HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-30-2004 Called Meeting
CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
September 30, 2004
Augusta Richmond County Commission conveyed at 3:02 p.m., Thursday,
September 30, 2004, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Grantham, Mays, Cheek, Beard, Williams,
Sims, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission
ABSENT: Hons. Colclough and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
The invocation was given by the Rev. Marion Williams.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’d like to take up item number 2 first.
The Clerk:
2. Consider request for the 2004 budgetary adjustment for additional funds for
the Legal Indigent Defense fund from the reserve account.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Long, welcome.
Mr. Long: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. Members
of the Commission, one of the worst things I ever did was being late for a meeting
because I got elected chairman of the tripartite indigent defense committee, which is for
Richmond, Columbia and Burke Counties. It’s a volunteer job. Y’all appoint a third, the
Chief Judge of Superior Court appoints a third, and the Bar appoints a third. Last year,
this reminds me of my predicament why I’m here – some 30-something years ago my
wife of 33 years wrote a bad check and I came home and tried to chastise her and she
looked at me with all seriousness and said I did not overdraw the account, you under-
deposited it.
(Laughter)
Mr. Long: I have never had a retort for that, but I’ve stayed married to the same
lady. She kept me and hasn’t kicked me out. Last year, when we sent our budgetary
requests in, we knew what we were spending on outside lawyers to represent indigent
defendants charged with crimes in Richmond County. We were advised to set that
portion of the budget at $800,000 even though for calendar year 2003 that portion of our
budget was $1,019,000. So to a certain extent it was under budgeted. Now that’s
something I’m not going to blame anybody for because we are in a transition program
1
now. Effective 2005 the State will start kicking up more money. They had a special
session this year where they got all the budgetary matters for that straightened out, and I
think there was some uncertainty as to when everything would be taking place and
kicking off. However, I have been informed by the new state public standards council
that they have made a commitment to all the commissioners of all the counties
throughout the state of Georgia, the county portions for indigent defense in 2005 is not
going to exceed anything it was in 2004, and with the State in the past picked up only
11%, with that increased demand they should be going to approximately 50% of the
budget. So I think in future years you will possibly see this budgetary matter,
participating for the county even dropping. However, if you have to understand how this
works, the people who are being defended this week in criminal court, they committed
crimes in 2001 or 2002 or 2003. We normally don’t pay those bills until they finish the
case, except for death penalty cases. And that’s been another problem. The Supreme
Court of Georgia has mandated that we can be required to pay those as those lawyers
work along because they’re time intensive and take so much and so a lawyer can turn
them in as frequently as monthly or sometimes – you know, every other month or so. But
those bills will have to play out over the next year or two but the new system goes into
effect on January 1 and the state portion will start increasing. But the additional funds
are basically to get us through this year at about the same level we were at last year.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Long, out of this amount that you’re asking for, $460,000, how
much of that is reimbursable to Augusta from Columbia County and Burke County?
Mr. Long: None of that will be from Richmond [sic] and Burke County. This is
only Richmond County’s portion of it. We have – this is the way we allocate the budget,
and we have to require – we are required by law to see everybody in all three counties’
jails within 72 hours of incarceration to determine if they’re indigent. We are required to
have personnel at all the Superior Courts, State Court, Magistrate Court, to have people
appointed – that is, non-lawyer people to interview those people. We are required to take
application, to check into the application to the extent we can, to coordinate the hiring of
lawyers. All those general overhead costs are allocated among all three counties based
on population. And right now, I believe that Burke County is 7%, Columbia County I
want to say is 27% or 28%, and Richmond County the balance. If somebody commits a
crime, if they commit it in Richmond County that cost has generally been borne by
Richmond County, if they commit it in Columbia County, so if you end up with more
criminal offenses in Richmond County, you have a greater number of cases. Obviously,
some of these people commit crimes in both counties and it’s up to the D.A. to decide
what county they want to try them in first.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Can you kind of give me a little outline on the method used to
determine indigency? My concern is that people are incarcerated and the question – and
I’ve heard this from attorneys – that they’re asked the question do you have a job? Well,
2
they don’t while they’re in jail but they do have one when they get back out, and I guess
secondly, is there a loser pays mechanism to where we can look at this situation and
where people that are found guilty, if there’s some means to I guess adjust their penalty
that incorporates some type of reimbursement to the city of Augusta for – I guess my
frustration is we’ve lost track of the repaying your debt to society type thing that I was
taught growing up, that used to be a way of life in this city.
Mr. Long: That’s a very good question. First – let me answer the last one. You
say the loser pays. Well, the sad thing about it, most of the people in jail are losers
already because they did something that primarily [inaudible] being stupid. They did a
stupid act. As far as paying them back, if the judges put them on probation, most of the
time they do impose additional fines and costs which go to Richmond County. So in
other words, if a Superior Court judge finds somebody possessed a felony amount of
marijuana and decides to put them on probation but imposes a $2,000 fine, that fine goes
back to Richmond County already.
Mr. Cheek: But does it go to the courts or does it go the general fund which
we’re being asked –
Mr. Long: It goes back, to my understanding, it goes back to the general fund.
All fines and forfeitures. Now, let me – this corollary. If somebody gets a fine, they also
impose some surcharges like the Peace Officers Association has something, and
something like that. But the majority of the fines go back to Richmond County. Just like
the State Court of Richmond County with misdemeanors. That is a money-making
proposition for Richmond County. Y’all make I think around $4.5 million after all
prosecution costs, judges costs, and things like that. So to answer the second part about
when you go to jail, as a practical matter, that’s very difficult to get money out of
somebody in jail. As far as determination of indigency, the State of Georgia has set the
guidelines and they’re based on the poverty guidelines and they have – you have to make
less than twice the federal poverty guidelines based on the size of your family. If you
make less than twice that, you qualify for indigent defense of felonies. If you make less
than 1-1/2 times that, you qualify for indigent defense for misdemeanors. Now what we
do, we take applications from people. We have checked credit reports to see if somebody
is telling us they don’t have any money but yet they have got enough money to go see
Frank Lawrence here and apply for a brand new car or credit. And we’ve done that. That
has not found useful. We’ve also made cross-references with the county property books
and with the tag office to make somebody isn’t driving a new Cadillac or Mercedes and
taking advantage of the system. But there are probably people who take advantage of the
system. I mean I’d be naïve to say they’re not. But we are doing the best we can to do
that. The problem, though, about percentages. Statewide 85% or more of every person
charged with a felony in the state of Georgia is determined to be an indigent. We are
within that range. So – and any suggestions y’all have about trying to cut down the
people taking advantage of the system or making people pay for their sins or pay for the
cost of this, I’m sure our committee, which is by the way, the chairman of the county
3
commission of Columbia County, Ron Cross, served, as well as the county administrator
for Burke County, Mr. [inaudible]. He served. We would be basically willing to adapt to
any reasonable recommendation to try to address the issues you raised.
Mr. Cheek: It would certainly be nice if nothing else we could get a date of
public service like picking up trash or cleaning ditches or something in lieu of any money
that maybe they don’t have after they’re released, just something to help repay the debt
that they are causing the people of the city of Augusta to incur.
Mr. Long: Well, I think if you go to most of the judges, and the Superior Court
judges do an excellent job of this, if they give probation they make them pay a fine,
which saves the cost of incarceration and also pick up some of this cost. They also make
them do community service. The State Court judges in Richmond County generally also
impose community service. I think Judge Slaton, who is a senior judge, is 80-something,
he used to have a rule that if you littered the highways, you had to pick up a statutory
mile of trash. I think they’re still imposing that. I think the judges are doing a pretty
good job in all the courts of doing that and in community service. They are trying to
make people pay. But with the jail population and the cost of jail, it’s sort of like if they
can fine somebody and they don’t commit any more sins, we win, we get the money and
we get the community service. If they lock them up, y’all pay $45 to $50 a day locking
them up, and then if they need bypass surgery, y’all pay another $250,000. It’s – how
you balance it, I’m not really sure, but the constitution requires that we do this. It’s an
unpopular deal to do this, but if we don’t do what the constitution says and we are subject
to a civil rights lawsuit, then we pay double. We pay our own lawyer, plus we pay the
lawyer who sued us. So we are required to do that. And the last thing of all is you read
the newspapers, you know, a jury [inaudible] just like we are, and I admit most of the
people are guilty of what they’re charged with. But there are people who are charged
who are not guilty. And the jurors of Richmond County, you read in the paper, they
found somebody did not commit the crime. A lot of time, that’s an indigent defendant.
And yes, did he have to pay it back? No. There is no mechanism to make that person
pay it back. But if he’d been incarcerated for six months or three months awaiting trial,
we don’t really pay him back for those three months or six months while he was
wrongfully incarcerated. So it’s – I hope the system is working. We are trying to make it
work as cheaply as possible, and I know there are probably better ideas we can have, and
I think our committee would be more than happy to adopt them. But we go out of
business on December 31 and we have a statewide public defender take charge.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Jack?
Mr. Long: Yes, sir?
4
Mr. Williams: I need a little clarification on something you mentioned and I may
have got it crossed up. If a person is not able to pay and had to have a court-appointed
attorney, and the judge turn around and fine that person and it goes through the process of
repayment through the program where there’s additional fine. If they’re indigent and
we’ve got to – how can they pay that? I mean I don’t understand.
Mr. Long: Well, I think it’s a little bit easier – most lawyers who do criminal
work, Mr. Williams, they basically require people to pay them up front for their services
because if you don’t get paid up front by somebody charged with a crime, the lawyer is
too stupid to get paid at all. And so consequently, a lot of times people can pay, though,
$25 and $50 a month on a fine and so they work it out over a period of time if they’re in
fact guilty of whatever they’re accused of doing. And they are required to pay a fine.
They can normally find some way to pay that. It’s just like if somebody had to pay
$1,000 or $5,000 to hire a lawyer up front, a lot of people could not do it. And of course
they’re indigent under those guidelines. However, they might be able to pay back in a
fine $50 or $75. And most of the judges will adjust fines based on the ability to earn
money over a period of time. And sometimes they waive the fine entirely if the person is
disabled or cannot work or something like that. They’re not going to ask somebody’s
parents or grandparents to pay it for them.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: How much are you all requesting for next year for indigent
defense? How much are you requesting to be in the budget for next year?
Mr. Long: The amount that we are requesting next year will be no more than we
are spending this year. I do not have those figures at my fingertips, but it will, it will be
pretty much the operation of the, whatever it costs to operate the office this year, even
though we’re going to a statewide system effective January 1. And so I believe – but the
state public defendant standards council has made a commitment to all the county
commissions in the state of Georgia that the county portion of the budget will not exceed
what they have been this year.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Russell, can you answer that question? Y’all are preparing
the budget for next year. How much have been placed in the budget for next year?
Mr. Russell: Not specifically. We’ve got two budget areas that we’ve added to,
one of which is the State Court area, which is totally the responsibility of Richmond
County. And in round numbers, off the top of my head, that’s probably about $500,000.
The balance of that would probably be split between – giving to the public defender’s
office to help fund our portion of that. There will be some expenses from the public
defender’s office and there will also be some carryover expenses where people have been
appointed during the past – this year – for cases that will not be heard until next year. I
5
can give you those specific numbers that are going to be included in the budget package
if you’d like but I’d have to go get those, sir.
Mr. Long: Mr. Hankerson, I was just looking at my notes. I may have, I believe
outside of the State Court of Richmond County, for felony cases, interviewing people,
having the court staffed with people to coordinate indigent defense, etc., I believe that it
will probably be no more than $1.7 million for the State Court of Richmond County. I
think it’s a little higher than $500,000. I think it’s going to be $650,000 or $700,000. So
the state – everything below Superior Court, the counties are still going to be –
Magistrate Court downstairs and State Court. State Court is a profit center for the
county, generally misdemeanors. That is going to run your $650,000 to $700,000 year.
Probably the state, the county’s portion of the statewide public defender’s – I don’t think
is going to exceed $1.7 million next year. So when you add those two figures together,
you are talking $2.3 million or $2.4 million, something like that.
Mr. Hankerson: The number I had in my head from doing my research is around
$3 million. That’s what I heard, about $3 million would be put in the budget for indigent
defense that we’re going to have to look at. So I’d like for – is David in here?
Mr. Russell: No, sir. I can get that number, if you’d like [inaudible].
Mr. Hankerson: Because I kept hearing you say it won’t be as much as last year
but then I mean I’m working on the budget already for next year.
Mr. Long: Mr. Hankerson, I believe there is a – Rev. Hankerson, there is a letter
that the statewide public defenders standards council has sent to the county
commissioners association that has guaranteed the county commissioners of all the
counties that the total cost for felony and juvenile cases for 2005 will not exceed what it
would [inaudible] in 2004. Now the State Court of Richmond County is a little bit
different animal, because that cost has gone up from almost nothing, mainly because the
United States Supreme Court has said that if these people are charged with misdemeanors
and they are put on any sort of probation that revocation could result in incarceration you
are required to give them lawyers, and that probably has cost y’all some money that was
probably unanticipated about two years ago. But I think whatever – I don’t believe the
total cost for indigent defense for felony and office and overhead for Richmond County
in 2004 is going to exceed by 4% or 5% more than what it is in 2003. But the
misdemeanor thing in State Court has been different and that’s been a mandate by the
United States Supreme Court. And we’re trying to control the costs. The new statewide
public defender for the Augusta Judicial Circuit that was elected by a committee that was
appointed by the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House, and the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. They elected Sam Sibley, former District Attorney,
and he is the cheapest man I know. He can [inaudible] the buffalo off the back of a
nickel, and I think if you looked at his misdemeanor budget he’s running below on that
6
right now. And so I don’t think he is out to – he looks upon taxpayers’ money very
seriously like it’s a trust fund.
Mr. Hankerson: I am – I’m just concerned about it because of the fact that we
addressed this with ACCG conference. That was one of the items, to address about
indigent care and about how the State now has really dumped this on county governments
and city governments of paying all of this. I heard some figured of like $3 million and I
think our citizens need to be aware, too, because when we come to start balancing the
budget and so forth and here we say that if mandated – in other words, we don’t have any
choice but this is $3 million that we are going to put in the budget next year and we
already have spent over, I think over $2 million this past year. Pretty close to that this
past year. And here we are asking here and now that we have to dip into reserves and
when I see dipping into reserve funds, my red flag goes up, and that meaning we heading
into a danger zone and I think we need to know that and here is one of the reasons is
because of something that is mandated on us. And then I think we need to get the
legislators involved in this and we need to really start, you know, the State is cutting their
budget so and we are taking on all the expense that they are cutting here locally. But it’s
trying to do this, that it’s mandated by law. And I know that as you said, that you all are
trying to do all you can to keep it down, but it just – I want to hear some figures and I
think since this whole agenda item today is dealing with finance, I really need my finance
director in here cause I have questions I need to ask and I think it need to be, the real
story need to be told.
Mr. Long: Let me mention this to you [inaudible]. There are two things that
really just drive the numbers up. One is death penalty cases. Now when somebody is
being charged with a crime that they could lose their on, the Supreme Court of Georgia
and the United States have come up with all sorts of rules. You have to have two
lawyers, you have to have all these hearings and a bunch of other stuff that you normally
don’t have. In this circuit, the Augusta Judicial Circuit, we lead the state as far as the
number of death penalty cases. The good news about the cost involved is the State has
said that on every case in which the District Attorney announces that he is going to seek
the death penalty, after January 1, 2005, they will pick up 100% of those costs. Now
we’ve got some death penalty cases that are working through the system right now and
some of those bills we won’t get till next year. But that has been a big ticket item for
indigent defense and that whole big ticket item should be shifted to the State in the future.
And so if somebody commits a heinous crime and they indict him next week, hopefully
the District Attorney will not send out a notice of intent to seek the death penalty until
January 1, 2005, because all of those cases, that’s what triggers those costs, totally 100%
to the State. This misdemeanor thing has been a mandate, by the Supreme Court of the
United States. They don’t let you argue with them or change the rules. However, they
have told us from the State, and the way it works, we spend money, we apply for money,
in the past we got 11% of whatever we spent back from the State of Georgia. They tell us
in the future that the total cost, of our cost, is going to be [inaudible] future, [inaudible]
once all these pending cases clear out, that they’re going to be picking up 50% of the tab.
7
I understand this is like somebody trying to sell you [inaudible]. The amount of money
that is coming into the system to be paid back makes those figures look like they will
have some validity. Now I know we have growth in this sort of spending and we have
growth in the number of people arrested and indicted, but hopefully that will have that
effect of flattening out and possibly even reducing it slightly. I wouldn’t say a lot, but
slightly. [inaudible] plus the big [inaudible] have been the death penalty cases.
Mr. Hankerson: My other concern is a little bit [inaudible] Commissioner Cheek
and the question that they were asking about whether the person qualified for indigent
care [sic] or whether they’re ripping off the system. I mentioned before that my concern,
too, was whether they were getting the representation that we’re paying for. And I did
get your letter and I talk to you later about that, but because of my concerns about it, you
know, that some things in my position I do have people calling me when I take my
commissioner’s hat off, and the other hat that I wear all the time, that people call me
about they have been incarcerated and so forth, getting the representation. And my
concerns, too, is whether they’re getting the proper representation. How many times is it
that a person should see an attorney if he’s incarcerated? What are we paying for an
attorney to be obligated to? I know it’s limited, but to give fair representation, we
[inaudible] all the money, which I might not be much when you’re talking about attorney,
cause attorney fees are very expensive, I understand, but the impact is impacting on us.
What?
Mr. Long: Well, the only way I can answer that is this. First of all, like you’re
talking about mandates, the Supreme Court of Georgia set a certain sum you have to pay
these people. In Richmond County we have had a voluntary system of lawyers willing to
take these cases. In the last two years, we have gone from 67 lawyers who were willing
to take these type of cases down to about 25 or 26 lawyers. We are having to beg lawyers
to take the cases. So we don’t have people lined up at the door to take these criminal
types of cases. Second of all, when we appoint lawyers, we are required to determine if
they are indigent within 72 hours when we appoint a lawyer. If I get a complaint or
[inaudible] gets a complaint about a lawyer not doing his job, we immediately
investigate, and if the lawyer is not doing his job, we have him taken off and we appoint
another lawyer. I know there was one gentleman who was charged with a crime in
Columbia County and he complained about lawyer 1, he was a good a lawyer, and we
replaced him with lawyer 2. Lawyer 2 got tired of the guy and said I’m not representing
thth
him and quit. We got him – I think we are on his 4 lawyer, and his 4 lawyer tried the
case and the jury mistried it. But this guy was complaining about everything and then the
guy turned around and pled guilty to the crime. Some of that goes on. Policing lawyers
is difficult. The new system with the statewide computer system on keeping track of this
should make sure that people are getting adequate representation. However, I would like
to brag about Mr. Sam Sibley. He has taken over misdemeanors for all misdemeanor
courts in the circuit. His salary has been paid up until he got on the State payroll in July
by all three counties. His not guilty rate for jury cases in the misdemeanor court in
Richmond County was something between 85% and 90% of all people. [inaudible] jury
8
found them not guilty. So they were getting adequate representation. Now there will be
people that are not, and if they’re not getting adequate representation ultimate the judge
will bring it to our attention and we’ll get another lawyer or [inaudible] to do something
about it. That in the past has been a real problem trying to police individual cases.
Hopefully with this new computer system that we’re working into this year, there will be
a statewide monitoring to make sure that individuals are being adequately represented
[inaudible]. And I get calls at home, just like you do. And we do try to make [inaudible],
but there are things that fall through the cracks. I don’t know how else to stop it. I think
the new system [inaudible].
Mr. Hankerson: How long – I’m just asking, I’m not putting you on test or trial
but I’m just asking because this is what prompt my concern on the representation. How
long does it take for a lawyer to get a transcript?
Mr. Long: Sir, it should not take the lawyer not much time. The court reporter,
you have court reporters that are paid for each judge, but they don’t get much
reimbursement for criminal cases and there have been situations where the court reporters
have been behind on getting transcripts and the judges have had to bring in additional
people to do the transcript based on the volume of work. And so sometimes – I mean
obviously in the private practice, sir, if we pay the court reporter enough money out of
our pocket, they’ll have one in 24 hours. But I mean the State pays about 15% or 20% of
what we will pay for an expedited transcript, so frankly – and also, the volume of total
cases is such that I don’t think a lot of people have a handle on it. It’s just – but if
somebody is not getting a transcript, if it’s brought to the attention of the judge, I think
the judge will order the court reporter to take no new work, bring in extra help, and
require those transcripts to be done. I think a lot of times the judge doesn’t know about
it, but most of the judges will do something if they hear about it.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, that’s the reason I feel the way I feel because as I asked the
attorney about three or four weeks ago about the transcript and he’s still telling me he’s
waiting on the transcript and it’s been two years. And the person already gone to prison.
And I think if they had the transcript before he went it probably would have had some
bearing on whether he [inaudible] prison or not.
Mr. Long Well –
Mr. Hankerson: But he’s saying he’s waiting on the transcript. How long does it
take to get a transcript? It been two years now. Every time I ask it’s the same thing, I’m
waiting on a transcript.
Mr. Long: If you’ll bring that case to my attention, I’ll find out the name of the
judge, the name of the reporter, the name of the lawyer, and we’ll make sure that doesn’t
happen. That should not happen. That’s [inaudible] fall through the cracks, and if it’s
brought to somebody’s attention, then we normally try to address it. But without a
9
computer system like we have, or we will have with the statewide system, it’s been a lot
harder to police that. However, we will [inaudible] deadlines. But I know all the
Superior Court judges and the State Court judges have done a very good job when they
hear about things to immediately make sure that people’s rights are not being trampled on
like that. That might have happened, but I hope if you bring that person’s name to my
attention I will investigate it and give you a report back.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you.
Mr. Long: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Ladies and gentlemen, is there anything else further? What’s your
pleasure with respect to this item?
Mr. Hankerson: I would really like to hear the true figures on, on what we could
expect that we will have to budget for next year before we make a decision on this.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have those, Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. The actual request that we have at this particular point in
time that have been tentatively plugged into the budget – we want a disclaimer at this
point, it’s a working document and it has not been released – but the tentative request for
the department, for the public defender for Superior Court is $2,139,690. This is the
State figures that we had received. And for the local cooperation is $1,154,910. If you
look at the past years, remember back what we did last year, we had to additionally add
money to it in a similar manner [inaudible] we could take out [inaudible] fund balance.
So we have in the past been adding to these because of the higher costs than we had
anticipated due to increased representation. So it’s the numbers we’ve got at the moment.
Mr. Hankerson: So what’s the total amount, Fred?
Mr. Russell: $1,154,910 and $2,139,690. So it would be approximately
$3,280,000. $3,290,000, something like that. About $3.2 million.
Mr. Hankerson: $3.2 million in the budget next year?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay, I just wanted the number.
Mr. Russell: Once again, let me say that’s the preliminary request from the
department.
10
Mr. Mayor: What – the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Cheek, is your hand up
for a motion?
Mr. Cheek: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: I kind of assumed –
Mr. Cheek: I am probably for the first time at a loss for words.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I’m going to make a motion to get it on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Beard: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Is there discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, I have discussion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: Knowing – I think all of us do know that we have some very serious
budgetary challenges coming up. Knowing that this is going to be hopefully saving us
some money as we go into this new system, but trending being what it is, probably not.
How in the world are we going to run this government this coming year without massive
layoffs or a tax increase? I just thought I’d offer that up because the writing is on the
wall. We are short several million dollars just on estimates right now. And having these
additional costs to come in. We have the lowest tax rate of any major metropolitan city
in the Southeast, and yet we keep trying to make ends meet or reduce services, and it’s
just not living in the real world. I made a joke about this earlier in Engineering Services.
Perhaps the city would be better spent taking several thousand dollars and putting it on
the lottery in the hopes of winning the money than hoping it comes up with no real
mechanism for driving additional income, which is exactly where we’re at. We’re in a
downward spiral and the cost of gasoline, the cost of indigent defense, the cost of energy,
everything keeps going up, but for some reason we don’t, we’re not growing our tax base
and we’re not increasing our revenue streams. If this trend continues over the next five
years, we’d just as soon fold our tents and go home. This is very frustrating. Since I’ve
been here we’ve had $1.2 million, $1.3 million hit either in losses of funding from fire
service recalculations or government grants or additional costs for fuel or something.
11
I’m, for one, just hoping to see some light at the end of the tunnel where we can actually
have enough revenue to operate this government without going into savings.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think the silence that’s across the board is probably – I’ll
agree with Andy – more out of the frustration of what you have to do than it is to a point
of having a problem with the people that we’ve got locally that have to run this area of
the judicial system. But I think it’s evident that, and since I take up most of the time,
when I’m gone maybe y’all can get a serious discussion going in this community about
total judicial reform and its cost and about how we are going to have to try and combat
some things. I think this area of what we have to do in terms of the defense side of it,
even though it’s before us today, there are other factors that are in it that are costing us I
think ridiculously more money than probably where this side is going. People who are
there, whether we like it or not, are going to have to be defended. That’s going to be
something that’s there. That’s not, that’s not going to change. But you know I had a
conversation the other day, we were just casually talking, the administrator and myself,
and I brought it up in committee meeting and in your meeting, Commissioner Cheek, in
reference to pre-trial detainees, people who – Mr. Hankerson had mentioned about length
of time about transcript, but also about length of time to a point that we house a lot of
these people of the classification of crime, whether or not it’s on first offenders, whether
they’re sitting there on non-violent situations, all of those things to a point I think until
we’re willing to sit down about it, it’s, it’s a merry-go-round type circus. We look at
what we’re fixing to spend, we’ve got to build a big, new judicial building, we’ve got to
deal with jail pods, and I’m glad you mentioned that, Andy, about where the tax base sets
and where we compare with other counties. Some of that we’re going to have to find
some creative means to deal with and to do. I, quite frankly, was disappointed with, with
our, with one of our state groups that we pay membership in in terms of the sort of get in
line marching orders of where a lot of commissioners across the state, where we accept
almost as just gospel some things we accept from the State and we move on with it. And
I know everybody is tired of my argument in reference to what I thought should have
been a priority of the Legislative Delegation in terms of dealing with uses of sales tax. I
think if people have the – I think it’s absolutely crazy to be able to tag on $9 million to
$10 million to build something in a jail and you’ve got a near $500 million proposal out
there in sales tax and you can’t spend a quarter of it even if the people of this community
wanted to vote and to put part of that into the operational modes of what happened in
public safety. It’s stupid upon the Legislature as a whole – I’m going to say that cause
I’m not a member of that body and if I run I’d make the same argument in terms of
dealing with it. Folk ought to have the right to be able to do some things by vote and
choice if they do. And I think to a point if we’re going to be locked in with a
constitutional tax cap, we’re going to be able to say we’re not going to deal with services,
it’s equally offensive to me when we come in here that we say all right, the food is low at
the jail, we’re out of money, I don’t blame the sheriff for that, but what I do have a
problem with is in a heartbeat we take that money out of contingency, but we’ll have
12
seniors programs that we have got to sit here and make deals about to deal with nutrition
for senior citizens. Until you have a serious, broad-based talk about how you’re going to
deal with the whole public safety element, as to whether or not it’s cheaper to have some
people on monitorship that are out there, you know, and maybe I’ve grown too old in
technology to recognize some things that they’ve got, but if you came up at a time when a
lot of the same repeat offenders, most good [inaudible] police folk know where to find a
whole lot of them. You know, you got to jail you find folk that have MO’s out there that,
you know, this one steals a particular brand of ladies’ perfume or sunshades, but you
leave them around diamonds and they won’t steal that. Those kind of folks, a lot of them
we got out there. And they sit there, they sit there for months. And just like Jack says, it
happens where they need bypass surgery, we pay it. We pay for the medication, we pay
for all that. And the law says you should and you’ve got to do it. But until there is a
serious discussion about it in this state, we’re going to continue to lead a whole lot of
th
places in terms of what we do in terms of incarceration and fall 50 in terms of
education. And it’s a swap-off measure. It sounded good with the Legislature a few
years ago, but we’re going to beat the federal government. We’re going to have two
strikes and you go on. Well, those people don’t stay in jail for life. They come out.
They come back into the world. Have no education component in it. And you put them
out there and you throw them back and they’re in neighborhoods. In a lot of the cases,
they’re going to be repeating and coming through the system. That’s where our money’s
going. I mean collectively I think we understand the frustration, but I think, I think, one,
you’ve got to bill before the day that you are going to have to pay. I think you are going
to need to talk to some other folk, seriously I do think people are trying to work in the
judiciary, but whether or not we’re dealing with it enough. I’m going to say to a point,
too, I’m going to go ahead and make some other folk mad, Mr. Mayor. I’m wondering to
a point whether or not all these folk we getting – I know we got to have probation, we got
to put them out there and collect the money, but to a point is it profitable for us to look
back into that system? That going to make some folk angry about it, to go out to a point
that I said it. But folk who get picked up because they violate that and then they can’t get
out, they can’t make bond, they can’t do nothing, they violated that, we’re paying more to
keep them back behind bars where they’re on non-violent stuff, civil stuff at best, and
they’re there on a fine. Common sense tells you if they indigent and you put them back
out where they make the next deal, if there’s no money, if they’re not working, you can
increase the fine to any level you want to get, that pocket of people are not going to pay
you any more money than you had before. You are going to be back as a government in
the same way. So I think until we get serious about whether or not – you know, it sounds
good for these folk to make these commercials, put the flag behind them, we’re going to
lock up everybody, we’re going to make them do 100% of the time, we’re going to throw
away the key. Well, when you building more jail cells in some communities than you’re
building classrooms and you paying more average for to house a prisoner than you are to
educate a child, we’d better start taking a serious look at whether or not we’re spending
the best of our money in a way that we can do it. So I think it goes beyond what you’re
got to [inaudible] on a indigent defense bill. I think it goes to the whole system and I
think until we get serious about really talking about that – I was disappointed, Mr. Mayor,
13
when I, when I heard how we were sitting there the other day with ACCG [inaudible]
State saying we got to do it, we got to do it. But you know, they forget, too, that the
same people who make the law in the state [inaudible] some of these things, whether it’s
picking up their prisoners or whatever, or if it’s denying communities a right to use sales
tax by referendum in a certain way. You know, legislators are no different from anybody
else. They get up, they put on clothes the same way everybody else do. The same way.
It’s no different. And I think that – you know, I once said that sometimes it ought to be a
requirement before some people can get to go do these great legislative chores. Maybe
they need to serve on a board of education or county commission or city council or be a
mayor somewhere, to run a city and to deal with some of these budgets in terms of what
they do. And they look at it as though they [inaudible] they put it out there. But the
bottom line is you’ve got a bill. I think you’re going to have to pay it. One you don’t
want to pay. It’s like a food bill. It’s out there. And we can not do it, and we can be
back over and see my good friend Dudley Bowen. He can advise us of some other
things. Right now the jailhouse is full. In fact, it’s overcrowded, and usually when you
go back for not paying one thing, they find a way to get you for five or six. So probably
better pay the one before it gets to be four or five. I ain’t taking no joy in it, but the point
is until we seriously deal with the overall makeup of what these people have to deal with
and how they do it, you are going to have this. And this is one of those necessities that
you are not going to be able to really get around. Health care, food, and defense of
people that you’re housing. And Mr. Long, I think you and Mr. Shepard both would
agree. We’re going to deal with them. You’re going to deal with them. That health care
and the food and then whether or not they’ve got adequate representation. You’ve got to
deal with it.
Mr. Long: If we don’t pay these lawyers who are helping these poor people – the
courts are sort of like an orchestra. Like y’all have a quorum, if everybody doesn’t show
up you can’t conduct business if you don’t have enough for a quorum. If you don’t have
a lawyer representing that indigent defendant on Monday morning, then you can tell the
jurors [inaudible], the court reporter, the judges, the D.A. [inaudible] because it’s then at
a complete standstill. Unfortunately, this is – and nobody wants to pay for this because
none of these people [inaudible] a lot of them are guilty of something, even if they’re not
guilty of what they’re charged with. But be that as it may, the constitution says we’ve
got to do it. And I think you’re right, Mr. Mays, if we don’t do it and we go before Judge
Bowen, the county is going to end up with this unanticipated legal expense and in a
judgment we’re going to have to pay both sides of a civil rights case. You cannot – our
committee made the decision when the misdemeanor thing came up, that we would not
be like our forefathers did and the Supreme Court had to do some 30-something years
ago and put our heads in the sand. We decided to abide by the law and I think we’ve got
to do it and I think you’re right. You don’t have a choice. You can’t close down the
courts, and that’s what you’re doing. It’s like an orchestra. If some people, the main
people in the orchestra don’t show up, they can’t go forward.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
14
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. One
suggestion that I think we’ve made from Augusta Richmond County for several years,
which became state policy this year, was a further surcharge on the court costs. How
much can you surcharge the cost? But they’re doing it in the fine area, and I know that
we had a meeting with the judges about a year ago and we talked about revenue through
raising funds and it was pretty much well concluded that you could fine them whatever
you wanted to, but collection was an entirely different matter. The court costs that civil
litigants pay has been increased, and I think it’s a $15 per case raise. For example, the
filing fee of a civil action from $60 to $75. And to me there is no magic in that $15 other
than it’s probably what you could get the Senate and the House in Atlanta to agree on. I
don’t know that that’s the cap on the court costs, but that’s an area that would be non-ad
valorem tax related that could be looked at again. And you know, there is, there is a
penny left on the sales tax that could be looked at. But this government provides
services, some of which is reimbursable and some of which is not. And you’ve got to
find your revenue sources. I think that’s probably something that we need to revisit with
the members of our Delegation, as well as the leadership of the House and the Senate in
Atlanta. The court costs will [inaudible] for a portion of what is needed, and I think we
need to be very frank with them, and Mr. Mays, I think you’ve probably already made
some contacts up there. The court costs could go up more, and this is not from somebody
that’s fined, this is from someone who’s filing for divorce, filing to actually collect a
debt. It would be [inaudible] not exactly a user pays, but it would be some money that’s
recovered within the system of this. And I think, Jack, one thing that we need to point
out, that there will be some phasing out of the appointment process. You have a lot of
appointments made now and they’re not all going to go away on January 1. We’ve talked
in the session I think we had with Ms. Haskin and Mr. Sibley and Mr. Martin who came
down from indigent defense about a phase-in of this program. You’re going to have to
phase it in. The cost in the initial months will not be as much as when you get it up and
running, and there can be an adjustment in next year’s budget for this agency to begin
with some part-time slots, not all fulltime slots. That will help ease the pressure in the
early months of the program, but basically it’s been a matter that’s been handed to the
counties to finish the funding up and that’s just, that’s just a given in this situation. And
there will be a few conflicts. I don’t know how many, Jack, you think there will be, but
there will still be some cases that the public defender may not be able to take because that
office has a conflict with one of the cases, and so there will be a need to maintain I think
some presence in the office that Eddie Goode has to deal with those matters, Jack. Is that
correct?
Mr. Long: Not only that, but you still have the problem of [inaudible] put in jail,
you have the problem of basically still interviewing people, still having people, the
judges putting people together with lawyers and public defenders, and a lot of
administrative stuff. But be that as it may, you talk about these surcharges, right now
Richmond County makes money out of fines and forfeitures, more than enough to pay for
your contribution to the solicitor’s office, the district attorney’s office, indigent defense
15
and everything like that. It’s a profit. The court has been a profit center and maybe Mr.
Mays is correct, they probably shouldn’t be because you fine somebody that can’t pay
and then what do you do? But right now, you look at spending money – you’re still
making money from the court. You cannot shut the courts down and if you don’t pay the
people they’re not coming to work. They’re not coming to work on Monday, we don’t
pay them, and we’ve got - we knew that last year when they said they would only go with
– the previous administrator and they said no, we put $800,000 down. We new we spent
more than $800,000 and were doing that. We knew we were going to overdraw. We
knew it would be what it would be. And so do we pay the lawyer to come to work
Monday or do we tell the Superior Court judges that we’ve have to close the court down
on Monday morning? That’s what it would amount to. And I would appreciate it, if you
want to do the latter, I wish somebody here would volunteer to go to the third floor and
tell them [inaudible], but you’ve got to have, even though it’s an expense, the total cost of
running a Superior Court, it’s about $500 an hour when you consider the cost of the
prosecutor, the court-appointed jailers, bailiffs, judges, and indigent defense is a very
small portion of that. But you can’t have court until you have them.
Mr. Mayor: The – I don’t want to prolong the discussion, but I would – I don’t
think we have much choice but to go ahead and do what has been proposed and what has
been asked for and what’s in the motion. But if I read the backup correctly, Mr. Russell,
our unrestricted reserve would drop to about $21.9 million when we take this out of
reserve. It’s very dangerous when we start taking recurring operations expenses out of
our reserves. That’s exactly what Chatham County did and they ended up with no
reserves at all at the end of the day down there. I would hope that next year, if we’ve had
to come back two yeas in a row now and ask for supplemental funding for this office in
the middle of the year that when we put our budget together for next year, the $3.3
million is not going to be a realistic figure, that we try to find a realistic figure before
January 1. I’d rather have money left over in the account at the end of the year than have
to come back and dip into reserves to fund that. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think we have talked on this subject and
found out everything that we possibly can and I don’t think Mr. Long can do anything but
what he’s supposed to be doing. None of us like it, I know I don’t, but I’m going to make
a motion that we go ahead and fund it and where we can move on with our business
today.
Mr. Mayor: We already have a motion on the floor, it was made by Mr. Mays and
it was seconded by Ms. Beard.
Mr. Grantham: Call for question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Cheek had his hand up. Let me recognize him and
then we’ll call the question.
16
Mr. Cheek: A point of information.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: With this drawdown on our reserve fund, how many days of
operating capital does that leave the city of Augusta?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Persaud never showed up, did he? Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: I can check and get you that number.
Mr. Cheek: It’s about $1 million a day or so.
Mr. Russell: Not quite.
Mr. Cheek: $800,000 or so. That brings us to less then 30 days of operating
capital.
Mr. Russell: Probably – $26 million is about 90 days so $22 million would be –
Mr. Mayor: We’re still on the bubble.
Mr. Russell: We’re still – despite our – and I agree with our problem with taking
money our reserve. That’s not the thing that we want to do. Despite that, we still have a
healthy reserve account compared to other people, compared to what normal cities have.
That’s really a tribute to what you do on a day-to-day basis, as commissioners and the
way you direct the spending of our dollars. It’s not a habit we want to get into,
obviously. That’s something that I will recommend [inaudible] length, but in this
particular case, I think it’s been summed up fairly well. The tripartite committee has
worked hard to keep the costs as low as possible. We were mandated by the Supreme
Court to pay, and in this particular case that’s the fund where it needs to come from.
Mr. Cheek: My concern is that [inaudible] this is three years in a row we’ve hit
the reserve and once is circumstance, twice is maybe a happening, three times sounds like
a habit to me, and that’s scary.
Mr. Russell: I don’t disagree.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called by Commissioner Grantham. The chair
will rule there has been adequate debate. Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: I think it’s one thing that we need to make a little [inaudible] going
into budget season. We talk about that that’s in the reserve account, and obviously none
of us want to go there, but I think what has to be understood is you’ve got to do a balance
17
of priorities out of where you do take money. It’s unfortunate that this is the item that’s
on here today, but I wanted to add one thing to what Jack and Steve and I were saying,
that it’s slightly [inaudible] and I’m glad you mentioned Chatham County. The one thing
that you obviously don’t want to do is the fact that – Jack mentioned about the courts and
the money that they take in and the amount of profit that’s in there. The other thing, that
if you get into a litigated case and it goes federal, if you’re taking into the court system a
profit-making entity and you are raising monies in there that are over and above what it
takes to operate that system, you will lose in about ten minutes, just as Chatham County
found out that they couldn’t take Sheriff Lawrence’s money to fulfill his constitutional
needs. So I think we may not want to go into reserves but we’d better decide if we’re not
going into them, then we’ll find other items that we won’t go into reserves to pay, but
those where you have a source and those that are tied to a constitutional responsibility,
particularly that make a profit, you have no choice in them and you lose those court cases
in about 60 seconds.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll move ahead with the vote on the question as moved
by Mr. Mays, which would appropriate the additional funding, $460,000 for the
remainder of the year for indigent defense, with the money coming from the reserve
account. All in favor of that motion please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Long: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Long. Don’t spend all of it if you don’t have to.
Mr. Long: [inaudible] money back.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll move on now to item number 1 on the agenda,
Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
1. Discuss Memorandum of Understanding Agreements (MOU) for the Sports
Arena and Amphitheater.
Mr. Mayor: Ladies and gentlemen, we have these back before us. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: In light of the absent members and some discussion that’s been
held among different board members, I make a motion we defer this for discussion
until Tuesday.
18
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to move item 1 to Tuesday’s agenda. Is there any
discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I, I agree in part with the motion, and it’s a friendly statement, Mr.
Cheek, I’m fixing to make. I think we have some parties that are here outside of the
Commission from both of these entities that are there. While a – and I agree with you to
a point. I think probably everybody should be present when this decision is made or if
everybody can be present when the decision is made. But I think if there at least from the
standpoint of courtesy and discussion or presentation or we wish to make observances to,
to either party of a suggestion of things that we might still want to see changed, done or
ask questions about them, because I think each of them within their respective groups
possibly have staff, possibly have attorneys, have other people that are with them, and it’s
not going to get any less cumbersome on Tuesday than it’s going to get now. And – but I
agree with you on the decision side of it, but I think probably to start at least some
members would have something to review from minutes or to see how the flow of
discussion goes. If it’s no more than to present and to say, you know, can you still, can
you reconsider this, can you plug this in, can you do something that’s different than what
we’ve got? And that’s just a suggestion. But I’d hate to see us back on Tuesday on
somewhat marathon day and then everybody’s back again and we’ve still got to deal with
it at some point of having some level of discussion on it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I agree. Lord knows we’ve had how many months now to discuss,
adjust and change. If we need more time, I’m supportive of that. I’m just going to make
an observation. I’ve told Lena today I’ve got to be me. I’m going to air it out right now.
As I see among this Commission six votes for a civic arena, six votes for an
amphitheater, one side saying I’m going to help the other or not help the other, if they’re
not going to help me I’m not going to help them. Dad gum it, the writing is on the wall.
It’s time to get our horses in line and pull together on this entire SPLOST package or
we’re going to lose it all. I’m just, I’m – it’s just time to move on. These agreements
may need some tweaking. They’re not perfect. We can support them in concept with the
understanding there will be some adjustments made. But it’s time to pull the wagons
together and I for one am sick and damn tired of wasting my time sitting up here while
we bicker about things and the whole ship is going down. This SPLOST initiative, we all
put in how many hours, 40+ hours a week on it. It’s time to put ten votes together on this
entire package and move on and quit bickering and playing tit for tat, and that’s exactly
19
what I’m hearing from different folks on this board. We need to pull together on this
thing or the whole thing is going down, and then if we don’t get it right next November,
this city is hurting for real. So I just hope that – and I mean that in a friendly way, but
I’m pretty fed up with just some of the attitudes of “I’m not helping you and you’re not
doing for me and let’s sink the whole thing.” Ladies and gentlemen, we’re on board this
ship and it’s headed out to sea. It’s time now for us to start manning the oars and make it
work. It ain’t perfect, but it’s the only show in town at this point and it’s time to pull
together. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, I agree with the thoughts of
pulling together and I agree with the thoughts of Mr. Mays in let’s having some
discussion. I just don’t think we need to delay these two entities any longer as far as
having discussion. We’ve had Mr. Simon and the group from Augusta Entertainment
over here for the last four or five meetings that we’ve had, and these gentlemen sit here
and sit here and listen to us procrastinate and deliberate on other issues and then we never
get to theirs. I feel like that we owe them the courtesy of at least listening to them and at
least discussing if and what changes have been made. We have all had a copy of this
memorandum since January. We have all discussed portions of it at different times.
There has been ample opportunity to make whatever changes that you as an individual
have seen fit to make, and I for one have taken that opportunity. And I hope that the rest
of you would have done the same. The same thing should apply to the amphitheater. I
have no problem with them whatsoever. But we’ve not given them that audience to
discuss their memorandum with us, and I think that’s not giving them the due diligence
that is needed in their behalf. You know, there may be some convincing subject matters
in each one of these memorandum of understanding for all of us to have a way to make a
decision, and unless we hear them, then we’re not treating them right and we’re not
treating the taxpayers of our community right. Yes, we need to pass this SPLOST. We
need to get on with it, we need to get things done and done as quickly as possible because
we are right now in the short roads of the election being November 2. So I’m for one of
let’s sitting here and let’s listening to these presentations as to whatever we want to give
them. If we don’t take a vote today, that’s okay, too. But I think we have made a
commitment to these people the night that we sat here till 1:30 and we made a
commitment that we were going to have the memorandums of understanding finished by
October 1. Ladies and gentlemen, that’s tomorrow. And I just think that we need to do
this with an understanding that if we are going to come back Tuesday with a vote, then I
feel just like Commissioner Cheek and Commissioner Mays, we need to come back in a
unanimous attitude after we review these and heard these remarks and vote on this thing
and get on with the project we are charged to do. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
20
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate that comments from all three
of my colleagues, but I’m a little confused because it was placed on the agenda to talk
about this and I made mention of it then and I still make mention of it now. I didn’t know
we had set a, a priority or a guideline to be able to, to disclose a, a, anything by October
1, meaning that we did put it on the ballot for the community or for the residents to
decide what they wanted to do. I have not pleased – I had this memoranda and I’m not
pleased with all of the entities that’s been proposed to us, all the things that’s out there.
I’m not, I’m not opposed any group. I’m glad to see that somebody from the
amphitheater side is here because this thing was presented to us without anybody up, just,
just, just the group from Mr. Simon’s group, and that’s fine. And I said if we going talk
about it, let’s talk about all of them. Now if we going be fair and we’re want to work
together, Andy, and I think we ought to be do that, I been advocating that from day one,
but we need to put everything in the basket, we need to have every memorandum of
understanding together, and if we going to decide on a group prior to its being built, prior
to the election, the people say whether they want it or not, designate who going run it, I
think we just got through talking about going into reserve and the money that we don’t
have. We’re not doing anything in Augusta to bring money in. All the money in
Augusta is going out. Now I don’t blame businesspeople for trying to do business and
they ought to do that. But we’ve got to be business minded as well. We need to look out
for the taxpayers who don’t want us to raise taxes. We are one of the lowest. If we going
do, if we going take taxpayers’ money and put it into a facility, we ought to at least have
some income, something coming from that. Now I’m, I’m, I’ve got no problem talking
about it and we need to talk about it. I seconded Andy’s motion because I was under the
impression that we know, we ought to be together, we ought to be able to talk. But it
makes sense, the people are here, they been here several times. They ain’t been here
longer than we’ve been here now. And we been talking about this thing for quite a long
time. They ain’t sit here and wait on us. They been with us, but we been here the
majority of the time. So Mr. Mayor, all I’m saying is while they’re here, I got no
problem, let’s talk. And that’s what we should have did. I think what my problem is our
attorney and ourselves should have been talking. They represent us. We ought not have
to debate with the business side of this thing, whether it be the arena, whether it be the
amphitheater. We ought to be able to have our own attorney to know what we are asking
for and what we want. I mean that’s why he get paid. If I got to do the attorney’s work,
then we need to stop the clock on him if we got to sit here and I got to debate and I got to
go through what I want and what I don’t want. Now I bought a little piece of real estate.
I bought a couple of pieces down there and you hire somebody to do the work for you.
They go in your behalf. And that’s what I expect of our attorney. We talking about
funds and monies and pay that we need to reimburse him on. There are some things that
we asked for. He should have came back to us and said these are the things in there that
we are not willing, we should not have even had the document in our hand until we got
those things or decide that we wouldn’t accept those things. What we done now, we been
given something that we’re not pleased with. And I say we, I’m speaking for myself. I
can’t speak for anybody else. Everything in here, nothing in here is beneficial to, to, to,
to the city of Augusta, to this body. Everything is going out. You said it earlier, Mr.
21
Cheek, you right, if we don’t start to do something, if we don’t start to create some kind
of revenue to come into this city, we are really going to be in trouble. This is one now,
the taxpayers, I think, is not going support. Because it’s one sided. So, Mr. Mayor, that’s
my comment. I can talk about it today, I can talk about it Tuesday, but until some things
change, I don’t think we are going to get very far. That’s the opinion of mine. That’s all.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you’ll probably get a chance to talk about it again
Tuesday, for sure, but let me just say that I have problems with both of these
memorandums of understanding but I think the ultimate decision is going to lie not with
this board here, but with the voters of this city. And I’m willing to say let’s take these
MOU’s, let’s let the voters decide on November 2 what projects they want, because in the
final analysis if the voters approve the projects, not one penny is going to anybody until
they have a contract signed with this body. And at that time this body will determine
under what terms that money will be put into those projects. And these MOU’s, they’re
not going to dictate the language that’s in a contract. Now, you know, I think we can end
it fairly quickly, let’s take a vote with these, let’s send them on to the voters November 2.
Mr. Williams: I make that motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Seems like a simple decision to me.
Mr. Williams: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: Let the voters decide.
Mr. Williams: I so move that we send these memorandums to the voters.
Mr. Mayor: Either they want the project or they don’t want it. It seems simple to
me. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, that’s my contention. You know, the whole thing that – I
don’t think it’s lost on everybody, but it appears to me is that we’ve got a month to work
on promoting the SPLOST. Individually, collectively, the folks in the projects, the folks
to benefit in the neighborhoods and all, and the last thing we need today is a 5-4-3 or
whatever split vote. The voters will ultimately decide whether they want these projects.
All of us are not – there’s never been a perfect thing man has made. Only God made one
perfect thing, and that’s Jesus Christ. Now I’m going to tell you right now we didn’t do a
perfect job on that, but we did a pretty darn good job with the SPLOST. We thought it
through, we looked at our districts and all, and it’s time for us to pull together. It’s time
to go. And I’m just hoping that we can – we can do this right now and then move about
the business of promoting this thing because as you see, we’ve got Monday morning
quarterbacks already coming out saying things, and I’ll save my comments on that one
for another day. But I wholeheartedly second your motion, Commissioner Williams.
22
Let’s get this show on the road and get the SPLOST passed and then we can move on to
the budget and try to get some things turned around in this city.
Mr. Mayor: Paul, did you want to say something?
Mr. Simon: My understanding of the motion is you’re approving the MOU?
Mr. Mayor: Both of them.
Mr. Cheek: Let’s get this show on the road.
Mr. Williams: That wasn’t my motion, it was to send to the voters.
Mr. Simon: If you approve it, in my judgment, you are sending it to the voters
when you have it on the ballot, and then it would be publicized, the MOU is in place and
therefore the voters would decide whether you want us to build it and operate it or
whether they even want to have one. And so it seems to me that’s a good solution. Now
I would like to say this. I agree with you that if we don’t all get behind this sales tax, it’s
not going to pass. I spent the night down here with y’all until 1:30 in the morning trying
to work on this thing, and Mr. Williams, you had to leave and Mr. Cheek, you had to
leave. But six of you voted for SPLOST. The two of you left, I believe, would also have
voted for SPLOST. Two did not vote, but I think they’re team players, and I think if
everybody decides that we want to move forward with SPLOST I believe they’ll come
along and support the team. I hope they will. Also, there are people speaking out now,
like Monty Osteen had an article in the paper this morning. He’s wrong about his
numbers, he’s wrong about the time frame. I’ve got calculations here that show that this
is a 12-year SPLOST, I’ve got calculations that show and maybe you don’t even know
this, but year-to-date, seven months, you’re 6% ahead of last year’s collections in sales in
SPLOST, so it’s not as bleak as it sounds. But we’ve got to unite together to promote it.
Now I’ve told you before if we get the MOU signed, if you sign the MOU that we have
on the table and we’ve worked on it, we presented it to you last December, we have come
down here time after time after time. We’ve offered to meet with you, we’ve met with
many people throughout the community. I’ve been all over the county meeting with
people. We’ve done surveys. We know that there’s 76% of the people that want the
arena. So we think we’ve got something that is going to be beneficial to the county.
Also, you let this opportunity go by and you don’t pass SPLOST, if SPLOST does not
pass, then you have another difficult task ahead of you, and that’s trying to get together
again to do what you did two weeks ago, and I think that’s going to be difficult to do.
Y’all have come a long way. When we first started talking about this, you had – some of
you didn’t want to go more than five years. Some didn’t want to spend more than $150
million or so. You’ve come a long way from there. I think we’re looking at a 12-ytear
SPLOST. The public, though, is misinformed, though, about what’s in this SPLOST.
They don’t know that – Monty Osteen doesn’t realize that $60 million is interest. And
the reason interest is in there is so you can jump start these things and get them out and
23
get them started working. If you pass – if we get SPLOST passed, do you realize that
you’ll have under construction at one time the arena that we’re talking about, the
amphitheater that he’s talking about, the judicial center, the library, the jail pods and fire
stations? Now that’s jumping start, that’s jump starting the county. That’s going to get a
lot of activity and a lot of things going. That’s going to help bring about the dollars that
you are talking about. That you are talking about. Without those things, though, if we
don’t pass SPLOST, I’m telling you I think we all might as well move to Columbia
County, cause I think we’ve got some real serious problems and we need to get on with
it. As I told you, if you pass the SPLOST, we’ve already hired a team of marketing folks.
There’s one of them sitting right here. We already have a plan in place where we will
promote it by TV, radio, newspapers, speaking to civic groups, etc. to help get SPLOST
passed. I spoke to the Mayor earlier. I hope that we can get him turned around and back
on the team because he has also indicated that he doesn’t support the SPLOST. I believe,
though, that he could really have a legacy here, getting all these things started in his last
term and I think it would be a great thing and I hope we are going to be able to convince
him. Because you need all of us together, all of you together, working together as a team
to get it passed, cause it’s going to be difficult to do. But if it fails, you’ve got a more
difficult problem to get people to vote it in again next time, because once a tax
disappears, it’s hard to put it back. And so we’ve got a lot of reasons we can get it
passed. We’ve got to turn some people around, but I think we’re in the position to do it if
we get your support, but we’ve got to have the MOU. And we’ve changed it. We started
out with a document back in December. A number of you, a few of you have not come to
us with it. The lawyers, the lawyers have been involved, Mr. Williams, constantly
they’ve been involved with our lawyer, and we have put together a situation or document
that we don’t think we can change any more. So we’re going to ask y’all on Tuesday to
vote for the document as it is, up or down. And if it’s down, then we’re out. If it’s up,
we’ll help you pass SPLOST. That’s where we are right now. And I appreciate your
support and I hope you will all vote for us. [inaudible] vote today.
Mr. Williams: And I think we might just do that. First of all, the jail pods, the
fire stations, the judicial center, nor the sports arena is bringing in income to this city.
Now if you talking about the revenue that might be projected as far as sales tax and that
kind of thing, but four of the five things you mentioned don’t bring any money. But
there’s money going out, there’s money going out. I have not, I am not satisfied, I have
not been reassured of anything except we fixing to jump start, we fixing to make a
serious mistake if we do vote today to approve this. I think that if the voters decide that
they, there will be a amphitheater or a arena, we have more than ample time to lock any
company in to building, to, to, to run it, to have the power of it and the taxpayers’ money
building it, I think that’s terribly wrong. I disagree with what I heard. I think we’ve got
to be mindful of getting and making sure that the city of Augusta is being taken care of as
well. Now the part in this agreement about doing away with civic center, what’s going
happen to that? I mean none of that stuff has been disclosed. None of that stuff has been
agreed upon. When I mentioned about our attorney, the government’s attorney, we talk
often in legal. He know how to notify all of us. We have, we have, should have had
24
more conversation. Now what conversation the attorneys had among themselves, among
the entertainment’s attorney, that’s one thing, but I’m talking about the people who pay
his salary, the people that he’s supposed to be representing on this board. We should, we
should not have stuff that’s in this document, that’s laid out here now, the way it’s laid
out, with no fairness to the city of Augusta. We, we, we, if we going be in business, let’s
be in business like everybody else in bus, to make money. We shouldn’t be in business
to be friends. We, we, we, we, we made a lot of allowances, we give a lot of tax
incentives, we even give up some situations where there is no tax. I got no problem with
that. Have to help the city grow. But to give away the farm, I’m not giving away the
farm. I’m not sitting here with my eyes open, plain as looking at this thing and agreeing
to what I been shown. Now if y’all got a different document, I might need to see that
one.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Dickinson from [inaudible] has been waiting to speak.
Mr. Dickinson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to respond to the comment
about the MOU. We have not had the privilege to get any feedback from your lawyers or
any of you, if you have any objections to it, to documents specifically. We are here to
engage in dialog. We understand if we don’t get to a vote today. That’s fine. But we
have not gotten one sentence of feedback. What you like, what you don’t like, what
paragraph you want to massage, delete, amend, whatever. We need some direction. We
understand that there are some prepared statements. No one has given it to us. If you
help us, we’re willing to engage in dialog, progressive dialog, constructive dialog. We
think we have presented a good product. It’s a win-win scenario. But again, we can’t get
anywhere if we’re left to talk to ourselves. Please help us.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Dickinson, I understand and that go back to my attorney
again. Had he talked with you and your attorneys, had he got with us and showed us –
we only seen one document, we only seen one.
Mr. Dickinson: We have not seen a response, comments, we have not gotten
them.
Mr. Williams: Those are my statement, and that’s why I made those statement. If
we going do it, let’s do it right, let’s put everything on the table. We have not done that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In defense of our attorney, he’s had this
document, but you know, we all have the opportunity to discuss this document with him.
We know it’s been there. Everyone has had that opportunity, and not only has it been
circulated, it was given to you last week, even before this, even when Mr. Dickinson
presented it to us back some time ago, I think it was. But we’ve not given them the
opportunity to come and talk to us. I said that 20 minutes ago. We have not had any
25
dialog from the amphitheater people whatsoever, and we owe them that much. We owe
them enough to talk to us. If we’re not willing to listen, we’re not treating them right.
And the same thing applied when Mr. Simon and them came in. We did listen to them.
We have had time to review. We have had time go back and make what changes we felt
were necessary. That’s been done. You know, here we are, we’re starting to bicker
again. I can bicker all afternoon, I can stay here tonight, too, I’ll stay here tomorrow if
you want to. But let me tell you, we’re not going to get anywhere if all we’re doing is
showing the taxpayers and the people in this community that we don’t know what we’re
doing. And so I’m tired of that and I think we ought to – need to fess up and come in and
do what’s right and take the initiative to at least let the people know either we’re behind
this thing or we’re not behind it and let’s get on with the business of this community.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve talked with Jerry on a number of
occasions. I’m happy with the package, his plan.
Mr. Smith: Andy, can you talk in the mike?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir. I’ve talked with Jerry and I’m happy with the plan. I’m not
perfectly happy with the MOU for the civic arena but I’m happy that we’ve got a civic
arena planned and an MOU for that. Again, like I said earlier, none of this is perfect. As
the Mayor said earlier, the voters are going to decide whether they want these projects.
For every day, every hour, every minute we delay, not getting on board and moving
forward with these things, Lord knows we’ve had months to talk about all of this stuff,
and this is one of the things you haven’t heard from me on, is because I’m satisfied. I’ve
talked with the other guys, and the things - they addressed my concerns early on. But it’s
time to get on board and it’s time to pull together, folks. Every day we lose to bickering
and every time we put forth the public image that we’re going to fight every battle for
every inch and so forth, we jeopardize the entire SPLOST program. The voters will
decide whether they want an amphitheater, whether they want a civic arena, whether they
want a SPLOST package entirely. I, for one, am not looking forward to going back
through the debate again that we had these past couple of months and down selecting to a
lower dollar amount or shorter project list. I think we did a good job. Again, it isn’t
perfect, but we did a good job of looking out for our districts and the city as a whole. The
economic benefit of all those construction jobs, of all of that work going on and the
excitement it will generate by putting a new face on the city of Augusta, we have got to
collectively grab a hold of the vision that we can change the course this city is on and this
will be the starting point. But as long as we sit up here and bicker, we, we are a self-
fulfilling prophecy of all the negative things that people have said about us, and I believe
we’re better than that. I just urge – I mean we can talk, and again Lord knows, if you’ve
had issues with either one of these MOU’s you could have talked long before now. We
can talk a thing to death. Now it’s time to go to the voters with arms locked together and
working on this thing as a body. We need the SPLOST. We are seriously in trouble if
26
we don’t have it. And there’s no guarantee, as we said earlier, that we will pass it in
November if we don’t get it passed now. So we can pull out the fiddle and watch the city
of Augusta burn and do just like Nero did and call it poetry. Or we can all put our
shoulders together and like you have to do a lot of times when you get up in the morning
and go to work, it isn’t the funnest thing you’ve ever done but you do it because you have
to. This city needs the SPLOST initiative and we need to pull together on it and every
day we delay is a day we lose on working together to pass the package. I just urge
passage of this thing. Let’s move forward with it today.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. I asked questions on the first MOU I received and I
asked questions on this one. I’ve already had my questions outline that I was going to
ask and I’m prepared to ask the questions today, Mr. Dickerson. Under, on your third
th
page, under utilities, at the 5, number 5, where would this cost come from? I know it
says about the utilities and says will be timely available [inaudible] by the government –
this cost, is it already included in the total amount or will it be additional funds?
Mr. Dickerson: John, I think we’re talking about power and stuff?
Mr. Speaker: Right.
Mr. Dickerson: [inaudible] make sure if we need electrical power that it is there.
Mr. Hankerson: Is the cost included in, as in the money, in the SPLOST money?
That’s what I’m asking. Or is this in addition?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Simon?
Mr. Hankerson: Is this additional cost?
Mr. Dickerson: I think the assumption here is that in a normal course of business
that this is something the city or any municipality would normally do, would make sure
that the utilities are there. Which I think, considering – no, it’s not in the SPLOST. It’s
not a SPLOST expense, no.
Mr. Hankerson: It would be additional?
Mr. Dickerson: Yes. I think just from my familiarity of the site, the utilities are
there. The question is whether or not that would require a hookup to bring it over to this
part of the site. Cause you’ve got utilities throughout the park.
27
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] whether or not there is water, sewage, utilities out there.
I did not anticipate an additional cost or a part of the project itself [inaudible]
representing there are such [inaudible] utilities available [inaudible] accessing utilities.
Mr. Hankerson: Right. But I was just concerned from everything here that was
additional costs so we know what to expect. And on the access – I know on the access, I
know that we’ve already, talking about the ingress and egress, the road – the cost I have
that as number 7.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] 8.
Mr. Hankerson: Right. I address number 7. On the cost, is that additional cost?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] access roads for exiting were included in the project or
not, I had a brief conversation before this meeting with [inaudible] that is not included in
the development cost, I do not believe. The widening of Windsor Spring, obviously this
was in the SPLOST, I believe [inaudible] as well, and that’s one of the more critical
issues, I think. We initially in our conversations had asked that this language be
eliminated since that was a significant issue. And personally I don’t know how you are
going to four lane Windsor Spring and Willis Foreman prior to 2006, which is the
completion date of this [inaudible]. So I mean that’s something that may be beneficial
for the loan term project, but it’s not going to be able to be accomplished by 2006.
Mr. Hankerson: Yeah, we’re going to do it but I mean I’m just questioning, I’m
not, you know –
Mr. Dickerson: Let me comment on that. Jimmy, help me out here. How many
years ago was it when we first met and we talked about this site? And when I raised the
issue of infrastructure, and Mr. Mayor, please jump in with the time line. I was told that
the funding for widening the road had already been approved. So going on that
representation, you can understand my thinking that it’s just a matter of somebody giving
a work order to start the work. I’m assuming when you say it’s already been approved
that the money is there, we just haven’t scheduled the work to be done. So if I’m in error
in my interpretation of the representations made, then I respectfully apologize. But that’s
something that we can work out. What I’m assuming under the current status of things is
that the road widening work and the construction of the amphitheater will go
simultaneously. I mean ideally we would love to open that special week in April of ’06
but we’re not wedded to it.
Mr. Hankerson: I think it just have to be stated if it’s in the document.
Mr. Grantham: Let me ask you a stupid question, if you don’t mind. If we’re not
going to be wedded to ’06, then you know, are we issuing the bonds based on that? Are
we going to issue the bonds –
28
Mr. Dickerson: Let me qualify my statement when I said not the calendar year
’06. I don’t mean we’re wedded to that one week in April, sir.
Mr. Grantham: I understand that. But still, issuance of bonds are important based
on interest expense, and if the funds are not going to be used until the infrastructure is
completed.
Mr. Dickerson: No, no, no, no, no.
Mr. Grantham: If that’s the case, then we, we would like to have a time situation
involved with the bonds, Mr. [inaudible].
Mr. Dickerson: Commissioner Grantham, no, we won’t wait until the roadwork is
completed to start the construction. What we, I’m assuming on a worst case basis, is that
we would do them concurrently. Okay?
Mr. Grantham: That’s my point.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] if the road wasn’t, if it wasn’t being planned at this time
to be widened, is this a no deal for y’all?
Mr. Dickerson: No, it’s my understanding that the plan was done and approved
three, four years ago. Okay?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith is right here behind you. She can give you the correct
information right here.
Mr. Dickerson: Teresa, help us out here. She was in that meeting.
Ms. Smith: The concept for the Windsor Spring Road project is approved. We
are in the design stage, as far as moving forward with the design of the project. As was
presented to the Commission, we have requested additional funds for right-of-way. We
are also working with the Georgia Department of Transportation to have them to expedite
work on that project, based on the request that has been made. It is not anticipated that
we would not be able to commit at this time that all of the construction on the project
would be completed by April of 2006, but we certainly look forward to moving, moving
forward with the project and getting that construction work underway, that we would be
far into construction. But I wouldn’t be able to say that construction would be completed
by April of 2006. Actual moving the dirt, putting down the asphalt.
Mr. Mayor: You going down your list, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Right. I’m just going to ask all my questions.
29
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Hankerson: I’m asking my questions cause I hadn’t had any input. On 9,
about the, the question about the development authority. Is this a must that we must
continue to be a member of the Georgia Development Authority? I mean if – I was kind
of concerned about that one. I mean the contract based on we have to be a member or not
be a member.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Dickinson, if you’d move back from the Commission table,
please.
Mr. Speaker: It certainly has an implication that there would be an authority
[inaudible] in this matter, so I think that whatever the authority is, that it would be an
authority during the term of these bonds, for the construction. Typically [inaudible] of
this document, funding of the $8 million in additional bonds required in light of the
amount of funding [inaudible] approved in SPLOST probably [inaudible] authority
issuing a bond. [inaudible] which authority it would be, but there would be an authority
[inaudible]. So I think your question, the latter part of this, yes, there’s going to be an
authority there, whatever development authority it is that issues the bonds, they’ll have to
be around.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
Mr. Pernell: John Pernell. I work [inaudible]. The representation about the tier 1
is that [inaudible] tier 1 county. Well, you are a tier 1 county. The department of
community affairs has said you are. But I wanted y’all to say that.
Mr. Mayor: But there’s no guarantee we’ll continue to.
Mr. Pernell: No, no. [inaudible] what it is. No, there’s no guarantee, although
you can give a notice.
Mr. Mayor: We hope we’re not a tier 1 county very long.
Mr. Pernell: Right. Good point. You want to become no longer a tier 1 county.
But if this matter is approved in the referendum, then it is possible for this project to give
notice [inaudible] department of community affairs and have the project itself treated as
tier – for purposes of that project, to have it treated as if you are a tier 1 county, even if
you’re not. There’s nothing in the document about that. That’s just the way the
department of community affairs regulations work. The point about the joint
development authorities, I’m assuming right now that the county is a member – the
30
Augusta consolidated government is a member of a joint development authority, which
provides anybody who is providing employment with an additional jobs tax credit. All
we’re saying now is that you’ll, if you want to change it to best efforts that’s fine, but
that’s [inaudible] and hopefully will stay a member of a joint development authority
because that provides additional job tax credits for job creation. And if you want not to
be a member of a joint development authority, then we lose that [inaudible]. As to an
authority, you know, frankly I haven’t had time to thank about what kind of authority
would be appropriate for issuing the revenue bonds. [inaudible] so the language I used
was the appropriate authority. I didn’t contemplate creating one, I contemplated using
one that I found on the shelf, but I really don’t know what you’ve got in your grab bag of
authorities to use.
Mr. Hankerson: I want to ask a question, cause it says shall continue to be a
member, and I know that we’ve had some conversations about a joint authority before
and that’s the only reason I ask the question, whether it’s going to lock us in and for how
long.
Mr. Pernell: Okay.
Mr. Hankerson: That’s the reason I asked the question because it says we shall be
member of the joint development authority. These things, the attorney, I hope we look at
these things, some concerns that I have. And the other one, Jerry, is 11. On funding
[inaudible]. At the last four lines of that first paragraph [inaudible] designate one or more
persons to liaison with the company so as to provide timely review, comments and
approval. It says there will be charged fees for these services. Now is that – how pays
[inaudible] extra or is that – [inaudible] charge fees for these services? It says the
company, and that’s you.
Mr. Dickerson: that’s part of the project. So it would be a project expense.
Mr. Hankerson: That’s part of the project, part of the funding.
Mr. Dickerson: That would be a project expense.
Mr. Hankerson: So it’s already included, no additional?
Mr. Speaker: Part of the design-build contract [inaudible] that would be
[inaudible] they’re able to charge it back to the project.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. All right.
Mr. Mayor: Is that not what we have a contract with Heery to do? Or are we
paying twice for the same thing?
31
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] additional [inaudible]. The paragraph that says
[inaudible].
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Next one is under operating agreement. 12. The 25
years. I’m sorry – I sort of back up on these renewals and so forth cause it doesn’t have
[inaudible] to do with your company but it has something to do with Evergreen. It’s not
Evergreen but it’s kind of [inaudible] a little bit, so 25 years, does it have to be there? I’d
like to rather not see any renewal options, just be 25 years and if that’s a good job, we
give another 25 years. But the renewal options, that’s getting 25 years and asking for
renewal options of 15 years and [inaudible] 10 years.
Mr. Dickerson: Well, the reason that’s put there [inaudible] is enhance and
cultivate stability, and if things are going great, or even if it’s a little strained, you know,
you don’t want somebody to just able to walk out on you without any consequences. But
also, you don’t want, you know, that sword can cut both ways. But more importantly,
part of having an initial 25 year lease term is to give us the comfort level that we would
transfer that comfort level on to ancillary entities that will be contracted through us with
this venue. That way, we know who is going to be here and how long they are going to
be here. That has a profound impact on how well you can develop credibility of this
facility, how well you are going to attract corporate entities, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
And that’s the reason it’s in there. You want to be able to cultivate stability, particularly
if we’re doing a great job and everybody’s happy.
Mr. Hankerson: I don’t have a problem with the 25 years. I do have a problem
with the options to renew. That sort of thing.
Mr. Dickerson: It’s an option, Commissioner. It’s not an absolute. It’s an option.
Mr. Hankerson: But I’d just like to see that [inaudible] cause I’m [inaudible] on
the Evergreens and all that kind of thing.
Mr. Pernell: What we were initially going to suggest is that the length of the term
be tied to the bonds. We anticipate them being probably 25 year bonds, so that would tie
into 25 years that [inaudible]. If there was going to be an option [inaudible]increments,
you could have, you know, three five-year increments or whatever, but in light of you’re
already going out 25 years, it’s getting fairly excessive in our view [inaudible]. And we
certainly could take out the option, just simply saw that you negotiate a year before the
expiration of the primary term, in the option agreement, if you want to do it that way.
Mr. Dickerson: The down side to that is this. [inaudible] at the time we’re in the
midst of a relationship with a corporate sponsor, the problem - I anticipate there are going
to be several. You could lose them if they see where the operator has only five more
years here. We lose our leverage. So I’m not opposed to having the language tweaked,
but I would think you’re handicapping us and yourselves if you cut it down to five years.
32
If you want to make that option ten, ten and ten, that’s fine. But when you get down to
five years, we have little or no leverage when you’re trying to sustain corporate sponsors.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, Jerry, the reason – I told Augusta Entertainment the same
thing when they had 30 years in there. I said cut it back to 25. I can’t even accept no 30
years. So a lot of people had a problem with the length anyway, but we more
understanding after we been educated on it links in with the bonds. So that’s why I’m
saying 25 years. 25 years is a long time. I probably be able to vote on it again in 25
years, but it just – 25 years I think we, I mean the revocation in 25 years of managing and
dealing with the project, in 25 years we’ll probably have 25 fallouts, remarry again, by
the end of 25 years be willing if it’s going well, it’s going to be guaranteed that you’ll
continue to operate. I just, I don’t need to dwell on it. These are things that I just –
Mr. Dickerson: I understand that. But just as a sort of reference, these options
are not out of the ordinary. Same thing we have with the Lakewood amphitheater when
we did it. The term was 35 years. The first option was 15 years.
Mr. Hankerson: 13. The project. This is a lease. Is that right? The lease of a
project. And the first time you had it as an amount put in but I see it’s been now decided
that [inaudible] gross, so that’s – the city will get 4% of the annual gross, that’s what it is
on the lease?
Mr. Dickerson: That’s based on ticket sales. Gross ticket sales. Gross in the
industry – the same mechanism that the artist’s compensation is based on, which is net
gross, after taxes, same mechanism that rent is based on, after taxes. So technically, the
4% would apply to net gross, after the taxes are deducted from the time, then the
percentage kicks in.
Mr. Hankerson: So the city will get 4%?
Mr. Dickerson: After taxes.
Mr. Mayor: We don’t get any percentage off the advertising or any other income.
Mr. Dickerson: No, no.
Mr. Mayor: You’re saying we only get 4% of ticket sales.
Mr. Dickerson: There are multiple revenue streams in this, Mr. Mayor. The rent,
now we’re talking about the rent now, okay? The rent is calculated on net gross sales.
That means simply after taxes. Now –
Mr. Mayor: You just said ticket sales.
33
Mr. Dickerson: Right. Ticket sales for the event.
Mr. Mayor: Ticket sales is the same as net [inaudible]?
Mr. Dickerson: I’m using concern business lingo. Bear with me. Gross ticket
sales is what the rent is factored on. Gross minus taxes, net gross x 4%.
Mr. Mayor: That’s not what this says.
Mr. Dickerson: What does it say?
Mr. Mayor: It says 4% of annual gross project operating revenues. That’s what
you wrote in your agreement.
Mr. Dickerson: If you read further, it defines what gross revenues.
Mr. Mayor: Where?
Mr. Dickerson: After taxes. Give it to him.
Mr. Mayor: Where? Have you got a change you’re submitting here? I say do
you have a change that he’s submitting here, because it says here –
Mr. Dickerson: What he has is the same thing, but it defines –
Mr. Mayor: Gross operating revenues.
Mr. Dickerson: Right. It defines it.
Mr. Mayor: Why would that not be defined in the document?
Mr. Dickerson: Because you’ve got operation expenses, and then in operation
expenses you have costs you incurred, you recoup your expenses then you determine
what you made on the operations.
Mr. Mayor: Is not the rent of the property an operating expense? Why would the
landlord be paid after you paid everybody else off?
Mr. Dickerson: No, you’re getting paid gross on ticket revenues, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: What about advertising income?
34
Mr. Dickerson: That’s a separate revenue stream. You will participate in that,
too. What you’re talking about when you say advertising, you’re talking about
sponsorships; correct?
Mr. Mayor: Any other income other than ticket sales.
Mr. Dickerson: Exactly. You’re participating in everything. It’s not all 4%.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: I don’t see that in here, Jerry. I see the only revenue coming to the
city being the 4% of the annual gross project operating revenues in here. I don’t see any
other revenue sharing with the city in here. In fact, it says all the money is going to the
company, except for 50 cents on each ticket going to the neighborhood alliance.
Mr. Dickerson: Okay, fine.
Mr. Mayor: This is what it says here.
Mr. Dickerson: Right. This is the point where we were hoping to get to, to sit
down in a session, go through all the revenue streams and work out what the city’s
participation is.
Mr. Mayor: I was under the impression – excuse me for interrupting your line of
questioning, Mr. Hankerson. I was under the impression you all presented this to us, this
was your offer to us.
Mr. Dickerson: Mr. Mayor, it’s a, it’s a mechanism of facilitating dialog. I have
never heard of an MOU that was accepted on face value without some dialog. This was
to get us talking. We have been waiting for feedback. We’re getting it now, and I’m
grateful for it. But I suggest that what we do, if it’s a reasonable request, I don’t think
this is the forum to work through all those things. You participate in everything. But
there are some things where for instance when you get into food service operations, if
we’re buying hot dogs, why shouldn’t we recoup the cost of the hot dogs before we split
up profits, before we start paying you or anybody else? You participate in everything.
But in the gross ticket sales, after taxes come off the top, you get paid off the top.
Whether the show makes any money or not.
Mr. Mayor: That’s not what this says.
Mr. Dickerson: Mr. Mayor, that’s why we get into a room. If you would make a
[inaudible], if that’s the appropriate mechanism, to have your representatives get in a
room and let’s work it out. What we did was put a talking paper on the table, no different
than the Atlanta [sic] Entertainment guys.
35
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: I just had the questions. Those are my questions and I thought
this was a forum, the platform to ask question about the MOU today to discuss that.
Mr. Dickerson: They are valid questions, but I think if we’re going to get into the
intestines of this, I suggest that if Mr. Plunkett and Mr. Shepard are going to be your
representatives who represent your questions and finalize this deal, let’s go in a room.
It’s not that difficult. I assure you of that. It’s not that difficult. You participate in
everything.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Jerry?
Mr. Dickerson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Smith: You know originally when we first brought this up and we voted and
I voted against it and it was a reason, the widening of Windsor Spring Road. And after
that we agreed that this project would be done before the amphitheater would be opened
up. Is that what you understood or not?
Mr. Dickerson: It was always my intention and understanding that if the
completion of the construction of the amphitheater preceded the widening of the road,
then we would have to coordinate when we opened for events. It is not my intention to
open this amphitheater with just two-lane roads out there. So –
Mr. Smith: That was my question.
Mr. Dickerson: Right. And I said that the day we met and I’ve not backed off of
that.
Ms. Sims: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am?
Ms. Sims: I’m wondering maybe since we have more questions with your MOU
and that maybe it’s time to work out yours, could we go ahead and take a vote on the
MOU that we’ve already discussed and already had playback on and perhaps have your
MOU worked on and presented on Tuesday? I’m asking a question.
Mr. Mayor: The Commission may do what the Commission desires to do, Ms.
Sims. That’s fine.
36
Ms. Sims: I make a motion –
Mr. Mayor: We have two motions.
Ms. Sims: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: So we need –
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: To restate my motion, my motion was to go ahead and let the
voters decide.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I think we need to have – we have two motions on the floor, so we
need to have a vote on one of those motions [inaudible]. Now –
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] original motion [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: To defer it until Tuesday?
Mr. Cheek: Correct.
Mr. Shepard: All right. I think you need to know which version of this document
you are voting on, and if it was the versions that were handed out last time when I passed
out the versions, or whether you wish to hear what Mr. Plunkett has done with concerns.
I also have some potential litigation advice that I’d like to give this body, with respect to
this, that one of you brought up, and I’m happy to answer that question either on the
record here or in legal session. We do have a legal session that I hope we’ll get to
tonight, this afternoon actually, and I have several matters I’d like to bring before you.
This would certainly fit in that category. Here again, I think that you should have the
version you want to pass before you. Now if it’s the versions that were handed out
before, the policy choice, that’s yours. If you want to have further input and have our,
have my office meet with Mr. Dickinson’s attorney who is here, we can accomplish that
during legal session and bring it back. You could table this and that’s a non-debatable
motion which would take priority over both of these motions. You could table it, and
he’s invited us to talk today, have the feedback. Obviously there are two of us here. Jim
Plunkett has taken the lead in the MOU work from the beginning. That’s because I have
taken the lead in this other matter. So we will not waste time this afternoon if we do it
that way. And that would be my recommendation, as a matter of fact, that this matter be
tabled and we go into legal. I don’t need Jim in there. We can reduce that time spent
there and return, if you want to take the vote to send it to the voters today as is, fine. If
37
you want any changes, we are prepared to address those concerns. Either way you want
to do it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I have another question I guess concerning both MOU’s,
but my question at this point, though, because I will have my hand back up again. My
question, though, right now is I guess I’m questioning how do we move with taking – I’m
a little unsure, Mr. Shepard, about subordination of responsibility of this government.
Now I’m hearing a motion out there in reference to sending something to the voters. Is
there a place on the ballot that we deal with contracts as such that we do? And my reason
for saying that is that’s the only way you can send something to the voters is to send
something that’s there by contract. Now if the whole contract is going to be on a ballot
[inaudible], then I think that’s one issue. But I think unless you’ve got a mechanism of
putting contracts before voters, I think we’re shirking a little bit of responsibility. I think
up or down on contractual agreements, those are things that should be decided by the
Mayor and this Commission on where we got, not just to the point it sounds good. I think
[inaudible] let the people know what we’re doing, but the people, if it’s left up to say here
it is, the people don’t have I don’t think a microscope that they can look into the
contractual ability of what this government puts into place. I’m a little confused about
that subordination of responsibility, not only do – is there even a mechanism to do such
and that can that allowed to be a point of something that you deal with as a ballot issue?
If not, and I think that is something however long or short it takes that the government of
this city has to say up or down as to whether [inaudible] contractual agreement. I mean if
we did that, then everything that we would end up doing is like saying okay, we are going
to put the contract for the people who build the judicial center and what they’re going to
do, we’re going to send it to the voters, we’re not going to have a situation there of
whether we deal with [inaudible] or somebody else. Whether or not if deal with jail pods
or to who we’re hiring and how we do it, this goes to the voters. Those are fundamental
policy decision and my question as to whether or not the validity of the motion, however
good its intention may be, as to whether or not this body can subordinate a contractual
signing agreement [inaudible] before the voters. I have a real problem with that and I
need to know whether or not – it may have just been in the gist of how it’s presented in
the motion, but when we leave it to say okay, fine, the voters will decide, I think the
voters need to know what this Commission has decided as to how the operation of both of
these facilities will be and to make a decision on them. And that was why I was saying I
thought we’d use today as a point to, to, to, to discuss. I think it’s good dialog. I think
the questions that have been asked by both, so far with Mr. Dickinson, by the Mayor, and
by Mr. Hankerson in that regard. There will probably be other questions that will deal
with Mr. Simon and those, but I think to a point of when you’re saying we may be getting
tired of this agreement, remember this is the first time [inaudible]. The other thing I’ve
always had an old school problem with is when we deal with contracts in terms of how
we deal with negotiation. I look at it like battle plans. You form your own and then you
go in. And that is what your plan is from your point of strategy. Not to a point of how
38
you work out all the logistics to a point. I would have much rather seen some of these
people be comfortably in their offices, quite frankly, on both sides, and we sit here and
debate the merits of what we want to say, then vote on it and say this is our plan as to
what we need to tell Mr. Dickerson and we need to tell Mr. Simon, and if they say we
can’t live with this then we say okay, what can we live with, what sword do we die on?
And that applies to both sides. But I think when we’re in this to a point saying, cause it is
an open session, I don’t think we have anything to hide, but I’m just, I’m just sort of in a
query of where we’re going when we say we take this to the voters. I think the voters
have a resolution, they have a [inaudible] question, they have a decision as to how they
are going to do something, but all the inner mechanics of a contract, if that cannot be
placed on a ballot then I think the government needs to do its responsibility either today
or some other day and to vote on these procedures, up or down, and [inaudible] what they
are.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I could respond. The contract is not on the ballot.
What is on the ballot is the question whether to do the project and finance it as we’ve
indicated on the ballot, Mr. Mays. What the argument would be, are we going to present
the question to the voters with a MOU in place in each site or are you not going to have
an MOU in place at each site. I think that would just be the context in which you present
it. If you are gong to have the representation that the facilities will be built and financed,
then you are also going to be presenting a argument in favor of those facilities saying we
have experienced operators under memorandum of understanding, and so that may
enhance the passage of the message, excuse me, of the measure. And you have to make
that policy decision. You, do you go to the voters and say we’ve got this project, we’re
going to spend so much money, we have this proposed operator under these terms of an
operating agreement, because we’ve outlined that as, in this MOU. So that has got to be
the decision of this board. The other alternative, of course, would be that you go in,
approve it without MOU’s, and then if the voters approve the projects you could continue
these discussions with both of these operators or determine that another operator might be
more suitable. That’s, that’s a pure policy choice. Now I think however you as an
individual and however you as a body regard the best way to sell this message to the
voters, you know, with MOU or without MOU, I think that’s a policy decision.
Mr. Mays: I think you’ve answered my question in that I was a little confused as
to the motion itself. And how we were moving with that. Because the only thing I was
going by was what was made and what was seconded, that we send this to the voters.
Now I agree that – and that’s why I wanted us to have a discussion [inaudible] get with
these parties and try and get something done and get it worked out, ask the questions
[inaudible] but I was just a little confused [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: If you’re asking me as a rule whether we could “send this contract
to the voters” – is that a valid motion, is that what –
39
Mr. Mays: I guess that’s where I was going because [inaudible] sending it to
them, we were like, in other words, to a point going to move per se without trying to
work or ask certain questions of either party. That’s just – let me run the tape backwards.
Had we voted 45 minutes ago on just what was there to do it, there would have been
probably no dialog between Rev. Hankerson and Mr. Dickerson or dialog between Mr.
Young and Mr. Dickerson. We would have said okay, fine, we move. Now it didn’t
necessary change to a point of what’s there but we’ve also reached a point [inaudible] we
need to talk more in reference to there were some things in Mr. Dickerson’s MOU to a
point this is the first time that we have been dealing with it, and they may not be serious
concerns that change the magnitude of what’s going on, but this is why you have the
dialog, and I think with either group. And that’s all I was trying to get clear here, as to
what the motion really meant. It was a little unclear to me as to where it was going.
Mr. Shepard: I agree with you. You are the presiding officer at this point and
you are making – well – and I’m the parliamentarian. I’ll take you off the hook, but I’m
not going to get myself off the hook. My ruling, if it were requested, would be that
would not be a valid motion, to send the contract to the voters. Our resolution [inaudible]
both of – the construction of both of these projects to the voters.
Mr. Mays: That’s where I was trying to get through. You know, you answered it.
Mr. Shepard: Okay.
Mr. Mays: You’ve answered me in that. I just wanted to get some clarity as to
how that was being said and what was being done.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor is back. Mr. Hankerson had his hand up, and Ms. Sims.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Hankerson: I just wanted to ask question, and my questions [inaudible]
whether [inaudible] but I just wanted to be clear on it, have an understanding of what I
was voting on, so if the attorney and Mr. Dickinson, you know, [inaudible] discussion on
some things that needed to be worked out in it, then we could move forward as it was
suggested [inaudible] move forward with both of them.
Mr. Dickerson: Did you complete your questions?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
Mr. Dickerson: Okay.
40
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: My question is, I would like the motion read, and don’t we need to
vote on the motion that’s on the floor if there’s no further discussion? Is there a motion
still on the floor? I know Commissioner Cheek removed his.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek doesn’t have the authority to remove a motion. A motion
can be withdrawn with the consent of the body.
Ms. Sims: Well [inaudible], do we need to vote on that?
Mr. Mayor: We haven’t gotten to that yet. Actually, Mr. Cheek just said that. He
wasn’t recognized and didn’t have the floor when he said it. When he comes back up
here, I’ll recognize him to do that and we’ll see if the body consents to withdrawing that.
Mr. Shepard: I think you should do that right now.
Mr. Mayor: We can do that right now. All right, the chair recognizes Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, it’s so nice to be recognized. I will present for the body
to withdraw my motion.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a request from Mr. Cheek withdrawing his motion. Is the
consent from the body to allow the maker of the motion to withdraw his motion? And
that’s the motion to defer this until Tuesday. Is there objection? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, can I hear the reading of both motions before giving
consent?
Mr. Mayor: Certainly. Can you read them?
The Clerk: The substitute motion of Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr. Andy Cheek,
was to send them to the voters for approval, meaning the MOU’s. The original motion
was to defer to the Commission’s October 5 meeting for consideration and discussion.
Mr. Shepard: And Mr. Mayor, for the benefit of you, when you were out of the
room, Mr. Mays and I had a colloquy in which I was requested to make a ruling on
whether we could send the contracts to the voters, and I ruled we could not, so that’s not
an appropriate motion. So – now – the question is do you consent to the withdrawal of –
Mr. Mayor: The original motion.
41
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: If we going, when we remove this and I always like for a person to be
able to remove their motion if they so desire, since they made it, but if we’re going to, to
move back to the original motion that, that we send to the voters these MOU’s then I
need clarity. Does that mean simply what the attorney said while you were, we were
talking that we vote for the MOU’s as they are today?
Mr. Mayor: Well, let me just state, if I can clarify, cause I’m the one that said
take the MOU’s and send them to the voters. But my suggestion was to just go ahead and
approve them and in that context, giving the voters the opportunity to vote on the projects
as a part of the SPLOST, they in effect would also be voting on the contracts. On the
MOU’s, I mean they wouldn’t – the MOU”s wouldn’t be on the ballot as a separate item,
and that is the context in which I presented it. I did not make a motion, as the record will
reflect.
Mr. Mays: And my reason for questioning that, Mr. Mayor, is the fact that that’s
why I specifically brought out what was be on the ballot, is because people can vote on
any item that’s there, yea or nay, but to the point of understanding the contractual
agreement that this city is in, to leave it to them to know what it is without seeing
wording or dealing with it, I think is a bit much inasmuch as we’ve got a cumbersome
ballot in itself. That was why I was hoping that this group would work out the details of
the contractual agreement and have the proper discussion that’s there. That was why I
was – when I said partial agreement with Andy’s motion, I hate to see him withdraw it
from the standpoint I thought we were getting through with all of our discussion, leave
some things that might be there on the table rather than run the risk – and it may be to a
point and I may be in a minority when I say this, Mr. Mayor, is that I hated to see to a
point that we, we, we, we [inaudible] when Don and I had this conversation a few
minutes ago, I, I, I, I, regardless of what sides anybody may be perceived to be on, I hope
we don’t cast a vote to a point that if we, we are mad or glad about something. I think we
ought to cast it on the fact of the nature of the business for the city of Augusta, whether
it’s good, whether it’s form, whether they’re sound, and most of all, whether we know
what we’re voting on, and its details. [inaudible] this language about we’ve had it for a
long time. But when – and I’ll comment to that. If I’ve had something for a long time
and I think probably I may be guilty, I probably have been more vocal about asking
questions in reference to one of these documents more so than anybody else – Mr. Simon
made a comment a few minutes ago that where we need to do this or not do it. I want to
see us be able to, to, to hopefully do it and to do it with both parties that we are working
with. But I think have been probably more than anybody up front, frank, and if asked the
questions, and like I say, when you’re in a minority in a democratic process you go as the
vote goes and it rules. But the questions that I have asked [inaudible] with very long
change on one of these memorandum, I questioned a lot of different things in categories
42
on here, one of them I got blamed for I didn’t even start. But I’ve asked questions about
it even back down to the size of sports arena and what I ran into was everything was
predetermined, it was set, it had been done and with things like that, when I’m invited to
a meeting, I don’t call that input, I call that sanctioning. And I have a little bit of a
problem when I’m asked to sanction something as opposed, Mr. Mayor, to give input to
it. Because the questions I get, for instance, from lay people on the street, simple
questions. Here we are fixing to spend over $100 million to deal with one of these
projects, and the question, for instance, that particularly young people will ask me, is it –
how is it that you all will build an arena that costs almost double what Carolina’s arena
was spent for and yet you’re seating less than 10,000 for basketball and 12,000 maximum
seat capacity for what you’re doing with the full arena? You’re going at one at $60
million that’s being dealt with that seats 21,000 people and 19,000 basketball. Those are
the kind of questions you get when you’re in there on the front line. Those are the kind
that young people ask you and to deal with because you’re talking about a sports arena. I
want to know specifically, just as I did two years ago, what market not so much are we
saving but what market we may potentially be pricing ourselves out of. If this is to be the
future to do it, then I’d much rather gamble to a point that the same mistake is not made
[inaudible] civic center. It was to be dealt with for 14,000 people and the first thing that I
heard five years after it was built that it was too darn little to do stuff with. I think it’s a
perfect situation for the entities that already come here. I think it’s perfect for the
hockey, I think it’s perfect for the horsing events. But what about the other things for the
future that you want to build or potentially build? How then does it size up? Those are
the questions I get and I think to a point as a local government representative that when
it’s compared and they tell me that close to 90% of the funds came from – I’m just
comparing two places – out of USC’s athletic budget, that between Richland County and
Lexington County and the city of Columbia, they got less than $10 million in the project.
I don’t have a problem if we finance it 100%. That’s not my argument. I want to just
make sure that if we build it, that we build it big enough, that we build it right, and that
we are not looking at something that we move in and it’s like the jail, the last civic center
and everything we move into, it’s too darn small the day after we build it. Now I was
honest enough to ask that question when we first met at the Pinnacle Club. I’m still
looking at the same numbers I was looking at two years ago. Now it may be I’m all
wrong. I can’t [inaudible] y’all know that. But I think I have a responsibility to ask that
when I have people who ask me those type of questions as to why we are not doing it and
we compare even a sense of what Greensboro, North Carolina had 25 to 30 years ago
when they did not have the major college institution but they built an arena big enough
that would deal with everything that they could do and were dealing with 15,000 to
17,000 seats over a quarter of a century ago and here we are at something that will seat
less than 3,000 than the building that we’ve got that’s over there. I think it’s a beautiful
building. I think the rendition is top notch and first class. But I think to a point if we’re
going to get in that kind of debt, are we getting our money’s worth to do it and what are
the line items to a point that we may potentially lock ourselves out of? Now my
questions have not changed, nobody from this Commission, nobody from Augusta
Entertainment can say that Willie held back on what he asked. I been public and up front
43
with what I’ve asked. And the things about the board, the things about the makeup, I
[inaudible] that question, I’ve been to the attorney. I’ve asked one that he’s probably
going to deal with us in legal, but it’s a question. And so if people are comfortable with
doing that and moving with it, then if the votes are there to do that in that manner, then I
suggest you vote and do that. I will deal with it and I will still be out there championing
and trying to get us to get stuff passed, but I think I have a responsibility and at least a
right to still ask and to emphasize those types of questions. I was brought into that
meeting, Mr. Mayor, when you first invited me to come over and said we are going to
talk about this thing. That’s when we were trying to get money from Aiken, Columbia
County as well. [inaudible] whole deal of [inaudible] the project. And I asked on the
first day that I was there and [inaudible] done? I mean [inaudible] whole lot of
[inaudible], and I asked those questions to a point you know when I’m told by somebody
that they changed all that they can change, and I was still asking some of the same
questions I was asking. And if that means y’all hadn’t changed and some of the stuff, I
mean, I hadn’t changed, then that means I’m probably to a point that at least in terms of
telling me why, I can be probably convinced to say okay, fine, we ought to build it tiny.
It ought to be small. And I got that answer, too. I remember Mr. Morris telling me
sometimes that if people thought that they couldn’t get a ticket, that was a sell-out, that
was a good thing and they’d rush to do it and to buy them. I don’t think you’re going to
attract NCAA for Division I tournament, to get them to come to that, you do? You’ve
got an excellent chance of making this more than just a border bash at the Augusta
Common for UGA and USA football. You’ve got the Bobcats and the Hawks that ought
to be playing here. One’s new, one’s rebuilding. But to a point of getting them in a
9,000 seat arena, they just as well take them to Augusta State or take them anywhere they
got. Those are the kind of things I wanted to talk about. I’d rather take my risk and
[inaudible] if we going to be a part of something, do it right, build it big enough from the
get-go so that if it’s, if it’s got empty seats for some of your events, so be it. But then if
you attract something else, you can make it full. Those are the kind of things I’m saying.
I am not against to a point who is doing it. My preference is that it gets done, hopefully
with the folk who are at the table. You all have got some fine events you bring to this
city. They are there, they are in place, who live here. I’m not out to see us trying to find
nobody else. But to a point when I think you ask those kind of questions, those are the
things that I have to answer to the average citizen who asks me why then are you not
doing it on this basis when they look at the bottom line and say this is what we are
spending, this is what we’ve done in other cities, you know, to build. I mean they getting
ready to talk about building $400 million a whole new baseball stadium in Washington,
D.C. that seats 50,000+ folk that’s going to be there. And here we are over $100 million
and we’re going to [inaudible] than what we got? I got a real problem with that still.
And I can say, I can say I can be wrong. But those are my type of questions, Paul, that I
still have got, that I still have a problem with. And I’ll stop with that.
Mr. Simon: Can I respond to that?
44
Mr. Mayor: Just a minute. Let me clarify where we are in trying to do business
because we had the request to withdraw the motion. There was no objection, so the chair
will rule –
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Mays: I –
Mr. Shepard: I was going to say – I don’t mean to speak for the Mayor Pro Tem,
but I think we need to have that clearly, that the body has no objection and unanimous
consent, and I don’t know that that’s been –
Mr. Mayor: I was trying to get it and then the Mayor Pro Tem –
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: If you object then –
Mr. Mays: Yes, I do, and that’s why I want to leave but of them on the table.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. The substitute motion, as I understand the parliamentarian has
ruled that was not a valid motion, so that would die a natural death and there would be no
substitute motion on the table. So the original motion to defer this until Tuesday is made
by Mr. Cheek. There was objection to withdrawing that motion, so that motion will
remain on the table. All right. Now we understand where we are this afternoon. Mr.
Simon, you may proceed.
Mr. Simon: Mr. Mays, first of all, I think the document that you’re talking about
has been changed seven times, so we have changed a lot of the things that you spoke
about. That’s the management, the minority situation and several other –
Mr. Mays: I need to correct you, Mr. Simon. That minority situation was not
authored, issued or questioned by this Commissioner. It was questioned by this
Commissioner when it came into the document because some other people raised it, and
this Commissioner was called to a meeting to meet with African American business folk
asking why I wouldn’t support it and I told them it wasn’t worth the paper it was written
on because the city had no procedure or ordinance to get it done. So I think we need to
make that correction on record. That was not one of my statutes in there. What I did tell
those folk as I’ve told you all is that if you have named the construction company, if you
have named the people who are going to do all the management, if you’ve named the
board, and you can make the minority piece work because you’re handling it – on your
words – the private sector can make it work better – but if the private sector can make it
45
work better, you have the capacity in the private sector to do that already. And what you
put in here to make best efforts work on minority participation, best efforts what are
normal in circles that minorities have to deal with is not being anything, because best
efforts, if there is no law, if there is no ordinance it turns into being nothing. So I need to
make that correction on the record.
Mr. Simon: On that –
Mr. Mays: That was not my [inaudible].
Mr. Simon: We do have commitments from both the architect, the architectural
firm, and the contractor to live up to the numbers. And the document, the document
reads like it is because of the recommendations of your lawyer. And so we’ll change that
part of the document any way you want to, but we have, we have to, you know, go
according to your lawyer.
Mr. Mays: Again, that wasn’t my talking.
Mr. Simon: Okay.
Mr. Mays: My part was about the makeup of the board. I questioned about the
co-mingling, I questioned about the reference to the [inaudible] and my questioning in
reference to size and about the money we were spending dollar for dollar. Those were
the ones Willie did.
Mr. Simon: All right.
Mr. Mays: The other part – [inaudible] I get blamed for enough, Paul. Don’t
worry about that [inaudible].
Mr. Simon: [inaudible] But we have changed it to the point that it’s just, we’ve
given in on every issue that you’ve asked for, tried to make adjustments accordingly, but
what I said a while ago was that we think we’ve changed it to the extent that those of you
who have been involved want it, wanted the changes, and we just don’t think it works to
change it any more. I mean that’s kind of where we are with it. That’s why I’m saying
we’re ready for the vote.
Mr. Mays: And I’m just as ready as you are.
Mr. Simon: Now let me ask you one other thing, explain one other thing. The
size of the arena. Now as I’ve told you, I’ve been out talking in the county, all over,
there are a lot of questions that come up. That has come up a number of times. Are you
building it big enough? And we continue to answer that by saying our experts who have
looked at it and who made the recommendation of it, the size, for this size community,
46
that’s what they recommendation. I’m going to get called to come up here and talk about
that, but we are larger than Columbus and we are smaller than Greenville. We are a
bigger market than Columbus, we’re a smaller market than Greenville. So we fit right in
there, and he recommended, these folks recommended the proper size to build for us.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I won’t take up much of your time. In response,
Commissioner Mays, to your question about size, this is an issue that we have been
concerned about. We did, and do appreciate your input in that regard. Let me briefly
give you a history of the sizes of facilities. Greensboro, you spoke about Greensboro.
Greensboro built a 24,000 seat building, which now has been downsized. Charlotte built
a 24,000 seat facility that now in the new building that’s going up next fall is down
almost 30%. So the procedures that you see now in history of sizes of building are much
smaller than what originally in the 80’s and early 90’s they were building. All the
facilities that you’re seeing now are built down to much lower capacities than the
previous arenas and stadiums. So we’re going with what we think is the future of
facilities in this size community. We think we’re going to be able to get college
basketball. It is actually a little bit bigger for hockey than we need, but we think it will
attract all the concerts that we need. But bigger than this will cause greater expense, and
we think this is the future. We see it, we’ve trended it, we know what the communities
around us are doing, all over the country. Smaller is better. We did listen to what you
said, we actually have the ability, I might add, by architectural design, to expand if we
see the need is there. That’s our thinking, when you raised that question early on.
Mr. Mays: Let me, let me, let me respond to a couple of things in there. And I
appreciate it. Y’all have been totally professional from the day I met you to, to, till now.
But wouldn’t some of that, and I’m asking from a layperson’s term, depend upon what
you’re trying to attract and trying to place? I mean you mentioned Charlotte, about going
down. Greensboro obviously has some factors to a point that I think we both can agree
on. Cameron indoor [inaudible] wasn’t there. Dean Dome wasn’t in North Carolina. So
to a point maybe they had two competing venues that [inaudible] go down. But the Omni
went from a bigger place when they Phillips Arena. I was there at the Prince concert,
I’ve been there since, 26,000 or 27,000 people there. The Omni at its top price and full,
in-the-round concert will seat less than 20,000 people. So I mean I think to a point if you
[inaudible] on what you want. And I know professionally y’all have to make that blend.
But the problem I see is that it probably does not need to be, and I think you’re absolutely
correct, you don’t need to be building [inaudible] Omni by any means. We’re not in that
market [inaudible] to do. What just scares me to a point is that if in the final analysis
when the dust settles we are less than 3,000 seats bigger than what we’ve got and we’ve
spent over $100 million to do it, because when you add in the interest to speed up and to
jump start it, when you put in what’s there in sales tax, when you deal with possible
bonds, and not even putting in any expenses that we might assume for the possibilities of
a white elephant sitting across the street, that we’ll be responsible for paying for those
bonds and of getting it out of the way. We’re there with that kind of building to a point
where would we be better of – and I agree with you, it may be a little big for hockey, but
47
is it big for hockey to a point of whether you’re trying to have just your minor league
team that’s in here that you’ve got [inaudible] to a point on one or two nights as to
whether or not you’ve got the team [inaudible] and you’ve got your team from Charlotte
that’s in here? Where I’m looking at that is a future of where our money – you say
you’ve got the right to expand and I think that’s good to have that. But we are not like
Atlanta where we can got and put a [inaudible] Fulton County stadium and build Turner
Field. You know, Ted’s got a lot of money. They got folks in there. We got folk who
are coming to us for 100% of the public funds for what they need. [inaudible] very little
of it. And we don’t have a funding source to return to to a point if you get ready to
expand and build an additional 5,000 seats – my thing is to a point I’d rather see us make
the commitment for the future and do it then as opposed to having something to a point of
why didn’t we do it that way? And I think that what scares a lot of people, and I’m
talking about people who vote, is that they see too much of a history of Augusta building
small. And I think that has to factor into this somewhere with what you’re doing.
Jailhouse too small. [inaudible] too small. Got a new one built that we got to expand.
Civic center too small. I’m [inaudible]. I understand, Jim, to a point if there are
questions, [inaudible], it’s smaller than it was intended to be. Everything we ended up
with to a point it gets to be small. But yet when people see the dollar signs that are
equated with it, they look – when they walk into a [inaudible] say I’m paying this for this,
then you know the question I have is [inaudible] figure this based on what was there or
[inaudible] what you got [inaudible], what you got with minor league hockey, and what
you drawing already, or are you looking at what a potential of what we need to be
promoting and what we don’t have? My dream is to deal with what we don’t have.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] what we do have.
Mr. Speaker: And you’re right. And our vision has been what is Augusta going
to be 20 years from now. You’re right. But in the meantime we have to maintain a
prudent operation, and the future of arenas is smaller, rather than larger. I mean all the
entertainers will tell you now they appreciate working in intimate environments, rather
than the larger environments. The Elton John, the major concert people that we want to
see here in Augusta are looking to smaller venues, than larger venues. That’s the future.
That’s what we work hard on trying to find out what are we going to be like, Augusta, ten
years from now, 15 years from now, and bigger is not what’s happening. We want to
maintain a strong position in the entertainment industry. The way to do that is to run an
efficient operation, one that can be successful, and we think this is the size facility that
we need and can support.
Mr. Mays: Well, I’m still thinking to a point and like I say, you’re the
professional, I can’t, I can’t question that. I can’t build a chicken coop to [inaudible] but
– and I got to depend on what y’all say in terms of giving that type of advice. But when
I’ve got to relay the information and say it to the average person, Willie, why should we
48
vote for this to a point of when it is this size and where it is? I do think you’re correct,
I’ve seen some of those entertainers that say wouldn’t play the Fox years ago that would
rather be in the Fox than Phillips. But when I was there with the 24,000 or 25,000 people
just recently to see Prince, I know to a point it had would have been three dates at the
Omni as opposed to two dates at Phillips Arena. There are going to be some folk who are
going to like that magnitude, some won’t. What I’m worried about is [inaudible] dent in
those and [inaudible] to a point I’ve seen what happened in Albany, for instance, a few
years ago. Got the SEC women’s tournament. I doubt seriously with [inaudible] the
success of Auburn [inaudible] University of Georgia, you’ve got probably one of the two
hottest women’s conferences in basketball, they won’t get that [inaudible] with what they
seat down there. And we and them will be the same size, we’ll be a little bit bigger than
them in basketball. My thing was [inaudible] and we be able to get some of those deals
that are there and it won’t be a question as to whether we can hold them. That’s where I
wanted to see it [inaudible] going to be in that kind of [inaudible], do it right from the
beginning and not question it. My perception of [inaudible] honest with you, Mr.
[inaudible], but the fact that when this was driven, it would be a comfortable facility for
what we had, and obviously will be a pleasant [inaudible] that will be a step above of
what we’ve got, and obviously to a point of cutting out a lot of confusion, but I don’t
mind saying that [inaudible] current management and what’s there. But to a point that
should we concentrate on that being the only thing we want to have? I mean yeah, we are
going have some empty seat to a point with a minor league hockey team we probably
[inaudible] and still get a seat in there anywhere. But to a point of other things that you
want to compete on, I just, and I’m not saying we get up into that 18,000 bracket, but I’m
just concerned to a point that when you drop back to four figures, and I got to tell
somebody [inaudible] stand up in a neighborhood association and I got to sell it, and
somebody say what do you get if you had UGA and Kentucky or UGA and Arkansas,
what you got? And I tell them, I say we have 9,500 seats [inaudible] somebody out with
that deal, we ain’t going to beat Stegeman out as it is [inaudible] but I think we got
something else to offer them to come down here and to a point you bring a good SEC
game and it’s big enough to house the people and to do it, but they’re [inaudible] I don’t
think for a place that seats four figures of folks in order to do it. And we’re not going to
beat out Carolina cause they got [inaudible]. So they are going to keep their stuff over
there that seats 19,000 folks. I ain’t saying we go that kind of big, but I think somewhere
in between what we got and what they’ve got to a point at least takes us up in some of the
numbers that we have. That’s the kind of thing. I ain’t, I ain’t, I ain’t trying to be, be, be
negative and cast down. Everything I’m saying is something I’m hearing from a lay
standpoint. But to a point that people who end up voting will not be, they will not share
your expertise, they will not even have the opportunity to have the conversation with you.
I probably even, if you sell it to me, it’s hard for me to sell that to some folk that I’m
going to have to sell it to, to a point of saying if we in this much debt [inaudible] when
they see ours to a point and saying our market area, look at what we’re spending, and
look at what a lot of these other places are spending, when you put the bottom line dollar
down there, we will have spent more money than any of those places spent and we will
have the smallest arena that’s brand new of any of them that you are going to check on.
49
And to some of them, that becomes a question. That was the question that I had cause I
want to try to help sell it, too. But I’m tired of driving different places and looking at
other stuff. I want to be able to do it at home. Get tired, and I can just go on home when
I get ready to leave. See the games, I’m through. But those are just my kind of questions
I was throwing out there.
Mr. Speaker: We have the same vision that you have, Commissioner Mays. We
want this to be a very successful facility, and we really have worked hard at trying to, to,
to do everything we can to present to you a facility that will be successful, that will get all
the events that you talk about. Yeah, we’re not going to be able to compete with the,
with the Atlantas and Columbias and some places, but we are going to be able to compete
with the markets that we look to for growth and development here in Augusta. In
Greenville, for example, we do have the SEC women’s tournament coming to Greenville
this year. And I must tell you that that’s a 15,000 seat facility and we’re having trouble
selling tickets for that tournament. But we’re delighted to have the SEC women, but it is
a difficult sell. This size facility that we’re talking about in Augusta would be perfect for
the SEC women’s college basketball tournament. We’ll go after it and we’ll get it. But
I’m telling you size is important when you consider number of seats and what’s
happening around the country in terms of selling tickets today. With all the proliferation
of entertainment on television and other facilities, people aren’t going as regularly to
events as they once did. So intimate facilities are very, very important in the future
development of facilities and arenas.
Mr. Mays: I would certainly hope that if, if Greenville did something, and that’s a
new arena and it’s nice and you all did a magnificent job over there, but I would hope
that to a point being in the 15,000 bracket, you know, sometimes you got to think out of
the box in terms of not where your fears are but where your visions are. You know, I tell
the story sometimes to a point folk said I’d be out of business and lose the election in the
same year, and I beat five folks, didn’t deal with [inaudible] came out of Bankruptcy
Court and [inaudible] I didn’t get a car, I bought a whole yard full of them, and I’ll be
through paying for my stuff next year. Out of the way. But I took a gamble and stepped
out enough to a point I wasn’t going to deal with one vehicle, I deal with a fleet full of
them and changed my whole image of what I was dealing with. I think if you think small
you’ll be that way. If you’re talking about selling the tickets over there, I think if the
teams are ranked you’re going to have some [inaudible] there are still some guys who
think the ladies don’t provide an exciting [inaudible] of basketball. I’m one of those that
think the other way. I’ve been to two of the last three NCAA championships. I was there
at the Georgia Dome with [inaudible] to see a women’s event and to a point that’s more
than the Hawks would have [inaudible] at a time. But the point being if you think small,
and I just, I just have a problem with what we’re spending and the size of what we’re
getting, that if we’re taking that kind of risk and it’s on public, you know, it’s on public
money, you know my thing is you’re getting a financed product, you have no obligations
within your contract to take any losses, and you getting all your money, you stepping to
the plate first, you’ll be the first project to come out the chute. And you got less risk than
50
anything we got going. Then you know, for a deal like that, you ought to at least want to
have some vision of the future than being and confining it to some little rinky-dink place
that ain’t 2,500 seat bigger than what you’ve got. Now that’s just me off the wall saying
that. But I think to a point there are going to be people that’s asking that question in the
same kind of manner when they vote on it.
Mr. Simon: I think one of the things, too, is the design of this facility. It’s going
to be so much better than what you’ve got here that the seats – I mean a lot of the seats
you’ve got here aren’t usable, as you know.
Mr. Mays: I’ll agree with you 110%.
Mr. Simon: So once you get usable space of this design, it’s going to be much,
much better, so I think that will be much better.
Mr. Mays: Oh, I totally agree with you there, Mr. Simon, in terms of that upgrade
and doing it. But you know, I also look at it to a point you know, you got a facility and
obviously it looks good. I mean as far as how the design would look, your places – I
mean I’ve seen some of the ugliest buildings in the world that seat a lot of people. The
Metrodome in Minnesota, hope y’all didn’t have nothing to do with it, [inaudible], but
it’s one of the ugliest buildings in the whole world, inside and outside. But to a point it
seats the people for the capacity for what you need. And I’m just saying to a point that
maybe you know are we short-selling ourselves on what we need to go after? That’s my
only thing that’s in there. You know, are we going to take that leap, we need to take it
big enough to say we are bold enough to take this step or are we going to stay where we
are? And I think we will have the [inaudible] falling apart, but you say it’s the prettiest
little airport in America. We’re little and it was pretty. The arena is going to be a
beautiful place but it will not [inaudible] to a point where you are comparative on every
level. And [inaudible] giving those seats away. You mess around [inaudible] you’ll be
scrambling to get the tickets [inaudible] will have them out. You won’t have no problem
filling up Greenville, but to a point if you’ve got [inaudible] and they’re ranked, we
won’t be able to go head-to-head with them, with 3,000 less seats, no matter how pretty
your building is. And that’s the kind of thing I’m looking at.
Mr. Simon: I don’t think these folks would recommend it, but if we could add
2,000 seats would you provide the money to do that? I mean that’s another issue. It’s
going to take a lot more money to provide more seats than we’ve got. But I don’t think
they’d recommend it even if they had the money.
Mr. Mays: Well, it’s getting back to what I was saying about [inaudible] for the
dollar. I mean you know, somebody can build [inaudible] that you need some more
money, somebody else has built something with 21,000 seats at $60 million, you building
me one for 12,000 that’s getting $100 million then I need to ask you whether or not y’all
51
be getting more seats out of what we are giving you, not to a point of where we give you
some money to give us some more seats. I think [inaudible].
Mr. Simon: Depending on what quality you want. Now you just said a moment
ago what a nice, quality – and that’s what we want, a first class, quality - not like what
we’ve got around here.
Mr. Mays: I understand.
Mr. Simon: A quality facility that would serve the needs, and that’s what we
think we are doing.
Mr. Mays: And I know if you and Billy have anything to do with it, if you’ve got
breath, it’s going to be first class.
Mr. Simon: No questions about it.
Mr. Mays: Paul, I just want it to be big and first class. Bigger than what you got.
We got [inaudible] I’d just like to see it to a point bigger than what we got. Cause I think
if you’re selling something, remember now, we still selling something. There are going
to be people to a point that if you sell something that can compete – I learned this from
you, you’ve got to have something in there to get folks [inaudible]. To a point if there’s a
down side to this thing, we don’t want to miss that market either. We got two jobs to do.
Get folk in the place after you get it there. We got to get it built. You ain’t going to sell
it to a point if those kind of questions are raised by people who won’t have the
conversation with Paul Simon. And I can’t sell it as eloquently as you can sell it.
Mr. Simon: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
(Laugher)
Mr. Mays: Well, I tell you what, I been going a lot lately, but the lines are a lot
shorter. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: The attorney has indicated he has some legal advice he wants to
share with us with respect to [inaudible] might be appropriate if we go into legal session
for the purpose of hearing from the attorney on this [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I think that – I don’t know if any other presenters want
to be heard, but my recommendation would be that you have a motion to lay it on the
table and then could bring it back. I have a legal session, where I would like to address
other matters. If I could address all of them.
52
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, we could.
Mr. Mayor: Go home, get dinner, watch the debate tonight.
Mr. Simon: Could I say this? We’ve been working with y’all for a long, long
time and the, this other arena came along later. I don’t think we should be held while you
are still negotiating with them.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] legal [inaudible]. Mr. Shepard has some advice he wants
to impart to us.
Mr. Simon: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: Glad you made that observation, Paul, cause [inaudible] be smaller
when I get through with him.
th
Mr. Speaker: Paul, I’ve been getting mine from him ever since I was in the 8
grade.
Mr. Mayor: Could the chair get a motion then to go into legal session?
Ms. Sims: So move.
Mr. Mayor: So our attorney can –
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. All in favor of the motion please vote
with the usual sign. Let’s go right into legal.
[LEGAL MEETING]
5. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll call the meeting back into session. The Commission has come
out of legal meeting. The chair will entertain a motion authorizing the Mayor to execute
the affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting law.
53
Mr. Mays: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: The chair will recognize Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. With great frustration, I request the removal
of my motion from the table and put it before the body.
Mr. Mayor: Well, it’s on the table. It’s up for a vote, if you want to move the
order of the day, we’ll take it up.
Mr. Williams: Call the question.
Mr. Cheek: Remove it from the table first.
Mr. Mayor: Well, it never was tabled.
Mr. Shepard: It hasn’t been withdrawn. It’s the only motion on the floor.
Mr. Cheek: Move with the order of the day, by all means, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the original motion. Are the any
procedural questions? All in favor of the motion, which is to take this up on Tuesday,
please vote with the usual sign.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Williams abstains.
Ms. Sims votes No.
Motion carries 6-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item on the agenda, Madame Clerk, is item number 3.
The Clerk:
3. Consider request for 2004 budget adjustment for additional funds required
by County Attorney’s office in the amount of $370,000 funded from reserve account.
54
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: This is – I bring this forward because – let me give you the way I –
Mr. Mayor: Please speak into your mike so Mr. Smith can hear you.
Mr. Shepard:
Can you hear me, Mr. Smith? What we didn’t do in the budget
was to set up a category for the former county attorney. He had to finish some matters.
He had to finish those matters because I, along with some of you, are named parties in
those suits. He has billed into the same category that I have in my office. So it’s not just
the county attorney’s budget that we are dealing with. We’re dealing with payment to the
former county account. And what I would ask you to do tonight is to at least approve
what we have billed and intend to bill through this quarter, and then I want to come back
on Tuesday with a more coordinated approach to the last quarter involving the law
department and my office. We’ve been working on several projects together and I think
it would be the way to reduce the request that I initially made, and so what I would ask
you to do, I’ve got the budgetary, the numbers here where the invoices have been paid to
Mr. Wall and paid to me for my firm, I would ask that at least tonight you would allow us
to instruct the administration that they pay my July, August and September invoices and
all of the invoices that Mr. Wall has put in. Mr. Wall currently has $18,691.00 unpaid.
He’s trending down, and I have him on call, but I didn’t see any reason to bring him over
here. Our invoices for those months are July, $40,747.97; August, $60,152.81; and
The total that would
September, $44,939.25; total to us of $145,840.13. $145,840.13.
take this through this quarter would be for both Mr. Wall’s firm and my firm
$164,531.13.
I just, I want to indicate that the SPLOST process has increased the bill at
this time, and this has been a year that I don’t think that we’ve quite had one like it before
this, because you’ll recall that we worked on SPLOST, we’ve replaced the administrator,
and we have already set the millage rate and gotten bills out for the main ad valorem
taxes already. I think we have worked incredibly hard, whether it’s been recognized or
not, and that includes staff and my office and all newly-elected officials, and I appreciate
that. What – we’ve got the budget coming up and I understand that that’s going to be
another major effort we’ve got to do. We’ve also had issues that took a lot of work. We
all pulled together on the airport. That was involving an issue that usually doesn’t come
up. But if you could do that, I know that my partners in particular would be very
appreciative.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think that we need to pay those bills or those
requests that come in, but I think something we hadn’t done. We talked about getting a
handle on how things operate and who was doing what. Madame Clerk, I’d like to get
those statements from the legal side as to what we paid out as to the old attorney versus
the ones – the new attorney, as well, to this date. Also, I’d like to – Steve, you talked
55
about bringing something to us about the other attorneys that work under you so we can
know. And that has not happened. We, we, we, we need to budget for that. We need to
make sure that we are doing everything we can. I mean it’s a lot of work in this
government and I understand that. But we got a lot of people working under your
guidance and I’m not completely comfortable where everybody is right now, and I don’t
know, I don’t know what their pay scale is, I don’t know what they made. You said you
was going to bring something to us, but [inaudible] stuff that has not come to pass yet,
but I don’t know if there is any other place we can get it beside the reserves, though. Is
there any other money besides the –
Mr. Shepard: I have been through that, Mr. Williams with the administration and
that is the only place. I mean it’s essentially contingency, but it’s coming out of reserves.
Mr. Williams: I so move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Is there a second to the motion?
Mr. Smith: I second.
Mr. Mayor: Any Madame Clerk, did you get the dollar amounts from Mr.
Shepard that would be in the motion? Because the caption is for considerably more than
the request he made.
The Clerk: I did.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion on the motion?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, the caption read, how much is that?
The Clerk: $164,531.13.
Mr. Shepard: That includes Mr. Wall, Mr. Williams.
The Clerk: [inaudible] not the $370,000.
Mr. Williams: That’s what I wanted my motion to reflect. Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Yes, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Where do we go [inaudible] ask the attorney.
Mr. Shepard: I’m bringing you a presentation to you on Tuesday for that, Mr.
Hankerson.
56
Mr. Hankerson: Cause I’d like to see, I’d like to see a line by line item on
spending, what we are paying for such exorbitant expenses here that I think we are going
to have to change and look at something different and I’m, I’m really concerned about
utilizing staff attorneys. I’d like to know [inaudible] I mean we have two staff attorneys
that already are on payroll and I really, I want to see them utilized as in the past. I think
this would really save your budget, because if we are in budget trouble now, and we still
got the rest of the year to go, that we really have some problems here with the budget.
It’s quite a bit and I’m just, I’m just concerned about staff attorneys being utilized.
Mr. Shepard: I hear the concern, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor of the motion then please vote with
the usual sign.
Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you for that, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, I think you wanted to hold your other legal session
items to Tuesday?
Mr. Shepard: I will do what the pleasure of the body is. I can do that.
Mr. Grantham: I think you need to.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t think we’re going to have a quorum in a few minutes.
Mr. Shepard: I understand that.
Mr. Mayor: So we’ll 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 Called Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on September 30, 2004.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
57