going cost a lot to fix it and
they let it stay there. They will pay the taxes, hoping that the City is going to come in
and buy it. But if those people are not paying those taxes, once you brighten up, once
you clean up, once you trim up, once you fix up, then it’s going spread. But as long as
we let those entities stay there and stay down, it’s going affect another one. And another
one. And it’s going down further. So we’re not trying to put anybody out of business,
we’re not trying to put anybody out of their home. But if you got a piece of property and
you can’t afford to take care of it or you can’t keep it up, then you don’t need it. That’s
83
anybody. You can’t have a piece of property and let it affect the neighbors, and because
you can’t keep it up, because you can’t do it, it’s going – you don’t live there now
[inaudible]. There are some poor people who live in these conditions that can’t do any
better. But they keep it clean. Now I don’t know about y’all, I never spent a night in the
country in my life, but I remember a time when my grandparents used to take a broom
and sweep the dirt. Now the [inaudible], they swept around their house. Take a broom
and sweep the yard. But folks done got to the point now they don’t care no more. We let
people, we, as a government, let people get away. Now the Marshal’s been in here and
he knows when he comes in here he’s going to have an answer for me because I see so
many junk vehicles sitting on the side of the roads, and it’s only in certain areas. And I
hear [inaudible] he poor. If you too poor to fix it, then what you think is going to happen
to it in ten more years? It’s going to get even worse. So Ms. Beard is right. There’s
some people out there that’s got some [inaudible] not take that property from them. I’m
not suggesting that. But once we start to clean up and hold people accountable then they
going to start getting [inaudible] and then property value going to go up. It’s not going to
go down. The reason it’s going down, because we done let these other entities come in
and sit around those good piece of property, and when they move out, Ms. Beard,
somebody goes in and vandalize their property, then their property go down just as low as
the neighbor’s, and then the whole community’s like that. We’ve got to start holding
everybody accountable.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard, you had your hand up?
Ms. Beard: I only want to say we really do have a real problem. But there’s a
need to work with everybody and there’s a need to make this a place where all of us can
live and be happy. And I’m going to say, Christmas, we have Christmas for a lot of
people, and they’ve had it over the years, almost with every SPLOST situation. It is
amazing that we can give millions and say it is okay and when it comes to people owning
property, give them zero, just take it. And this is what I – you have so many points of
view that you can look at this. All right? And I do. I try to listen to Marion because he
isn’t totally wrong. And I listen to myself. And I understand there are all types of
situations out there. But I’m saying let’s try to make the very best we can out of a bad
situation. This situation is we allow things to go down too far in the city. For many
years, nothing was put in there. It is horrible. We need to clear it up. But we do need to
consider everybody. We need to consider the homeowners, we need to consider the
people living there, we need to see how we can improve that situation. You know what I
would like to do? I would like to come up with a committee to make some new
recommendations in reference to this. To what to do about the inner city. Because I am
not, I am not pleased with the manner in which this is done. And that is not because, that
is not because I want anything for myself, but that is because I want the very best for my
constituents. And I know a lot of people who own property in that area, and I am actually
surprised that we have taken so much and people have not taken us to court. So I’m
going to ask this body, including Don, that we come up with something that would be
good for the entire community. And I don’t think it will break our banks. I don’t want
anything to break our banks. But what I want, I want this to be a good community for
everybody. That’s asking so little.
84
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further on this item?
Ms. Beard: Am I getting a committee for this?
Mr. Mayor: If you’re making a motion.
Ms. Beard: I move that we develop a committee to look at housing in the inner
city.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: It’s been seconded. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor of
the motion, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Grantham votes No.
Mr. Mays, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Smith out.
Motion fails 5-1.
Mr. Mayor: All right, the next item is item number 48.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
48. Motion to accept the proposal of the Interim Administrator regarding the
allocation of reserved parking for commissioners in the Municipal Building Parking
Lot. (Approved by Engineering Services subject to identification of a funding source
and consideration of additional options.)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, do you have a report on that that identifies the source of
funding and the additional options and considerations?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. What I mentioned last time, and I would like
to continue with that, is we do reserve nine additional spaces, and how I’d like to do that
is do four permanent spaces for those of you that are in and out on a regular basis, do five
spaces that would – five spaces that would be done temporarily for Commission days or
SPLOST days or we could do flip signs where they would not take the spaces out of the
total public use other than the fact that when you’re here on specific days. In addition to
that, part of what Commissioner Mays was concerned about was our handicapped people
and our elderly people coming into the building. We have, as you know, made
arrangements to look at some funding for a golf cart kind of thing that would be able to
do that. In addition to that, there is funding available within the administrator’s office
that would be able to cover that. I could pay for that out of the administrator’s budget, so
we could do it that way. Staffing for that would be done either through people that are on
85
light duty or volunteers through the Mayor’s office. They’ve got people who volunteer to
do stuff like that. We could that with light duty people, so there would be no additional
personnel costs. And that would be my recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, I have a question. This is a big concerns that weighs
over me on this, and I don’t have a problem with reserved spaces and I don’t have a
problem with the shuttle. I think the shuttle is a good idea. But when we talk about using
volunteers and the people we’re targeting to haul around this building are the most
vulnerable, the handicapped and the elderly, I’m concerned about the potential liability to
this government. Because volunteers are not going to be covered by our insurance as
they move people around here, and to me that’s, that’s going to be a critical element,
[inaudible], God forbid, if there’s an accident with an elderly person or a handicapped
person and a volunteer is driving the shuttle, where does that leave us?
Mr. Russell: I don’t disagree, sir. What I attempted to do was reduce the cost as
much as possible, and the use of volunteers would obviously do that. And I have not
spoken to our legal counsel or risk management about that. But we have spoken at some
length about the potential using people that are on light duty or using people, regular
employees, that for some reason can’t perform their normal duties, would like to get them
back to work so that they are productive and providing a service, and I’m pretty sure that
we could do the majority of that with that and would move away from using volunteers at
all if that would be the advice of legal and risk management.
Mr. Mayor: And I’m sure we could set up a volunteer program to do it, because
the volunteers drive the carts up at the VA.
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Haul VA patients around. So there must be a way to do it, but
certainly I think that’s got to be explored and defined by our legal counsel before we’d
get volunteers involved.
Mr. Russell: I don’t disagree, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I thank the administrator for those suggestions, but have
any emphasis been put on the entrance for seniors and for handicapped people? I mean
you got people still trying to walk around and go around, and I don’t know about those
volunteers, Fred, might be able to assist somebody who is known to be able to come into
the rear door, go through the screening, just like anybody else, but at least be able to
come in and come out. People are still walking around this building cause they don’t
know – there’s a sign that we finally put up, but it’s to the right of the elevators when you
come out, and when you come out of the elevator you go straight to the door. They really
don’t know. The other part about the volunteers, Mr. Mayor, and taking people around,
the walkway or the sidewalk is not but so big. And if you take them in the street, that’s
86
going to be another problem. And if you take them on the walkway you got pedestrians
walking to and from and not being wide enough. May create another problem. I guess
we would have some work done to be able to do, if they did do that, to come up on the
curbing because around this building there is a curbing. I think more emphasis may be
placed on the volunteer side, Fred, as having people come through the rear door and
maybe escort through to, to the screening area. Because there are a lot of people still
coming around and there are some seniors that came in the other day, the same time I
came in, and I escorted them to the rear door, they went straight to be screened and then
come through the screening and went on upstairs. But that’s, that’s, that’s a part of that
[inaudible].
Mr. Russell: If I may, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: I think you’ve raised and excellent point, and a portion of that might
be something we need to look at [inaudible] ambassador program, where we do get
retired people or volunteers to come in and actually serve as ambassadors of the
government in the lobby or outside, to help [inaudible] people in the right direction. The
former mayor of Richmond did that for years and years after being Mayor, came down
and volunteered. And shook more hands after he got to be a volunteer than when he was
mayor. But was doing a very good job of doing exactly what you say, and I think that’s
obviously something we need to continue to look at and I’d be happy to do that and work
with the marshal and see if we can facilitate a little bit easier access in the back and with
somebody that could provide that kind of level of security, I think that would be an
option that he’d be willing to consider.
Mr. Williams: I just think that would be a lot better if we could, if we had some
people that would volunteer to assist people through, through the rear doors. That
situation got a lot better than it used to be. That was a situation where I didn’t want to
come through there at one time. Fred, it was like you was coming into Fort Knox and
you had a bag to take something out of here. [inaudible] we was approached as if we was
already convicted criminals and wasn’t supposed to come. That changed. I’m glad to see
that changed. But we got to be people friendly. We got to let people know that this is
their building and they’re coming here with the event in 9/11, all that stuff that happened,
I think security tightened up all over the world. But we’ve got to be mindful of those
people who come every day. And they didn’t complain a lot but they still try and walk
around this building. In the mist or the heat, they’re trying to do what we asked them to
do. So I mean, I commend you, I think that --
Mr. Russell: [inaudible] we need to make sure we are citizen friendly, and that’s
what it’s all about. And this is their building and basically their living room of our
government and we need to make sure they’re welcome there and they feel comfortable
coming in and we provide as much access as we can, given the constraints of security that
we have to have to protect everybody. And I’m firmly committed to doing that.
87
Mr. Williams: Sounds good.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other questions? Any on this side? Is there a motion
on the floor, Ms. Bonner? I came in.
The Clerk: No. Well, there’s a recommendation. There hasn’t been a motion.
Mr. Colclough: So move that we accept the Administrator’s recommendation.
Mr. Hankerson: I didn’t hear where –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I came in in the middle. That’s why I was –
Mr. Williams: What is the designated place that Fred was thinking of?
Mr. Russell: What I was going to do, sir, is designate the spaces along the interior
aisle that goes down through the middle of the parking lot, simply because that’s easier to
provide the signage there than it is to try put it in any concrete. I would do nine reserved
spaces. That would give you – the Mayor Pro Tem has a space, my space would be
available, the space that was designated for the administrator would be available for a
Commissioner to park in, and that would be nine – ten – I lost count. Everybody would
have a place to park on the day of Commission or whatever, and then what we’d do is
take four or five spaces, mine plus four others, that would be designated full time,
because you are here obviously more so than on Commission or committee days. So
there would be spaces you’d come in for other meetings and stuff. The other spaces, the
initial spaces would only be used on Commission and committee days, when the full
body is supposed to be here.
Mr. Williams: Sounds good.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me ask this. Do we need to just allow the administrator
to continue to work with this and fine tune it? Or is there – and I don’t necessarily think
you need a motion to do that, cause I think he’s obviously trying – we’re sending him
back to do two or three different things here. We got him dealing with parking spaces,
we got him dealing with shuttles, and we got him dealing with who is going to run them
and how it’s going to get around the building. I think it might just be better let him bring
us something back to a point rather than, you know, just continue where he’s going.
Mr. Boyles: Is there a motion? Was there a motion?
The Clerk: Mr. Colclough’s motion. There wasn’t a second to Mr. Colclough’s
motion. He moved to accept the administrator’s recommendation, however, it didn’t
receive a second.
Mr. Williams: I second it.
88
The Clerk: Now Mr. Williams has seconded it.
Mr. Boyles: Can I offer a substitute, then, that we send it back for study and
maybe rehash it at our next full Commission meeting?
Mr. Shepard: If you’re asking the parliamentarian, it would have to be a
substitute motion to have [inaudible] so if you’re making that motion – you’re asking can
you make that motion, you can. It would have to be as a substitute.
Mr. Boyles: Okay, maybe I prefaced it wrong. I shouldn’t say can. I’ll make a
motion. I’ll make a substitute motion that we send it back, let the administrator refine it.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there a second to the substitute motion?
The Clerk: Ms. Sims.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Sims seconded. We have a motion and a second. I
recognize Mr. Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you. On the discussion, I think since we got a little
confusion here based on parking and based on shuttle, and we’re trying to incorporate it
all together under one motion, but we don’t have a decision on shuttle yet because of the
liabilities, that maybe we ought to separate these and say go ahead and put a motion in
place to approve the parking and to allow Mr. Russell to continue working on the shuttle
problem and bring that back to us at a date that he finds it comfortable to present it to us.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I think you might get that opportunity if both of these
out here fail, but right now the floor, the house is full. And under the rules, that, that
can’t slide in unless somebody, unless somebody amend one of the others, it ain’t going
in like that. So we got a substitute and a motion. And one may pass, both of them may
fail, and obviously both of them won’t pass. That’s for sure. But the substitute will come
first. Does anybody need either one of them repeated? Okay, if not, all in favor of the
substitute motion – maybe I need it repeated, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: The substitute motion was refer back to the administrator for further
study and to come back with a recommendation at our next Commission meeting.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s the substitute motion.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. All in favor of the substitute motion will do so by
the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
89
(Vote on substitute motion)
Ms. Beard and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Smith out.
Motion fails 5-2.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We go back to the original motion, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: The original motion was to approve the Administrator’s
recommendation. And that was to have the four permanent spaces, five temporary
spaces, to implement the shuttle, with funding coming from the Administrator’s office,
using light duty personnel, possibility of volunteers.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Boyles, Ms. Sims, Mr. Grantham and Mr. Williams vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Mr. Smith and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion fails 2-4-1.
Mr. Williams: I’d like to make a –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let the record note, Madame Clerk, I abstained because I
didn’t want to vote not against the Administrator’s recommendation but the box he’s in in
terms of trying to get it straightened out and I didn’t want to do him that way.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: I’d like to make a motion that we approve the parking spaces
that the Administrator talked about and let him do some work on the shuttle
situation and bring it back to us and then we can look and see if it will be feasible or
not.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. [inaudible] order of the day. Any
further discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any
opposed, the same.
Mr. Mays votes No.
Mr. Smith and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 6-1.
50. LEGAL MEETING
a. Pending and potential litigation.
90
b. Real Estate.
c. Personnel.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we have remaining on the calendar the legal
meeting, and I’d ask that we go into legal session to discuss pending and potential
litigation, real estate and personnel.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The chair will entertain a motion.
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Any further discussion? If not, all in
favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same. We’ll go into
legal for the purposes so stated.
Mr. Smith and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
50. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The chair recognized the attorney.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, I’d request the
authority to have the presiding officer, you, Mr. Mays, execute the closed meeting
affidavit, the discussions having been on potential and pending litigation, real estate and
personnel.
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not, all in
favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same. Hope that’s
unanimous.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0.
91
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The chair will entertain a 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 July 21, 2004.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
92