HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-05-2004 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
October 5, 2004
Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:14 p.m., Tuesday,
October 5, 2004, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Mays, Cheek,
Beard, Williams and Boyles, members of Augusta-Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Sims, member of Augusta-Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Interim Administrator;
Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Call the regular meeting of the Augusta City Commission for
October 5 to order. I apologize for the delay. Some of us were tied up in a visit,
monitoring visit with HUD that ran a few minutes over. It’s one of those important
meetings that you want to sit through and you want to make sure every I is dotted and
every T is crossed. We will proceed with our agenda. I’ll ask the Rev. William Mundy,
the pastor of HIS Community Church, to come forward for the invocation, and then
please remain standing I’m going to ask Mr. Paul Simon to lead us in the Pledge of
Allegiance today. So everybody please stand.
The invocation was given by Rev. William Mundy.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll go down the list.
RECOGNITIONS:
A. Mr. Reese Hoffa
2004 Olympian – Athens, Greece
The Clerk: At this point, the Commission would like to recognize Mr. Reese
Hoffa, who is a 2004 Olympian. Mr. Hoffa, would you please join the Mayor here at the
podium?
Mr. Mayor: You want to read the proclamation?
The Clerk: Reese, the Mayor and members of the Augusta Commission would
like to recognize you for your participation in the 2004 Summer Olympic Games held in
Athens, Greece. The City of Augusta applauds and recognizes your athletic
th
achievements, this 5 day of October, 2004. Congratulations.
(A round of applause is given.)
1
Mr. Mayor: Reese, we are mighty proud of you and we put a gold seal on here
[inaudible] gold medal. It was great to have you representing all of Augusta and all of
America over in Athens this summer.
Mr. Hoffa: I thank everyone here [inaudible] Augusta, Columbia County, Evans.
I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to go to the Olympics, and it goes back to our school
system, having everyone in the City of Augusta [inaudible] gave me the opportunity to go
the University of Georgia and [inaudible]. Thank you everyone here, too.
(A round of applause is given.)
B. Mr. Hodges Usry, Student Academy of Richmond County
International/Georgia Student Media Festival Award Winner
Creative music video showcasing Augusta’s landmarks
The Clerk: Mr. Usry, would you please come forward, along with your dad,
Brad. Are there other members of your family here, Brad? We also would like to
welcome Tasha Williams, Lisa Cordin from the Academy of Richmond, if you would
like to join? In recognition of Hodges Usry,
Whereas, Hodges Usry, a native of Augusta, Georgia, is the son of Brad and Paige
Usry; and
Whereas, he attends the Academy of Richmond County where he is currently a
junior; and
Whereas, he has proven to be successful at the age of 16 with his creativity and
imagination; and
Whereas, Hodges Usry produced, directed, and starred in an award-winning
music video showcasing Augusta and its landmarks that won him honors at the Georgia
Student Media Festival and an invitation to the International Student Media Festival; and
Whereas, on this date the citizens of Augusta would like to honor Hodges Usry on
his remarkable achievement and wish him well on his future endeavors.
Now, therefore, I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby proclaim
October 5, 2004 as Hodges Usry Day in Augusta, Georgia, and urge all citizens to
recognize this day.
In witness hereof, I have unto set my hand and caused the seal of Augusta,
th
Georgia to be affixed this 5 day of October, 2004.
Please join us in recognizing Hodges Usry.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: We’re going to take a look at the video.
(Video is shown.)
2
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Grantham: Ladies and gentlemen, [inaudible] young men like this and young
women [inaudible] that do things such as this, it gives you a good feeling about what our
future looks like. We just want to thank Hodges and thank him for thinking of Augusta
[inaudible]. Thank you very much.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek:
I know, and I pretty feel sure in my heart that this City doesn’t have
an official music video. That was a song about – seemed to me it was a homecoming to
our home, which is Augusta. I’ve traveled enough to know there’s lot of beautiful places
I’d like to make a motion at this time that we adopt
in the world, but Augusta’s home.
Hodges Usry’s song as the official music video of the City of Augusta.
Mr. Williams: I second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, all I can say, Mr. Mayor, I think it’s great and Willie’s
favorite singer, Five O’clock Somewhere, Alan Jackson had better look out cause he got
somebody on his trail.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion then please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item, Madame Clerk, under delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS:
C. Mr. Millard Cox
RE: Landfill Operations, Sports Arena and Tax Assessors Board
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cox, if you’d give us your name and address for the record, and
then you have five minutes. Mr. Russell is our timekeeper.
Mr. Cox: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Millard Cox. I live
at 2261 Overton Road in Country Club Hills, in Ms. Beard’s District. I would like to tell
3
you about an experience I had at the landfill two weeks ago, on Monday, 9/20, and
Tuesday, 9/21. I had a large tree to fall in my front yard and I had very few limbs on it so
I cut them up and disposed of them by the curb. I cut up the trunk of the tree and hauled
it to the landfill. I had 12 two-foot pieces on my half-ton trailer that weighed 2760
pounds. 12 pieces over 200 pounds apiece. No limbs, no leaves, no pine straw. Not
even a candy wrapper on it. When I arrived at the landfill, the lady in charge told me I
would be fined $25 because I did not have a canvas over this. And she wanted me to give
her my driver’s license while I unloaded the trailer and come back and reweigh. So
which I did, I gave her my driver’s license and I went back. Mind you, I only had $37 in
my pocket at the time and a debit card. When I came back to weigh, she told me I owed
her an additional $23.12 for the load that was on the trailer. I told her – she asked me to
leave her a credit – I told her I didn’t have the money on money, that I would have to
come back. She says have you got a credit card? I said no, we don’t use credit cards. I
said I’ve got a debit card. We don’t take debit cards. So I said well, what can I do? She
said well – I told her I was coming back either that afternoon or the next morning with
another load, that I would bring her a check for the two loads. When I got home that
afternoon, my wife told me a friend had called that needed to go the doctor, he was
having trouble with his heart. So I cleaned up and changed clothes and carried him to the
doctor and when I got out of the doctor’s office, it was 4:30. The landfill closes at 5:00.
So I couldn’t go that afternoon. Well, the next morning, I walked my little dog around
the neighborhood and I get home at 8:30 and my wife says the lady at the landfill has
called and said you’ve got to bring that $23.12 or she was going to lose her job, or she
would have to pay it herself. I thought it was ridiculous. So I jump in my car and I get
out there. Thank the Lord I get there before 10:00 o’clock and give her the $23.12 with
another load. But that time I had the canvas over it. On the second load, I talked to Mr.
Chuck Johnson, who was in charge out there at the landfill, and he asked me how could
he determine who needed a canvas and who didn’t. And I told him you don’t need to be
a college graduate to look at a trailer with 12 pieces of wood on it that weighs 2760
pounds by their count to know it don’t need a canvas on it, it’s not going to blow
anywhere. In fact, the trailer had 4’ sides on it anyway. But now, I’ve got 2/3 of the tree
hauled to the dump, by myself, cut up by myself. I’m 77 years old, and got $64.37 in it.
I have still got a third of the tree left, which I’m going to haul some place else. I don’t
into to pay them no more out there. In the past two years, I’ve been at the landfill at least
20 times. I bought a house over there in Country Club Hills that needed a lot of work. It
was a foreclosure house and every time I went out there, $2 a load for a homeowner to
dump into the inert cell out there. I understand that you have to have a canvas over limbs
that’s got leaves on it, or pine straw, or anything else, but I can’t understand how they
think I need a canvas over 12 pieces of wood that weighed 2760 pounds. It just don’t
make sense. On the previous trips I’ve been out there, it would be anywhere from five to
ten homeowners. When I say homeowners, I’m talking about people with little trailers
and little pickup trucks out there dumping wood. These two trips I was the only person
out there. So it tells me that the trash is not going away, it’s going somewhere else.
Somebody is not carrying it to the landfill. So if you don’t change those fees, we’re
going to change Richmond County from the Garden City to the Garbage City, because
people can’t afford it. They just plain can’t afford those fees they’re charging out there.
4
Okay. That takes care of that. Is my five minutes up? Almost? Do I need to come back
again? I want to talk about taxes.
The Clerk: 30 seconds.
Mr. Cox: 30 seconds? I can’t do it in 30 seconds. Can you reschedule me?
The Clerk: Make your request.
Mr. Cox: Ma’am?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, just make your request.
Mr. Cox: Okay, I wanted to talk about some taxes. I’m going to say this in 30
seconds. I’ve got a little house over in National Hills that I rent. A 3-bedroom, bath-and-
a-half house that is valued at $80,000. $80,000. My taxes this year were $350 more than
a piece that the Augusta National bought on Heath Drive they paid $1.3 million for.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, your time is up.
Mr. Cox: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cox.
Mr. Cox: I’ll come back.
Mr. Mayor: Certainly we pride ourselves with customer service that’s offered by
this organization, and I’m going to ask the Administrator to look into the issues you had
with the landfill and give us a report on his findings so we don’t have those problems out
there again.
Mr. Cox: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, not just on the subject of taxes, something that has
become near and dear and sore subject with me is while I don’t mind sitting here and
hearing of people’s concerns about taxes, we get 1/3, so I just ask that all citizens that
come before us give us 1/3 of the discussion and allow the School Board to hear the other
2/3, cause they take more money than we do. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. May I address Mr. Cox just a moment?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
5
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Cox, when you called me and I talked to you on Thursday night,
I think, and again on Friday morning, you were on the way to the landfill. I called Mr.
Johnson and asked could he meet with you when you got out there on the site. Did that
meeting occur, and were there no results from it?
Mr. Cox: We met. On that trip, I carried the canvas over it, but I still had 1600-
something pounds on the trailer. No leaves, no pine straw, no nothing. And I paid
another $17, I believe it was, for that. So at this point I got $64.35, I believe it is, in the
tree, and I’ve still got a third of that tree left. It don’t make sense really.
Mr. Boyles: What I was really wanting to know, when I called out there, talked to
Mr. Johnson, and he was going to meet you, and you all did have that meeting?
Mr. Cox: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: And so the results were not so good then?
Mr. Cox: No. He asked me how could I determine, how could they determined
who needed the canvas and who doesn’t. I told him, I said you don’t have to be too smart
to look at a trailer and see if it’s got cement blocks on it, they’re not going to blow out.
And this has got 12 pieces of wood on it weighing 2600 pounds, it’s not going to blow
out. So it don’t make sense really.
Mr. Boyles: Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Cox had started on this second issue, and
I’m just wondering, could we grant him three more minutes to finish out what he
was talking about about the tax issue.
Mr. Mayor: Is that your motion?
Mr. Hankerson: I move that to keep him from coming back down here.
He’s 77 years old. To get him back down here – he had everything outlined.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: The Commission does have the authority to do that if you so desire.
All in favor of granting Mr. Cox additional time, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cox, you have three more minutes.
6
Mr. Cox: Three more minutes. Thank you. Appreciate it. Let’s see. Get my
facts together. This piece of property that I talked about over there at 347, I’ve got the
figures right here if you want to look at it. Berckman Road. They don’t own it. They
only paid $843.40 taxes on it. I paid $1194 on a three bedroom, bath and a half quarter
acre. Quarter acre of land. They’ve got exemptions from the state tax, they’ve got
exemptions from the county cap outlay, the county M&O, $10,000 [inaudible], fire
protection. Everybody pays for the waste pickup and street lights. Zero on their bill.
Here it is here for you to look at. They don’t have to pay it. It’s ridiculous. Instead of
helping the greedy, we need to be helping the needy down here. There’s people losing
their homes every month. Foreclosing on them cause they can’t pay taxes. And if this
thing was equalized out like it should be, these people wouldn’t be paying any taxes, the
underprivileged people, low income people wouldn’t have to pay any taxes. So I think
everybody needs to pay their fair share. I’m for that 100%. If you live in a $100,000
house, that’s what it should be on the books for. So if any of you want to check any of
these facts, I can give them to you. Right here. They are in writing. It’s not something I
wrote. I got the information from the courthouse down here. Thank you.
Ms. Beard: I have a question.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, go ahead, Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: Is someone living in that house now?
Mr. Cox: Ma’am?
Ms. Beard: The information that you presented to us, is someone living there?
Mr. Cox: On Berckman Road?
Ms. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Cox: No, ma’am. She’s bought a house in our neighborhood. She lives on
Morningside Drive now.
Ms. Beard: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Would it be possible if we asked Mr. Reece to look into this and
give us a report back? Certainly it’s going to take some research. Mr. Hankerson,
you have your hand up?
Mr. Hankerson: I was going to ask could we get some explanations and
bring it back to our committee meeting.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Is that a motion, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
7
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? Yes, Mr. Cox?
Mr. Cox: Let me ask you one other thing. They’re buying this property up, and
on the tax bill they’ve got the house valued at one thing, they’ve got the land valued at
something else. They’re going in there now and tearing these houses down. Are they
going to take that off the bill, the tax bill? When they tear the house down and leave the
land there?
Mr. Mayor: That’s a question more appropriately to our board of assessors. We
don’t set values on properties. The Commission doesn’t do that.
Mr. Cox: They’re going through there now –
Mr. Mayor: We’ve asked Mr. Reece to take a look at this property that you
brought to our attention.
Mr. Cox: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: And give a report back to the committee.
Mr. Cox: Okay, they can look at 2601 Washington Road.
Mr. Mayor: If you’ll give Mr. Reece all the addresses you think need to be
examined, then he can do it all at one time and give us one consolidated report. And
we’ll see you get a copy of the report, too. Mr. Cox, be glad to do that. Anything
further?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Let me just ask one question, and it’s not so much to Mr. Cox, as
about Mr. Cox. What I want to know from the landfill, and I’m not trying to get them
into a lot of judgment calls about who is right and who is wrong when they come there,
but I guess my question would be if a person is already there, they’re at the scale and
they’re weighing and they’ve got – say if what he has brought there and the description of
it has been correct, do we impose a fine on everybody who just does not have a cover per
se, or if they’re there they’re in our confines and what they’ve got is material that will not
blow out, do we then, is there room there where we give them a warning per se and say
the next time you come back to the landfill that it will have to be covered, whether
you’ve got a truckload of stainless steel or whether you’ve got a truckload of lawn grass?
8
Is there some room in between to deal with a situation like that? And I guess that
question would mainly be from our people [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: I’ll let Mr. Johnson respond to that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson: How we addressed this was we started off and we incorporated this
into our ordinances. We had 30 days of public notice, then we came back and went
through the committee and Commission process with it where it was addressed in the
ordinance change. Subsequent to that, what we did is we try to go to a phase-in process.
So we put out a press release that identified the tarp fee as just by itself, because that was
a new fee structure for us. We second then started in August handed out fliers, so the
month of August was a free period [inaudible] part of an educational curve because we
identified very early that the message might not have been delivered as effective. So that
month of August was a freebie. The next phase for September was if people came into
the landfill and did not tarp, those who chose to leave, we educated them, either through
an additional flier, but if they chose to dispose of, we charged the fee. So a few people
have left, come back with the tarp, and then they were not charged the $25 fee associated.
As we move forward into the next month, it will be everybody that’s charged.
Mr. Mays: I guess what I was kind of searching for was that – and I know at 77
he may have a little more time to read different notices that go out publicly, but if you’ve
got a regular customer coming in there, I was thinking if he came back – I guess what I’m
looking for in the end, did we waive it after he came back from the standpoint of having
it on there the next time?
Mr. Johnson: No, sir, we did not waive it when he came back the second time
because that would be very difficult to track on a cash basis who came in a month earlier
and who paid cash versus who didn’t.
Mr. Mays: No, what I’m – I used the wrong word when I said waived. If he
didn’t pay the first time cause he didn’t have the money on him, he hadn’t paid anyway.
I guess what I’m looking for is if you’ve got consistent customer and you’ve got a senior
in there and he comes back in within 48 hours and he’s got a tarp at that time, and
obviously you’ve got somebody that’s planning to abide by the law and what they
brought in there, rather than somebody that we, quite frankly for lack of a better word, we
tick off and either they don’t do it or carrying it somewhere else. And I’m not for us
dropping the tarp regulation. I mean the worst thing in the world is to ride behind folk
who have got stuff blowing in your face. But I’m just thinking in terms of an honest
error with an elderly person who have made it in there, have not been along the road.
You know, I’d rather us check some of those that drop a ton of trash on their way to the
landfill that blows out from under a raggedly tarp than to the point of catching one there
with obviously it can’t blow out of it. And I’m not saying you get into the rule waiving
9
business, but I’m just wondering is there any room in there to a point that if it’s
somebody who does come back to a point.
Mr. Johnson: We have two issues. One is it’s drafted into the ordinance; two, we
don’t know what blew out before he came to the landfill. And three, we need to develop
a consistent policy moving forward where we don’t have to try to guess and try to
implement. And I guess that’s probably my best answer is I don’t know what blew out
before he got to the landfill. We need a consistent policy moving forward and that comes
down to tarping the loads as they come in.
Mr. Mays: Okay, well, you’ve answered my question and to a point I just thought
there was maybe some common sense rule to a point that somebody could make a
judgment call to a point of what you were dealing with in that area of customer service,
cause we got a lot we asking folk to support out there at the landfill. We got some of
these citizens who pay taxes that are being asked to deal with $8 million worth of
improvements to deal with new buildings out there and a lot of other things. I hate for
them to start riding across the line and carrying it or just riding out of the way of where
they are and dumping it off out of protest. I think we ought to have some means of
determining folk who come in with one item versus those who come in to a point of
where you, you make a certain type of call. Maybe I’m along in that thinking. Those
being the rules, but I just think [inaudible] somebody could have said when you come
back again, just see you’ve got a tarp, if not you’re going to be fined for it. Because if
he’s been coming out there over the past several years, in between his last time and
publication, if he wasn’t looking for it, I mean I sat here and I voted for it, but I’ll be
honest with you, I hadn’t seen it already. Maybe I wasn’t looking for it. But to a point
that I’m sure at 77 he’s got some other things to do other than look out for public notices.
It’s just an observance. If that’s your rule, vote on it and pass it, but I just think that
sometimes we can rule and regulate an ordinance to death.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Mays brought up a point,
something came to my mind. Maybe [inaudible] Commissioner Mays, a lot of stuff get
voted on that we talk about, but those are some of the issues that the taxpayer suffers with
when we don’t do that. But the Marshal Department, the way I understand it, is supposed
to be patrolling and we pay the money for them to do that. If the gentleman had had
some stuff to blow out, the Marshal has someone to patrol, litter patrol I think, who
supposed to be handling that. Why are we in the business of charging for tarps if they
don’t have them, and if the Marshall Department is supposed to be doing that? Did that
change in ordinance change the Marshall Department from doing that as well, or is that
double? Ms. Smith, you got the podium, you can answer that?
Ms. Smith: There’s actually, as far as we’re aware, not a set schedule or a defined
amount of time that the Marshal’s Department spends in that particular area. One of the
reasons that it became a concern and employees from the solid waste division at least
once a year, if not a couple of times the members of the Public Works Department will go
10
out and pick up trash along the road near the landfill because of the amount of trash that
tends to blow out. So in an effort to further assist in their being a beautification effort in
that area, the most prudent thing that we could think of was to require that the load
brought in the landfill be tarped. We, of course, in an effort to support a continuing
education program would be able to extend the education part of the process for say an
additional 30 days, but we would also request some additional assistance from the
Marshal’s Department during that timeframe to try and make sure that we don’t have
extensive trash that is blowing out in that area.
Mr. Williams: Well, Ms. Smith, I understand all that and I applaud that. We got
hundreds of inmates sitting down right now, probably in air conditioning, that could be
out there picking up stuff that the landfill people is picking up. I see Warden Leverett
sitting over there. We been advocating that for a while so that’s something could be
done. There are going to be some people who don’t put the tarps over the trash and stuff,
the debris. I mean like anything else, I know some folks, I ain’t going to call
Commissioner Mays’ name, speed down the highway. If the Sheriff Department stops
him, he’s caught. I mean it’s just as simple as that. But we can’t impose more, then we
asking people to pay more, and then get to the landfill, and this is no knock on what y’all
trying to do. I think that was a good idea, but I think we got to be mindful of and even if
you just educate the people when they come in, say now you may get a ticket for coming
in here without a tarp, you ought to be sure to cover whatever you bringing out here, even
if it’s concrete bricks, they want you to have a tarp. But we ought not be, in my mind,
imposing a fine when the Marshal’s Department – and I don’t know what that figure is,
Mr. Mayor, the finance man is not here, but that’s a lot of money that goes for litter
patrol. And if they ain’t patrolling, if they not frequently doing what they need to be
doing, that’s [inaudible] ought to be brought. So I just wanted to [inaudible]. I’ve got
nothing else, Mr. Mayor, but I wanted to make sure that we don’t double tax and make
the people who trying to obey the law and do what’s right, when those out there that’s
breaking the law, you know, keep doing it.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] and I’m not going to press that issue any more. Tarps are
a good rule, but I am going to serve notice on October 4 [sic] at 2:50 that all of my
seniors that I’ve got, where the trash in terms of yard rubbish, since we going to be strict
by the rules, I’m going [inaudible] strict by what they pay, and those whose, whose,
whose cut stuff sits out there and they’ll get a little fellow in the neighborhood to come
help them cut it up, and it sits there and it turns from green to a white color green to a
brown to a mush to almost where it fades away, and the trash folk that we got under
contract bypass it. I’m going to call every day, every morning until they get picked up.
Cause that pendulum can swing both ways, Mr. Mayor, and I’m going to be very vigilant
in those neighborhoods where folk call me. I’m not going to be as lenient as I have been,
so those that I don’t get picked up, I’m going to call y’all. So if y’all going to fine the
ones [inaudible] come in, don’t have a tarp, then I’m going to call for those whose trash
sits out there for three, four and five weeks at a time before it gets picked up.
11
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ll be as brief as possible. I will say this about the tarp
and the policing that is going on on Highway 1. It is significantly improved. That
corridor, its aesthetic value, its appearance. Even – and I was thinking about the
[inaudible] blocks, concrete blocks, there is [inaudible] matter and chips and other things
that is not immediately an eyesore like trash is [inaudible] cause problems to windshields,
paint jobs and other things. I support the tarp ordinance and the enforcement at the
landfill. Maybe there is some language we can put in there for solid objects that may not
pose the same hazard as bagged trash and so forth. But the efforts made by staff have
significantly improved the appearance of Highway 1 which required weekly policing.
One of the things we need to do, when you have a problem that requires repeated
maintenance like this did is try to reduce that maintenance and use those resources in
other locations. That’s efficiency. This has done that. I don’t want to debate the fee
structure or the fine structure at this point in time. I will say this, though. If our goal is to
clean up Highway 1, we have done that significantly by requiring tarps, we can enhance
our education process, give warning tickets or whatever, but we have enabled our crews
that normally spent one day a week or two days a week cleaning up Highway 1 to go to
your neighborhood and my neighborhood and other places and you can’t discount that.
That’s an important part of improving the efficiency of our government by doing things
to reduce repeated maintenance, as we do with Highway 1. So I support everyone having
a tarp. Perhaps there’s ways we can look at a defined structure of the way we’re doing it,
and I agree that people will go in other places if we have it so, such a high cost. But even
again, with the trash collection that we have, we’ve reduced illegal dumping on south
Richmond County by 80%. So I mean there’s good things that has been done. Does it
need to be tweaked? Yes, perhaps. But Highway 1 looks a whole lot better now that it
did and that’s by actions of the staff and this ordinance and we can’t ignore that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor. Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir, I’d like to comment to that, also. I’m quite sure this
was done in good faith as far as keeping our highways clean and so forth and I agree with
Commissioner Cheek. But I see some need for some revision in this ordinance, because
of the fact as was said the Marshal gives citation. Citations for littering on the highway.
So it doesn’t seem to me it’s customer friendly to wait till I get there with the load and
then you require citation or give me [inaudible] from me when I get there, cause I may
not have heard of the ordinance or so forth, but if the Marshal would cite them before
they get there, then we wouldn’t have to be in the business for fining folks for coming. If
that does not take place, do we have a sign before you come in there saying, stating that
you will be fined if it’s not covered?
Ms. Smith: We have – as you enter the landfill, on the right side, our fee structure
is posted and it does indicated that any non-tarped loads for private vehicles will be fined
$25 each time.
12
Mr. Hankerson: Could you, could you more clarify that, because some of our
senior citizens don’t know what tarp means. I mean, you know, I may pull up there and I
don’t know what you’re talking about. To me, you know, it’s like dog will bite. I mean
I’m just saying to have that there, a person, a senior citizen, or not just a senior citizens,
be it young or anyone that come in there that can’t define that word, come in and pull up
and then you fine them.
Ms. Smith: We can change it to uncovered, if you think that would be what –
Mr. Hankerson: I think it need to be clear, but I just don’t approve and we
overlooked that in the ordinance. Like you said, you had a good ordinance but that part,
saying you ought to be fined when you get there and required to go back and option of
turning around and going back and getting it or turning around and going and find the
quickest place to dump it some place else. If they [inaudible] they angry, they may turn
around and dump it some place else and say I’m not paying the $50 for the load that it
was going to cost and I’m not paying the $25 for the fine, so we lost the $50 and we
didn’t get the fine and then they dump it on Spring Grove Road. That’s where they
dumping. That’s the closest thing to the dump now. Spring Grove Road.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll have a further opportunity to discuss all this cause the staff is
going to do a report on the information Mr. Cox brought to us and have it for the
committee. We can pursue that discussion. We do have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Hankerson to request the board of assessors to pursue the information with
respect to the property assessments. Mr. Reece?
Mr. Reece: May I ask a question?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Reece: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I’ll do your report for you.
I’ve gotten all the property information from Mr. Cox. I would like to comment briefly
on the first one he pointed out. It’s the Augusta National, I think it’s Berckman
Residential Properties that purchase. This property was purchased from an owner who
qualified for the S-4 exemption. That means the person qualified for the double
exemption plus the school tax exemption. So they did not have to pay any school taxes
whatsoever. The property was purchased after January 1, 2004, so the ownership will not
change until January 1, 2005. The tax commissioner has to make sure that all property
owners who are current owners of the property get bills so the property taxes can get
paid, send tax bills based on current ownership to make sure all of them are paid. And
the prior owner did pay the $195 garbage pickup solid waste fee and also $151.80 toward
street lighting. And we’ll give you a more detailed report on all of them at your next
meeting. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you We’ll call the question, call the question on the motion
then. All in favor of the motion, please vote with the usual sign.
13
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the next item, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
D. Colonel G. W. Rains Chapter MOSB
(Military Order of the Stars and Bars)
Mr. Woody Highsmith, Spokesman
RE: Removal of flag at Riverwalk
Mr. Mayor: Woody, welcome. If you’ll give us your name and address for the
record, please.
Mr. Highsmith: My name is Thomas Woodam Highsmith. I live in Evans,
Georgia. I’m the commander of the George Washington Rains Chapter of the Military
Order of Stars and Bars organization, descendants of the Confederate Officers Corps.
What I would like to do read a little quote from Col. H. D. Twiggs, Confederate States
Army, that was made in 1892. He said what a wonderful power there is in the flag of
one’s country, how mysterious the influence by which is sways and moves the hearts of
men. The colors of an army have carried more strongholds than the bayonet and battered
down more fortresses than artillery. Even in Holy Writ, we find the expression as terrible
as an army with banners. In America we see many flags because of the diversity of
heritage and culture in this country. The Stars and Stripes is the flag of our country and
true Americans love it. But those who fought under the stainless banner were American
veterans, too. The Confederate States of America now exists only in our past. It will
remain a part of America’s and Augusta’s history, heritage and culture as long as we do
not give in to heritage terrorists who seek to change history and commit cultural genocide
for political power and monetary gain. Martin Luther King never maligned the
Confederate flag that flew so prominently in his day. He was more concerned about
tolerance, inclusion and acceptance, no exclusion, historical, revisionism, and unfair
demands. The NAACP creates controversy by attacking the flag, enabling them to attract
members and gain much-needed funds. Politicians, like Mayor Young, readily give in for
fear of being labeled the worst word in America today, the word racist. I wonder if the
Irish Republican Army were to hold its convention in Augusta would Mayor Young
remove the British flag from the display, because the Irish suffered 800 years of
subjugation under the British. If a group of Jews held a convention in Augusta, would
they demand that the Spanish flag be removed because of its association with the
Inquisition? Or if a group of radical native Americans did the same thing, would the City
cave into those demands and remove the U.S. flag? What’s the use of having an historic
flag display if City officials are going to sanitize our history while pandering to radicals?
If one flag is to be removed, why not remove all of them? The second national
Confederate flag was an integral part of a display of flags that together constitute a public
monument. The removal of the two flags from the group and the covering of the
inscriptions at the base of the two poles effectively defaces and alters the monument as a
whole. We wonder if the Commission has thought this out. There could be some
14
embarrassing consequences here. We believe the Mayor did not have the authority to
move, to remove, alter or deface a public monument and violated City ordinance 1-2-26.
When the Mayor had the flag removed and had the inscriptions erased, he violated City
ordinance 1-5-44, defacing monuments, etcetera, and 1-5-46, removing articles from
parks. 1-5-46 says it shall be unlawful for any person to remove any article of whatever
kind from any park of Augusta-Richmond County. Is the City and the Mayor above the
law? The master plan for downtown Augusta has also been violated and we believe that
the Mayor’s action also violated Georgia law 50-3-1, the Georgia Monument Protection
Act. This has been confirmed by Augusta’s solicitor’s office. We believe the Mayor’s
action violates City and State law. We ask the Commission to return the flags that were
removed and repair the inscriptions at the base of the poles that were defaced. A letter
has been sent to the First Lady and Preserve America questioning Augusta’s recent
special designation as a Preserve America community, which recognizes communities
that protect and celebrate their heritage, use their historic assets for economic
development and community revitalization, encourage people to experience and
appreciate local historic resources through education, and heritage tourism programs.
Augusta was one of the first cities to receive this designation. Will it be the first to have
it taken away? All we ask is that error and injustice be excluded from the Riverwalk, that
the truth be told without exaggeration and without omission. Truth for its own sake and
for the sake of honest history. Truth for the generations that come after us. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Madame Clerk, next item.
The Clerk: The next item is our consent agenda. The consent agenda
consists of items 1 through 10. That’s items 1 through 10.
Commissioner Cheek,
would you like to offer as a consent agenda those items that were discussed in the
September 30 Engineering Services meeting?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, Madame Clerk, I would.
The Clerk: As part of the consent agenda?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if I may.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Please.
Mr. Cheek: The Engineering Services Committee has a consent agenda, which
would be items 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 28. Also be it noted to the body that item
22 has been deleted as per our addendum agenda as requested by the homeowners
association. And we offer to receive as information items 27, 26 and 25, which will have
later reports brought back to Engineering Services by staff.
The Clerk: For the benefit of any objectors to our alcohol petitions, when the
petitions are read, would you please signify your objections by raising your hand?
PUBLIC SERVICES
:
15
1. Motion to approve request by Ronelle Moehrke for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Astrala,
Inc. located at 1034 Broad St. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super District
9. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 23, 2004)
2. Motion to approve a request by Pratapkumar G. Patel for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Shree & Associates d/b/a First
Stop Walton Way located at 2013 Walton Way. District 1. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee September 23, 2004)
3. Motion to approve a request by Pratapkumar G. Patel for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Shree & Associates d/b/a First
Stop Gordon Hwy. located at 1901 Gordon Hwy. District 2. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee September 23, 2004)
Ms. Beard: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes?
Ms. Beard: Please excuse me. Is there I would request to delete number 4, or do
I do that later?
Mr. Mayor: We’ll do that later.
Ms. Beard: Later.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll do that in a moment.
Ms. Beard: Okay.
The Clerk:
4. Motion to deny a request by Tsegai T. Wasse for an on premise consumption
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Boss Place located at 2102 ½
MLK Blvd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
September 23, 2004)
5. Motion to approve a request by Kevin G. King for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Indigo
Joe’s Sports Pub & Restaurant located at 3730 Wheeler Rd. There will be Sunday
sales. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
September 23, 2004)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor:
None are noted, Madame Clerk. I would also ask the Commission’s
consent to move item 13 to the consent agenda. That’s just to approve the receipt of a
. Also, if there is no objection, I would
grant. Item number 13 on the regular agenda
ask that you add to the agenda and add to the consent agenda from the addendum
16
agenda items 2, 3 and 4. That’s 2, 3 and 4. It would take unanimous consent to add
those. Would there be any objection?
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to discuss – I have some questions about 13.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, well, we’ll leave that off, then. We’ll leave 13 off, Madame
Clerk. Leave it on the regular agenda. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, items 31 and 32
were handled in the special meeting. These would be deleted as well.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams: If I could get those items, Mr. Mayor, that –
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to ask Ms. Bonner, if she would, to go back through the
numbers again and make sure that we’ve all got the correct ones. We’ll take a motion
and then we’ll get to the items we want to pull for discussion. Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Consent agenda, items 1 through 10. Under the Engineering
portion of the agenda, items 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 being deleted, item 23, 24 and 28
being added to the consent agenda, as well as items 2, 3 and 4 on the addendum
agenda. Item 31 and 32 being deleted at the request of the attorney.
Mr. Mayor: And then did you want to do 25, 26 and 27 as received as
information on the consent agenda?
Mr. Cheek: Yes.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Grantham: 26 and 27?
Mr. Mayor: He said 25, 26, and 27.
Mr. Grantham: Oh, did he?
Mr. Mayor: There will be a report at the committee meeting.
Mr. Williams: I’m sorry, about 26, that’s –
The Clerk: Was received as information by the committee and will be added to
our consent agenda.
Mr. Williams: I need to pull 26 and I did not make that committee meeting, Mr.
Cheek, and I would like to have some explanation on 26.
17
Mr. Mayor: We’ll leave that on there.
Mr. Cheek: There’s good news.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll leave that on there, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion with respect to the consent agenda?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Hankerson: On the addition to the agenda, are we going to do that later?
Mr. Mayor: Well, what we’re trying to do is add items 2, 3 and 4.
The Clerk: There is one item Mr. Hankerson would like added to the
addendum agenda that was not on our printed agenda. That’s what he’s – it’s a
request for the 2004 funding for our GMA dues.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Can we add that to the consent agenda?
The Clerk: Can we add this to the consent agenda?
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: So that would be item 5 on the additions to the agenda then, with
unanimous consent we’ll add that and add that to the consent agenda. Now what I need, I
need a motion to approve the consent agenda and a second.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment, Ms. Beard.
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: I need a motion and I need a second.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I’ve got a motion and second. Now, which items would you l
like to pull? Ms. Beard, you wanted to pull one?
18
Ms. Beard: Yes, I’d like to have number 4 deleted because I have spoken with the
owner of that establishment and he’s not going to pursue the beer and wine.
Mr. Mayor: You want to delete the item from the – so he would want to – Mr.
Shepard, he would withdraw that without prejudice?
Mr. Shepard: He would.
Mr. Mayor: I think that’s the motion you need, that he be allowed to withdraw it
without prejudice.
Ms. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to deleting that item from the agenda, item
number 4?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. In fact, it may not be an objection. I just need some
clarification. It was denied in committee and it was forwarded on to this body for – if it
is pulled now, off the agenda, would that give this establishment the right to come back
within a certain time or have to wait the normal time? Steve, I think it’s a year span. It
came out of committee to be denied. If it comes to this body, if it’s pulled, I mean how
does the ruling go? Somebody need to –
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: The committee action is not binding until it comes here, Mr.
Williams. And if he’s allowed to withdraw it with prejudice, I think he can bring it back
without having to wait the year.
Mr. Williams: Exactly. So I’m opposed to pulling it off the agenda, Mr. Mayor,
because –
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t we pull it for discussion?
Mr. Williams: Right.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll do that, Ms. Beard. We’ll pull it for discussion. Okay, would
anybody like to pull any other items? Mr. Boyles?
19
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’ve been asked by the administrator’s office to pull
and delete for this meeting and send back to committee item 15 on finance. The
digital cameras for the Sheriff’s office. There is some question there and they want
to clarify that, and we can bring it back to our next meeting after that clarification
is done.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to sending item 15 back to the
committee? No objection? Okay.
So the only item we have pulled from the consent
agenda is item number 4. Anybody else want to pull any other items?
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PUBLIC SERVICES
:
1. Motion to approve request by Ronelle Moehrke for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Astrala,
Inc. located at 1034 Broad St. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super District
9. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 23, 2004)
2. Motion to approve a request by Pratapkumar G. Patel for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Shree & Associates d/b/a First
Stop Walton Way located at 2013 Walton Way. District 1. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee September 23, 2004)
3. Motion to approve a request by Pratapkumar G. Patel for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Shree & Associates d/b/a First
Stop Gordon Hwy. located at 1901 Gordon Hwy. District 2. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee September 23, 2004)
4. Deleted from the consent agenda.
5. Motion to approve a request by Kevin G. King for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Indigo
Joe’s Sports Pub & Restaurant located at 3730 Wheeler Rd. There will be Sunday
sales. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
September 23, 2004)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
6. Motion to approve early retirement of Mr. John Bailie under the 1977
Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee September 23,
2004)
7. Motion to approve a request from the Planning Commission, the Department
of Housing & Economic Development and the Department of License & Inspections
to initiate the process of rescinding the designation of the Bethlehem Local Historic
District. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee September 23, 2004)
8. Motion to approve redesign of and operating principles for the Façade
Rehabilitation Grant Program.
B. Approve new program boundaries reflected in the Statement of Program
Guidelines.
C. Reprogram existing economic development funds to be utilized as loan pool
to fund façade projects located outside “Central Business District” and additional
20
façade and exterior wall repair requests. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee September 23, 2004)
9. Motion to approve two contracts for Economic Development Ombudsman
(EDO) (Business Liaisons) Initiative subject to the approval of the contract by the
City Attorney. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee September 23,
2004)
PLANNING:
10. ZA-R-166 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance, thereby amending Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24,
and 26 to provide for time limits for the initiation and reestablishment of uses
permitted by Special Exception, and to invalidate certain Special Exceptions
previously granted. (Approved by the Commission September 21, 2004- second
reading)
ENGINEERING SERVICES CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
17. Approve request from the Georgia Historical Society to place an historical
marker on public property.
18. Authorize execution of Change Order #2 in an amount not to exceed
$17,462.00 to R. D. Brown Contractors, Inc. for the replacement of a small diameter
potable water line at the Goodrich Street Raw Water Pumping Station.
19. Approve payment to “Treasurer – Georgia Department of Transportation”
in the amount of $1,581,897.85 for the relocation of a 12-inch water main on US
Hwy. 25.
20. Authorize the Augusta Utilities Department to notify American Hydro Corp.
of selection results of RFQ #04-111 and proceed with negotiations for replacement
of runner and shaft assembly for Turbine Unit #4.
21. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 13-1, Parcel 2.5
which is owned by Cliff Channell for a temporary easement and permanent
easement on Project 70125 – Alexander-Brookwood Drives.
23. Authorize Public Works and Engineering to enter into a consultant services
agreement with James G. Swift & Associates for additional design services on
Wheeless Road Drainage Improvements (CPB # 322-04-292822562) in the amount of
$15,050 subject to receipt and execution of a consultant services agreement.
24. Approve reimbursement to Jefferson Energy Cooperative for utility
relocations associated with the Neely Road Improvement Project at a total estimated
cost of $34,285.00. Also approve Capital Project Budget (324-04- 201824055)
Change Number One reprogramming $53,140.00 from project contingency in the
amounts of $8,640 to engineering, $9,500 to right of way, and $35,000 to utilities
respectively.
28. Motion to authorize condemnation of portion of Tax map 65: Parcel 53.1
which is owned by Eric Fitzgerald for temporary easement and permanent
easement on Project 50130 – Butler Creek Collector/Belair Hills Estates.
21
Mr. Cheek: We have a request to delete item 22 from the agenda at the
request of the homeowners’ association and we offer to receive as information items
25, 26 and 27 which will have later reports brought back to Engineering Services by
staff.
22. Presentation by the Willow Creek Homeowners Association requesting a change
regarding the current Rae’s Creek Flood Abatement Phase III Project.
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
DELETION FROM THE AGENDA:
22. Deleted from the agenda. (Requesting by the Willow Creek Homeowners
Association)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
1. Report from the Interim Administrator regarding the reopening of the 1977
Defined Benefit Pension Plan and closing the 1998 Defined Contribution Plan with
amendments to the 1977 Pension Plan.
2. Motion to approve Letter of Intent and Quit-Claim Deed abandoning sewer
line to Marguerite S. Rece.
3. Motion to approve the appointment of Lonny Charles Wimberley to the
General Aviation Commission representing District 4.
4. Motion to approve the minutes of the Called Meeting of September 30, 2004.
Addendum item 2. Motion to approve Letter of Intent and Quit-Claim Deed
abandoning sewer line to Marguerite S. Rece.
Addendum item 3. Motion to approve the appointment of Lonny Charles
Wimberley to the General Aviation Commission representing District 4.
Addendum item 4. Motion to approve the minutes of the Called Meeting of
September 30, 2004.
31. Consider request for 2004 budgetary adjustment for additional funds for
Legal Indigent Defense funded through Reserve account.
32. 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.
25. Discuss status of St. Sebastian Way Project.
27. Discuss the installation of traffic signs and traffic signalization on
Hephzibah-McBean Road. (Requested by Commissioner Smith)
Addendum item 5. Motion to approve additional funding request for 2004 GMA
dues.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll move ahead with the vote then on the consent agenda. All in
favor of the consent agenda as enumerated by the Clerk, please vote with the usual sign.
22
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-3, 5-10, 17-21, 23-25, 27-28, Addendum items 2-5]
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s move ahead with item number 4. We’ll take that up.
The Clerk:
4. Motion to deny a request by Tsegai T. Wasse for an on premise consumption
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Boss Place located at 2102 ½
MLK Blvd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
September 23, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: You want to make a motion on this one?
Mr. Williams:
Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I didn’t know whether Ms. Beard wanted
any discussion or not. She had talked with the owner. But the neighborhood came out. I
see some representatives here now. It was denied in committee. There is a [inaudible]
I’m asking that follow the guidelines of the planning, I
this type establishment and
mean of the committee and deny this application.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Mays: I’ll have to second it.
Mr. Mayor: There is a second to the motion. Ms. Beard, from a procedural
standpoint, if you’d like to make a substitute motion to allow the applicant to withdraw
that, that would be in order, if you so choose to do that.
Ms. Beard: I would like to make that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the motion to allow the applicant to withdraw the
application?
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a second. So we have an original motion and a substitute
motion on the floor. I think some people from the neighborhood wanted to be heard?
Mr. Williams, you said some people were here from the neighborhood?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I see Mr. [inaudible] and the neighborhood assistant
president, Ms. Clark. Ms. Clark, you want to –
23
Mr. Mayor: If we can wait just one moment, Ms. Clark. Let me get Mr.
Sherman. You want to tell us about this application [inaudible]? Give us the background
and then we’ll move ahead with this.
Mr. Sherman: The applicant’s name is Mr. Wasse. He had applied for a beer and
wine license to be used in connection with the Boss Place located at 2102-1/2 MLK. His
plan was to add on to the back of the building and have a separate business at this
location. The business was going to be a café and he was going to sell beer and wine. I
guess a couple of days prior to the committee meeting, we found that the site plan that
was approved for this location was approved only for the structure to be used as a
warehouse. It was done that way because there was no parking available on the property.
When we informed Mr. Wasse of this, he seemed a little confused on that and I think he
believed that the property could be used as a café, but in fact it was approved and we
received a letter before the committee meeting, a letter from the Planning Commission
indicating that when the site plan was approved it was approved as a warehouse. So we
informed him of that and then at the committee meeting, when this item came up, Mr.
Wasse had asked that he be allowed to withdraw the application. And then the committee
voted to deny that request, so here we are.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from Ms. Clark. Ms. Clark? Give us your name and
address for the record, please. Speak into the – pull that mike down and speak into it.
Thank you.
Ms. Clark: Thank you. My name is Belle Clark. I’m vice president of Turpin
Hill Neighborhood Association. Rev. Fryer is our president and he’s working and could
not be here. I’m also president emeritus. To our Mayor, to our chairman, our county
Commissioners, and especially our Commissioners representing us, Mr. Marion Williams
and Mr. Willie Mays. Once again, Turpin Hill Neighborhood Association come before
you [inaudible]. We are asking you please do not give a beer and wine license to 2102-
1/2 Martin Luther King Boulevard. They are adding on a lounge room. That addition is
to Boss Place for the purpose of drinking and bringing in bad news. This Boss Place is
an alcohol [inaudible] shop that you pick up your package and go. Now we let go along,
we went along with that, but now we notice there is a lot of loitering around the
establishment. We don’t know why. We think they are doing it so that they can say they
need this lounge. But this corner is in the middle of a neighborhood. Once block from
Mt. Moriah Church, three churches two blocks [inaudible], 1-1/2 blocks away from
Savannah Place recreation department and Carrie Mays Center. Most of all, our children
walking to school, to T. W. Josey High School. The bus stop is one block away in the
back that picks up children for elementary school and to Butler High School. Our senior
citizens cannot sit on their porch because of all this loitering and we now it’s going to be
more, or enjoy their yards because of all the loitering. We do not want more fuel for the
fire. Most of all our neighbors are retired and they want to enjoy their homes and their
street without being worried about the problems that this place will cause to them.
Alcohol or beer should not be sold in a neighborhood period. Please take this
establishment to the highway, not around people’s homes and church. The neighborhood
association voted on September 9, 2004, that no lounge be added to this alcohol
24
establishment. The vote was carried unanimously in opposition. Turpin Hill
Neighborhood Association asks you, our Augusta leaders, to help us keep our community
clean, beautiful and a wonderful area to live in. And be joy. But there will not be joy if
you add to this building, because we know it will be big time problems. So we ask that
we send a good message to our neighborhood, to our children and to our senior citizens.
Thank you for your patience and please vote no for 2021-1/2 Martin Luther King.
Respectfully submitted, Belle Clark, vice president and Rev. Fryer, president [inaudible].
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to speak?
Mr. Howard: First of all, let me go on record to say I took a half a day of
vacation. If we were in church, somebody would say amen. Let me say that speaking on
behalf of First Mt. Moriah Baptist Church. Pastor Andrew Johnson is our pastor. But
he’s up under the weather. I don’t know if some games are trying to be played here or
what, but we want here two weeks ago on this same subject, and we have concerns for
our neighborhood. If you reflect back on this establishment, three people have lost their
lives right at this establishment. Our own Richmond County Sheriff’s deputies, two
officers’ guns have been taken from them at this establishment. We saw the need some
years ago to come out of our church building and hit the streets because our
neighborhood was so bad. And to come down here today and this on the agenda again.
You know, many lives have been corrupted out there, interrupted. And to give approval
to this – first of all, this guy know what he was doing. He knew if he’d put, that he was
going to go out to get a permit for a lounge and a bar, that he knew up front that he
wouldn’t have got it. But he went down and with false pretense and applied for a
warehouse. And this is bad. I’m asking you as Commissioners to vote this down. Like
Ms. Clark stated, we have enough establishments out there in that neighborhood. The
little money in that neighborhood, surely they can spend it at these other [inaudible]
establishments. On behalf of the First Mt. Moriah Baptist Church, we are asking you to
vote no. The record will also show that the Sheriff’s Department have already voted to
not approve this license. And just go back – and if you don’t know what taking place out
there in that neighborhood, I advise you to go and do some research. Because this should
not have been on the agenda. We have too many citizens out there lives have been
interrupted out there. I mean people have lost their loved ones. We cannot have service
at our church, which is less than a block away, that we have to have Richmond County
Sheriff’s Department on the outside, that we pay for. We pay for the extra Sheriff’s
deputies at First Mt. Moriah to control the neighborhood. You know, it took us a long
time to get the prostitutes off the street and right now, you know, right across from this
establishment, they are there up under a tree. Something needs to be done. But they was
gathering around this establishment and we went to the Sheriff and asked what could we
do to keep them from hanging around this place, and it been real good. But now you
want to add a bar and a lounge. We are saying say no. Because if we would have had
this information that you was going to be discussing this today, we’d have had 300
people down here today to let you know that we don’t want this kind of establishment in
this neighborhood. Thank you.
25
Ms. Beard: I have a question for Mr. Howard. When were people killed at that
store?
Mr. Howard: If the proper source had of did their research, they would find this
out. They would have had –
Ms. Beard: No, I want to know from you when it happened.
Mr. Howard: I don’t know what year, Ms. Beard, but if you go back and pull the
record, you will see where individuals have been killed at this establishment.
Ms. Beard: And I want to know when did the police have guns taken from them.
Mr. Howard: You have to ask the Sheriff’s Department. They have records of
that.
Ms. Beard: You know, Mr. Howard, I may have a losing battle here, and I know
Ms. Clark and we’re all going to be friends once this is over, but you know, I, too, know
this establishment. I know it because we ran it more than 25 years. We never had a
problem with anyone while we were running it. After we ran it, my nephew ran it. You
know, it’s a legal business. And according to the information from License & Inspection,
this person qualified for – there was not a problem. Now Mr. Wasse is Ethiopian. He’s
an Ethiopian. He’s an immigrant. He doesn’t speak a great deal of English. But he
appears to be a fine young man, and what he’s attempting to do is make a living for his
family. Now I’m sorry I didn’t get to speak with the neighborhood association. This is
going to come down to the vote. I feel you have really exaggerated the circumstances
here and I think that’s very unfortunate because it is legal. And I know, which had to be
25 or 30 years ago, that we started to work with this situation. And I know the
[inaudible] young lady that I am, I’m not supposed to probably even be discussing this,
but I also know that when Mr. [inaudible] had it, that he had benches in the back and a
shed, and they sat in the back and did what they needed to do. And there wasn’t a
problem with that. Now what he is saying is he understands that you don’t want him to
have the beer and the wine in the back, so he’s going to pull it. And I’m going to say to
you with almost any type business now, it’s hard, and it’s especially hard for young
businesses. And that store, I wish you would go by it, because it is the type [inaudible],
it’s so nice, it’s so clean, it’s so well kept and it’s so quiet. You can saw what you want,
but it is, and it’s because of his demeanor and the way that he handles things. Have you,
have you been in, any of you to talk with him?
Mr. Howard: To Ms. Beard, to me, if someone want to expand their business and
you have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 church within three blocks, to me if you have the people in that
neighborhood at heart, then you will go to them. Now we live out there. When I say out
there, I am in the neighborhood four times a week at my church. If my pastor was not
sick, he would be here. If the other members know it was on the agenda today, they
would be here. Now when you say it’s clean, that’s a matter of opinion, what you call
clean. Now let’s [inaudible] that have taken place at this establishment. The suppression
26
team from the Richmond Sheriff’s Department, they know all about this establishment.
You know, individuals have been hit in the head at this establishment. I mean it’s ruckus,
because when you call the police it have to be ruckus. And I think if it was applied for as
a liquor license and a lounge that License & Inspection would have did a criminal
background check on this and it should have came out in that. But for the Sheriff’s
Department to say no, they have a reason why they are saying no. The ministers in that
neighborhood have a reason why they are saying no. The Turpin Hill Association have a
reason why they are saying no. And I don’t know what you read or what you see, but it’s
a bad neighborhood. That block, it’s a bad neighborhood. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I just call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: Before we do that, let me ask is the petitioner here? Does he want to
say anything or is somebody representing the petitioner?
Ms. Beard: No. I recently spoke with him and he requested that we just simply
delete it.
Mr. Mayor: I just wanted to give him a chance to be on the record. The question
has been called. We’ll move ahead on the vote, first on the substitute motion from Ms.
Beard which would permit the applicant to withdraw the application at this time. All in
favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Boyles, Mr. Williams, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Grantham and Mr. Smith vote No.
Mr. Mays, Mr. Colclough and Mr. Hankerson abstain.
Motion fails 1-5-3.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the original motion from Mr. Williams, which is to
deny the request. All in favor of the original motion, please –
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor, could I ask a question?
Mr. Mayor: We’re voting. We already have six votes.
Mr. Boyles: All right. Forget the question.
(Vote on original motion)
Ms. Beard votes No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 7-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go to number 11, Madame Clerk.
27
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
11. Z-04-79 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Sherman & Hemstreet, on behalf of
Hugh Pratt, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family
Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) with a Special Exception for a
convenience store per Section 21-2-(b) affecting property located on the northwest
corner of the intersection of Furys Ferry Road and Prattwood Drive and contains
approximately 0.7 acres. (Tax Map 6 Part of parcels 7 & 8) DISTRICT 7
The Clerk: This item was deferred from our last Commission meeting. The
residents are here from –
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: George, you want to give us some background on this?
Mr. Patty: Yes. You remember this involves a convenience store that has been at
this location for some time at the intersection of – approximately the intersection of
Prattwood and Stevens Creek Road, and because of the work – I’m sorry, Furys Ferry
Road. Because of the work that is being done on Furys Ferry, the median – there’s going
to be a median, concrete median, raised median in front of the store. You’re not going to
be able to make a left turn into it or out of it. And because of that, they want to acquire
the property next to it which would front on Prattwood Drive, which is the entrance to the
subdivisions off of Riverwatch, which is a boulevard-type entrance to the subdivisions.
They want to place an entrance to this store on Prattwood Drive just beyond the median
at Prattwood Drive so that customers can come to – could avoid making that left turn but
still get out on Furys Ferry. On and off of Furys Ferry. And they, I think, are agreeable
that the only use to that property would be this entrance and there was some
consternation on the part of the neighborhood because this would introduce commercial
use into this area. There’s approximately six acres of undeveloped land at the entrance to
Prattwood Drive, which the only possible way to get to this last is from Prattwood Drive
and they’ll concerned about the precedent it would set, as well as traffic it would
introduce in the area. I think there were some meetings held and hopefully this comes
with a resolution.
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today?
Mr. Franke: Yes, sir, Mayor Young.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any objectors here today? Just raise your hands. Let me
get a head count. We’ll get to the objectors in just a moment. Give us your name and
address for the record.
28
Mr. Franke: Yes, sir. Billy Franke, Sherman and Hemstreet, LLC. I live, reside
at 4447 McManess Court, Evans, Georgia. I just want to say that we are in agreement
with what Planning & Zoning agreed to and we have gone back to the neighborhood with
some sort of concessions which we will discuss. And I’m going to turn that back over to
the representative of Circle K to better explain.
Mr. Mayor: Give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. Weiss: I’m Mike Weiss. My address is 521 East Morehead Street, Charlotte,
North Carolina. And I represent Circle K as a consultant. At the last meeting on
September 21, we were asked to go back and work with the homeowners association on
the possibility of sharing in the maintenance of Prattwood Road, which is the entrance
into the Brookfield West Subdivision. And we have done that. Via emails and telephone
calls with Ms. Stewart, who is representing the homeowners association, we have talked
to them and received information on the annual cost of maintaining that road. I asked
Circle K’s landscape to look at that, as well as to receive information on the cost of the
actual installation of the irrigation system as well as the trees that they planted there and
some flowers. The roadway that we’re talking about is 700 feet long and it compromises
pretty much the whole stretch of Prattwood Road and the impact that Circle K is going to
have on that road, it’s about 35’ to 40’ where the driveway enters into it. Circle K has
looked at it and has made some offers and concessions with the neighborhood group and
presented those to them. I’ll go through those real briefly and I’ll try to keep this as brief
as possible. One of the things that they asked us to do is with the DOT improvements
along Prattwood Road, there were nine trees that were taken down along that road
[inaudible] and they’ve asked us to reinstall those, and we’ve agreed. Circle K has
agreed to reinstall those nine trees to go ahead and make the entrance look symmetrical
on both sides. And to make it to continue to look as nice as they had it in the past.
We’ve also had mentioned that we would at the entrance of our driveway where it abuts
Prattwood Road, landscape that area so that it blends with the landscaping that is done in
the island, that they currently have with flowers. Also, blends with the other landscaping
along the area [inaudible] street trees along the roadway so that it matches as best as
possible. We’ve also agreed to install a sidewalk down our roadway, access roadway,
into the Circle K gas station. Right now there is a portion of the sidewalk being installed
along Prattwood Road by DOT. I don’t have the details how far that will continue up but
it looks like it’s going to continue up very close to the driveway [inaudible] install and
we’re going to attach to that sidewalk and continue [inaudible]. We have also, which
isn’t mentioned in the letter, but we would maintain our landscaping on that side of
Prattwood Road, which would be Circle K’s property, if all this goes through. We’d
maintain that and take care of that expense of maintaining that strip of land that Circle K
would own. In addition to that, what Circle K has offered is to pay for some of the initial
installation – they installed an irrigation system out there and irrigation meters. They
have spent some money installing trees along there, [inaudible] trees, installing flowers.
Circle K has offered to provide $1,000 lump sum payment to kind of reimburse them for
some of the expenses that they’ve [inaudible] on that property. Circle K thought that was
[inaudible] fair with regard to the impact that we’re going to have out there. And that
29
really is the agreement that Circle K had. I’d like to add two other points real quickly.
We’ve also looked at the design of the road, the way we’re going to design the road is
such that it is a curve as it goes back into [inaudible] and when I say curve, what that will
do is as you come down Prattwood Road you would not have a direct line of light with
the [inaudible] store. You will actually be looking down the road and see the trees
because the road will curve at such a nature that you will not be able to have a direct line
of sight from Prattwood to the Circle K, which alleviates some of the concerns as you
drive down. The design is also going to take into account the existing trees there and
we’re going to minimize the [inaudible] of those trees. We’re just going to take a small
area of about 30’ or 40’ wide, whatever it takes to put the road in there, put street trees in
there along the road and carry it on to Prattwood so that it’s the minimum impact as
possible in that area and preserve all the trees that exist there. We have no intention of
clear cutting those trees. The neighborhood group wants us to go ahead and leave as
many trees as possible, to go ahead and keep the visibility from Prattwood – the Circle K,
and we’ve agreed to do that. That’s really all I have to say at this point. I think the
neighborhood – we’ve talked to them, I think they have some different opinions and I’ll
let Mr. Creech speak. Him and I had a chance to talk in the meeting and see what he has
to say.
Mr. Mayor: Give us your name and address for the record. Fran, are you going to
speak?
Ms. Stewart: Not unless you need me.
Mr. Creech: Maybe.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Creech: I’m James Creech. I live at 3116 Fieldstone Circle, I’m in
Brookfield Subdivision, I’ve been there for 28 years. What I’d like to do and this is the
first time I’ve done a presentation like this, I’ve tried to do a presentation and put
everything in order. What I’m going to speak on. Starting with the first map and so
forth, like that. The reason I did this map is because the people I talked to did not realize
where Brookfield Subdivision was. And of course unless I lived in that part of town, if I
lived somewhere else I probably wouldn’t know where it is, either. So that’s the reason I
decided to make the first map and show you the location. And it’s got an “X” and I was
trying to show you the Circle K is right there at the borderline with Richmond and
Columbia Counties. And I’m going to try and be as brief and quick as I can. Don’t mean
to bore you guys with this. Like I say, I’ve lived in Augusta all my life. Grew up and my
parents were here in Augusta. One of the things that if you’ll notice on the map is that
[inaudible] spent a lot of money on entrances coming into the Augusta-Richmond
County. This is an entrance, the first site as you come in from South Carolina. So it is a
gateway into Augusta-Richmond County. Two things that they’ll see first, so far, is on
the left there, the Circle K, and then the next one is our subdivision, with the sign out
there saying “Brookfield West Subdivision.” There is an attachment, the letter that he
alluded to, is on the back of this. We kind of – [inaudible] comment after I did my
30
presentation, but he’s already done that, so I will go on. And we appreciate the
Commission for delaying the last time we were here to give the homeowners and Circle
K time to discuss this. And I was looking at – if y’all are familiar with the area, I was
looking at Circle K [inaudible] landscaping [inaudible] anybody seen Circle K there at
the Pleasant Home Road and Davis Road, it is very nicely landscaped. Okay, if we could
flip, go over to the next, and it’s called Conceptual Site Plan. If everybody has got that in
front of them? There again, [inaudible] Columbia-Richmond County line was, it’s
approximate, not to scale. I’m not an architect. But that kind of shows you where it is.
The first part of that [inaudible], that’s where the Circle K is. The second part is already
zoned B-1, neighborhood business. I understand they own it and it has pumping stations
[inaudible] and then they want the next, next to it, which is right next to Prattwood Drive
and Furys Ferry, is an area that they want to buy. And then the back part of that property
is where they want to put through the proposed roadway. Okay. What I did was try to
minimize the impact of commercially going back into our subdivision. So rather than the
back part of that lot being sold for that roadway, they already own the existing part right
next to the Circle K. There is a little small piece of property there that they could buy. If
you’ll look at [inaudible] part of the – there’s a line that comes out toward Furys Ferry
Road. That is the cut that is not paved yet that DOT has already put there. What I’m
proposing is let them have a drive through that, give access to their customers back to the
red light. And I understand completely why. I’m not arguing that point. But have that
on a right hand turn only come out of that service station, one way. That way, it gives
access to that red light for the customers to go there, make their left to go back towards
Riverwatch Parkway. Okay. The next, the next picture, as I say, is an aerial view of the
site. [inaudible] it was taken around the year 2000. And you’ll see where the Circle K is.
There’s land. You’ll see a bunch of vacant land, and off to the right is our subdivision.
When they, when they built Riverwatch Parkway, they took the entrance to our
subdivision for the Parkway, so they had the DOT move the entrance to our subdivision
down the road and cut through to make an entrance into our subdivision. The Circle K
station was not there at the time. All that land was [inaudible] residential as far as I
understand to protect the Brookfield Subdivision and to keep the, keep that single-family
housing. They got an exception, I don’t know what year, and they built the Circle K, and
it’s been a very good convenience to the people in our neighborhood. I use it. I enjoy
buying their gas and other products, so I do spend my money there. What we’re afraid of
is you’re looking at that drawing, you’ll see some lines already drawn around as you
come into Prattwood Drive. Now they’re only – the first two to the left is what they’re
wanting to rezone. But what’s going to happen to the rest of that land? All the rest of
that land is owned by the Pratts and the Duffies and they have homes way up in the
woods and they’re away from all this traffic noise and everything else, which is good. I
wish I had a home way up in there. But that’s not the case. But what we’re afraid of is
they sell off, which they could, and who are they going to sell it to? We want to keep it
residential. All right, the next – it says Brookfield Association Officers at the head of it.
If you’ll look at the bottom of it, it shows Brookfield West, it’s got Riverwatch Parkway,
it’s got Furys Ferry Road and the entrance to our subdivision. And we have covenants
that we go by in the neighborhood. Just to let you know, in our neighborhood, which we
consider all that area, we have a Baptist Church, we have a cemetery, and we have a park
in that neighborhood. And we all do very well together. And they’ve also built on Mayo
31
Road, someone has built a brand new home. So the area is very desirable for residential,
which again with Circle K being there, that’s where you are going to get your business, is
from homeowners so it’s an advantage to Circle K also. The next, flip over to the next
page and you’ll see it says Brookfield Neighborhood Association Directory, 2004, at the
top of it. I didn’t give y’all a copy of it. One reason is the cost of printing it, then I’d be
giving everybody’s name who lives there. But anyway, we have an active neighborhood
association, and you can see how we’re done there, which to me is what I think all
neighborhood associations and neighborhoods should go through. They would have
better living and policing of the neighborhood and could stop a lot of things before they
start. If you’ll flip over to the next page, it says Brookfield Neighborhood Association
Treasurer’s Report. If you read in there, we have island maintenance that we’ve alluded
to on Prattwood Drive, plus other areas that we maintain with trees, flowers. This is, too,
on Prattwood Drive was an all-volunteer – we did not pay people to come out and plant
those trees. Our neighborhood association went through and planted those trees, do the
flowers. Fran had got the DOT when they were doing the extension to put in a water
main there, where she could water – and I say she – to water flowers and she planted
flowers at the front of it, but with the DOT and the road blocked she hasn’t been able to
plant flowers lately. But we’ll have that fixed pretty soon, too. But we have a crime
watch, we do look out for our neighbors in that subdivision. The people in that
neighborhood keep up their property, they keep their lawns cut. I know myself, I’ve
lived there for 28 years and I’ve tried to take a mid-70’s house and bring it up to year
2000, and you don’t do those things without it costing money. So I did that because I
liked the location, I like Richmond County, I grew up here, I’m an Augusta boy, proud of
it. Like I say, our subdivision is 30 years old and it doesn’t look 30 years old and that’s
because of the pride of the people that’s lived in the subdivision that have maintained
their homes. Our homeowners have made a large investment and we know each one of
y’all here, if you bought your home [inaudible] pay for it [inaudible] hopefully got easier
to pay for it, but it’s still a big investment, probably one of the biggest investments any of
you have made. And also, it may be an investment that when you retire – I don’t know if
you’d want to go to Florida now, but you could sell it and be able to live there. But I just
wanted to let y’all know on that, also, that we do have that. The next copy is a couple of
– I just threw in, that’s my ideas [inaudible] this last copy and it’s a letter that someone,
Fran and I do not know, wrote in to the editor and mentioned her name and I thought it
was worthwhile mentioning it. And the other one was just recently in the paper, which is
kind of ironic, in 1951 we were talking about drainage water, and we’re also talking
about it in Virginia Subdivision. And there again, I don’t know where the Virginia
Subdivision is. So that’s the reason I wanted to start off letting people know where we
live. The next copy, and if you’ll notice, I have not been adversarial with our Circle K
people, don’t want to do that cause I understand, like Andy said at the last meeting,
we’ve got a problem in Richmond County, we’re losing population, we’re losing tax
base. We need to grow both, be business friendly and be neighborhood friendly, because
you can have all the businesses you want to, unless you’ve got the neighborhoods to
support them they’re not going to be there. My opinion. Anyway, the last here, I’m
going to make two comments. I think that the letter stands pretty good for itself. I’m not
in disagreement. I think they are trying to cooperate and do something fair. Circle K and
the stations they bought were very nice stations because I wouldn’t visit any of the Circle
32
K because I wouldn’t go into a place that I didn’t feel safe and clean. And I think we’re
the same way with grocery stores and all other things that we go to. But anyway, a
couple of comments that I want to make on the letter. The Commission had their meeting
two weeks ago. The letter that I think came to Mike Weiss from the corporate office was
that October 1 – we, meaning Fran, did not get the letter that they stated until 4:49
yesterday. We had our meeting, neighborhood association meeting last night. I
presented what I’m presenting to y’all and we all agreed that okay, if we’ve got to
compromise [inaudible] compromise for Circle K, protect our neighborhood, with the
mind that [inaudible] benefit, there are over 200 houses in Brookfield, a large
neighborhood, and we have 196 – from what I understand, I did not count them – 196
signatures on that petition not wanting a cut at all into our neighborhood. The solution
that I came up with keeps them away from the end of the island that runs 171’ and it goes
back into Prattwood Drive. They wanted to come out on the other end of that island, and
I’m assuming that’s two lane traffic going in and out. So you’ve got a bottle neck there.
We’ve got a lot of neighbors that come in and out of that area. Just to let you know, too,
and I mentioned that the last Commission meeting and I was the one that got up and
talked about Riverwatch Parkway, when it ended at Stevens Creek before it go across
Furys Ferry. We were the racetrack through there. So there is a cut through in order to
get from Furys Ferry Road to Stevens Creek. But anyway, we just received this letter.
Michael, do you go by Michael?
Mr. Weiss: Mike. Either way.
Mr. Creech: Mike and I talked briefly right outside. As a matter of fact, he was
the one – I just showed him, along with the Commissioners, the proposed plan that seems
to be workable. But like I say, we didn’t get this thing until last minute. He was on the
road. He did call. But he was on the road. I’m not sure [inaudible] Augusta, I assume
from Charlotte. He didn’t run into any bottle necks. But anyway, all that shows we do
want to cooperate. We don’t know what the future plans for Circle K would be there.
I’m going to make a comment and I’m just going to say car wash, and not say where I
heard it from. But it’s a possibility. [inaudible] they may or may not. Circle K could be
there from now on. They may or may not. We don’t know what may go in if they pull
out. We don’t [inaudible]. It’s very convenient for me to go there. And if you’ll notice
in this, and I’m saying right turn only, people like myself that go to that Circle K., I’m
going to go up to [inaudible] highway and have to make a u-turn to come back into the
red light and turn into my subdivision. But I’m willing to do that, along with my
neighbors, to keep our subdivision a nice, non-crime type subdivision.
Mr. Mayor: Are you wrapping it up?
Mr. Creech: Yes, sir. I didn’t want to lose anybody. Well, I [inaudible] last
page. But anyway, that’s where we stand with it, and I hope this is a workable solution to
– for Circle K. We welcome them as a neighbor. We hope that they really make that
look nice. It is a gateway into Richmond County. [inaudible] good selling job for our
county and say, hey, we’ve got a subdivision here [inaudible].
33
Mr. Mayor: Would there be some value if we tabled this item and gave the two of
y’all an opportunity to go talk further, particularly with the driveway you’ve drawn on
here, does that conform with the distance requirements from the intersection [inaudible]
DOT and our ordinance? So I think there are some questions and information that need
to be forthcoming on this. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I was listening, and as I understand it, there’s a
consensus position.
Mr. Creech: Yes, it is.
Mr. Shepard: And I think that they were in the conditions listed by this presenter,
if we could clarify that, either in a moment off the floor, it seems that there’s been a
resolution between the neighbors and the applicant here and if that’s acceptable we could
certainly list the conditions that they are agreeable to. I don’t think those were listed, Mr.
Patty, in the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Mr. Patty: Those weren’t a part of the application. Mr. Shepard, I was talking to
your law partner over here, I faded away, I’m sorry.
Mr. Shepard: Well, we appreciate all the help we can get, Mr. Patty. What I
understand, the presentations of the applicant and the neighbors is they have reached a
consensus position here that they want to recommend to this board and involve the list of
conditions that you’ve made in your presentation.
Mr. Creech: Correct.
Mr. Shepard: And I just wanted to make sure. Either we can list them again, I
didn’t know what Mr. Creech was going to say. But if he accurately stated that –
Mr. Creech: Let me clarify.
Mr. Shepard: Sure.
Mr. Creech: There’s two pieces of property they want rezoned from residential to
neighborhood business. We only want this one property to be rezoned to neighborhood
business. The other piece of property, up Prattwood Drive, would remain residential.
Maybe I didn’t make myself clear on that.
Mr. Patty: You asked my opinion on this. The meeting, most recent meeting
where this came up before, I think they were headed toward some consensus on some
beautification and possibly some – Circle K taking over some responsibility for
maintenance of the island and that sort of thing. And I don’t know that the commitment
was made from the neighborhood side that that solved the problem or not. I think it was
headed in that direction and apparently that’s not where they are today. They’ve offered
up some things and the neighborhood has [inaudible] one way, an entrance would end at
34
the median so there couldn’t be two way traffic in that entrance so I’m not sure any
progress has been made, frankly.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, what about the access
that’s shown over the rear parcel of the proposed roadway? Is that the circulation
pattern?
Mr. Weiss: That is the road that Circle K proposed.
Mr. Shepard: Sir?
Mr. Weiss: That is the road that Circle K proposed. [inaudible] drawing to draw
the single lane, which is the one that Mr. Creech [inaudible] proposing.
Mr. Shepard: And that property across the proposed roadway as shown will not
be rezoned; is that –
Mr. Weiss: It will still require rezoning to do that.
Mr. Patty: That tract is currently zoned residential. Now the other tract that Mr.
Creech has shown going across is already zoned so I would presume they would have the
right now without rezoning to do what they want to do.
Mr. Mayor: It might be helpful if we tabled this item and gave, give the folks the
chance to clarify these issues a little bit.
Mr. Creech: There’s not any clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Just a minute. The chair will determine whether clarification is
needed.
Mr. Creech: This is the first time I’ve been up here.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, that’s fine. It is quite confusing if it appears we’ve got
consensus but we don’t have consensus, then we obviously don’t have an understanding.
And maybe if we just table this item and gave y’all the chance to go into the committee
room or the administrator’s conference room, Mr. Shepard, maybe you or Mr. Patty could
help facilitate the discussion, and let’s see exactly where we are and exactly what the
issue is that the Commission is going to be asked to deal with here today. That might
expedite this.
Mr. Creech: If I may, is this the appropriate time?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
35
Mr. Creech: The [inaudible] last meeting, when we left that last meeting, we
were left in charge of doing, to work with the homeowners association on landscaping
issues on Prattwood Drive, and that’s what Circle K’s intent was to do. This drawing
here is something new to us.
Mr. Mayor: That’s why I suggest you folks go in a room and talk about it and see
where you are. Otherwise, everything is laid out and you’ll take a chance on the vote,
where you might be able to settle something and everybody is happy at the end of the
day.
Mr. Weiss: We’ll take the recommendation of the Commission at this point.
Mr. Mayor: I think that would be helpful, and as soon as you finish we’ll deal
with it. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to touch on what I think is the root cause of this
problem, something we’re running into – it’s an issue on Davis Road, it’s currently an
issue on Peach Orchard at I-520. The [inaudible] State DOT’s [inaudible] put in raised
medians and put stripes down in places that don’t make very much sense, certainly don’t
consider the impact on local businesses and the community. I’d like to offer to request
the Clerk to establish a line item for the next Engineering Services agenda to review the
policy of the State DOT’s raised medians and striping. They’ve created death traps and
de-valued property and caused problems across the city for business owners with some of
their changes, [inaudible] changes from suicide lanes to raised medians and so forth. And
perhaps we can get a handle on this, if not help this problem, resolve it for future issues.
Mr. Mayor: Can we get a motion to table this and let’s give them a chance to go
talk about it and come back and report and see where we are?
Mr. Cheek: A motion to table.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to table that’s been seconded. All in favor of the
motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, can you facilitate the conference and let’s see where we
are.
Mr. Weiss: Thank you.
Mr. Creech: Thank y’all.
36
Mr. Mayor: We’ve been here two hours, so the chair is going to declare a brief
recess and then we’ll come back and continue with our business.
[RECESS]
The Clerk:
30. Discuss Memorandum Of Understanding Agreements (MOU) for the Sports
Arena and Amphitheater.
Mr. Mayor: Before we get into the discussion, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Plunkett, maybe
you can tell us, the latest version, the latest draft version. I had one before me and then
you’ve got another passed out this afternoon. The one we just got, this is the latest
version?
Mr. Plunkett: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct?
Mr. Plunkett: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I would refer everyone to the one that was just passed around
during the meeting. It’s the document we’ll be referencing. Gentlemen, what is your
pleasure?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Before we get started here, if we can put the item back on the
table, we had a group that I think got some things worked out in the committee room and
I’m sure this is going to be a lengthy conversation here, and I wouldn’t want to – if it’s in
order, to go ahead and handle that.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I don’t see them in the chamber.
Mr. Boyles: We are back, Mr. Mayor. They should be coming in, some of them,
cause it was worked out. Some should be coming back. I’m back. Mr. Grantham is
back.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll just hold off a moment. If they’ve finished their
work we’ll – it shouldn’t take but a moment to take it up. Then we’ll address - thank
you, Mr. Williams, for pointing that out. I didn’t see any of them in here.
Mr. Williams: Yeah, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor.
37
Mr. Mayor: I thought they were still negotiating. Did you work it out? Oh,
they’re still talking? Well, let’s go ahead with 30 and then we’ll come back to them
when they’re ready to report.
30. Discuss Memorandum Of Understanding Agreements (MOU) for the Sports
Arena and Amphitheater.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, lady, what’s your pleasure with respect to item 30? Are
we ready to entertain a motion on these? Or do you have any additional questions or
comments? Mr. Plunkett, do you have something you wanted to report to the
Commission or where are we with this?
Mr. Plunkett: If you’d look at the memorandum of understanding with Augusta
Entertainment, we have discussed over the last couple of days a couple of small revisions
to this which we think will strengthen the agreement. On page 2, under section 2, after
some of the discussion about whether or not members of the Commission would serve or
would not serve, we put in language that said that in the event a Commissioner or the
Mayor did not want to serve, that the Commission could appoint an alternative member
to that board so long as they’re a member of Augusta Entertainment LLC. We did this
because while our Commission today is willing to serve, we don’t know if in five years
or in six years someone would be willing to serve, so this is a stop gap there to be sure we
still have our appointees in that regard.
Mr. Mays: Are we going to go through the whole thing, Mr. Plunkett?
Mr. Mayor: Let him take each one as we go, Mr. Mays. Do you have a question?
Mr. Mays: Yeah, I have a question on that one immediately. How did you all
reach the assumption that – of course, I raised the question about the conflict period.
That’s a little different from where we’re going. I still think, number one, and I was
going to state that along with a list of things that I have here to discuss when we get to the
discussion portion of the motion. But what I wanted to ask for the record inasmuch as I
had raised that question about Commissioners serving, it leads to a bigger issue because
there are things in there that deal with the money and which I do think have a conflict.
But I’d like to know how did we reach the agreement that if Commissioners would not
serve, why the [inaudible] to a point that if we are the entity that is providing the funding
for this particular project which will entail before it’s through $100 million or better, why
then is it the – [inaudible] which if it’s not the Commissioners, which I wouldn’t want to
[inaudible] anyway, but why are they not clear cut appointments like we have with every
other board that we deal with? I mean what I’m hearing is indirectly it will be
appointments that we make but then they’ve either got to come from Augusta
Entertainment or be sanctioned by them. And [inaudible] get that real clear.
38
Mr. Plunkett: Well, Mr. Mays, I think the issue here is that the document as it
stood before were simply the four appointees. And in reviewing and thinking about the
various things that we discussed last time, was a way to get around that if there was a
conflict that arose. And if, for instance, the next selected Mayor said they did not want to
serve on this, would we then have only three appointees on the board? And so what I
was trying to do was to address that issue and to be able to have the fourth appointee
available. I discussed this with counsel for Augusta Entertainment and I suggested that
we name someone and they suggested that it be named out of members of Augusta
Entertainment, LLC, that is an investor of that group.
Mr. Mays: Well, I think this Commission needs to make the decision to tell you
all who to name and how to do that. Because number one, in those at-large appointments
which are already in place, we’ve already got appointments that are going to be handed to
us to select from a list of people. This in turn puts us in the double whammy position
because not only do they sanction the ones that they are giving to us to do those three, but
then you come back and it comes out of their list. Why does it not come out of the
citizenry that’s going to pay most of this tax, even though out-of-towners would
[inaudible] first come out of the 200,000+ people that we have a decision to make an
appointment from? I think – I, I, I – the Commission may approve that, but this
Commissioner will never vote for that to be done in that manner. And it’s as though I’m
coming here every week as though, and I keep saying, you know, I mean, you know, I
understand their lawyer was in a hurry a while ago, well, he basically can go if you are
going to explain their position for them and sanction what they got in there, cause I mean
in this deal, you know, I’m going to ask the question publicly. Who’s working for us?
Mr. Williams: That’s right. That’s what I want to know.
Mr. Mays: Now I mean I got a little strong sense of resentment with that to a
point that if I’m one of ten people, 11 possibly, to vote on the largest project that we’re
going to do in this community ever, $100 million, and we already getting into a box about
how the appointments to be decided in here, we would have never got in this box in the
first place had they listened to me two years ago in a diverse community and said in a
true partnership, then we appoint some people and you all do some. But it’s as though,
you know, I got down in there, this is one of those partnerships I looked up that wasn’t
th
defined in Webster’s. Now I found a definition for it in Willie’s dictionary off 9 Street
which basically says a partner and a ship, we part company after we sign the document
and the money gets shipped out. That’s the only thing about this that is resembling a
partnership. It’s a private situation to a point where the whole thing gets to be where the
tail wagging this dog. But you continue where you’re going. I been asking for
clarification where we’re going, I see one item, Mr. Mayor, already I can’t vote for.
Mr. Mayor: Let me to do this, if I may. If we could, if I could ask the
Commission’s indulgence, if we suspend the discussion on this item, we are prepared to
receive an announcement [inaudible] debate, an announcement on item number 11. The
Commission can dispose of it, those folks can go on home and then we can [inaudible].
39
PLANNING:
11. Z-04-79 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Sherman & Hemstreet, on behalf of
Hugh Pratt, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family
Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) with a Special Exception for a
convenience store per Section 21-2-(b) affecting property located on the northwest
corner of the intersection of Furys Ferry Road and Prattwood Drive and contains
approximately 0.7 acres. (Tax Map 6 Part of parcels 7 & 8) DISTRICT 7
Mr. Mayor: So do we have a motion to take item number 11 off the table?
Mr. Boyles: I move we take item 11 off the table.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] you have an announcement with respect to this item?
Mr. Shepard: I do, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. We have a consent
with regard to the rezoning of the property which is the subject of item number 11, and it
involves conditions with the applicant is willing to accept which were offered by the
neighborhood and which we all agreed to and I can read them into the record and want to
file with the Clerk today the drawing which all of this relates to. So it’s a somewhat
lengthy announcement.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, put it on the record.
Mr. Shepard: It would be my recommendation that the property be rezoned
as set forth in the agenda item number 11 subject to the following conditions, and
these are: that Circle K will install nine crepe myrtle trees along the west side of
Prattwood Drive after the closing of the sale to Circle K of Map and Parcel
Numbers 006-0-007-00-0 and the closing of Parcel 006-0-008-00-0 and that the trees
will be installed in conjunction with the construction of the driveway across the
parcel known as 006-0-007-00-0; the Circle K will install shrubs and flowers on both
sides of the driveway across Parcel 006-0-007-00-0 to complement and blend with
the current landscaped entrance to Brookfield West Subdivision; and thirdly, that
Circle K will have a sidewalk installed down the driveway it is to construct which
was mentioned before from Prattwood Drive towards its store. The fourth
condition is that Circle K will provide the Brookfield Neighborhood Association
with a check for $1,000 to be used towards the maintenance of their current
common areas or towards whatever need they feel is best as a consideration of their
commitment towards the driveway connection. A fifth condition is that there will be
no trees removed from Parcels 006-0-007-00-0 and 006-0-008-00-0 which are not
necessary to the construction of the driveway and finally, the sixth condition is there
will be no other development of this property.
And I will file, am filing with the Clerk
40
at this time a conceptual site plan which was revised as of September 7, 2004, which
relates to all the references and shows the proposed driveway as a “proposed roadway”
across the parcel which is designated as 006-0-007-00-0.
Mr. Mayor: Are you through, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: I was going to ask if the representative and the representative of the
neighborhood if they would just acknowledge for the record today that both of you agree
to the stipulations that were enumerated by the attorney. Is that correct?
Mr. Weiss: Correct.
Mr. Creech: Correct.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I move for approval.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor then
please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much.
Mr. Weiss: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Plunkett, we’ll resume our discussion of item number
30. Please continue.
30. Discuss Memorandum Of Understanding Agreements (MOU) for the Sports
Arena and Amphitheater.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Before Mr. Plunkett continues, if I can indulge just for a minute.
Mr. Mayor: Sure.
Mr. Williams: I’m wondering why I’ve got to debate, I’ve got to defend with our
attorney. I think that the entertainment group has an attorney. If they’re going to present
– first of all, this is a $100 million contract we’re looking at and I don’t appreciate the
41
changes that been made and just handed up to me here now. We just got through talking
earlier about the landfill and how we let stuff slip through, even about a cover over a car.
Here you talking about $100 million that changes made in a document that’s about 10 or
12 pages thick. I’m not as smart as a lot of people and I ain’t as slow as a lot of them
think I’m slow, but I think that we need to first of all have the opposite attorney come and
present whatever it is. I don’t want a debate from Mr. Plunkett. I don’t have to defend
with him. I don’t understand why he even, you know, in that position right now. I think
that the opposing attorney, we should have had this conversation with Mr. Plunkett and
with Mr. Shepard and with all of the attorneys ourselves and agreed and went back and
say hey, they agreed, they disagreed, but here we are on the floor, and I got no problem, I
don’t have church tonight. I mean I can be here till whatever time. But I think this is
very, very wrong to bring it out, for us to go back and forth with our own attorney when
we have not sit down and agreed. Most contracts, a buyer, a seller, a partnership, one
sides sits down and agrees to the terms, the other side says I disagree. They go back, just
like they just did on the last couple of – just went out the door. Went back and go talk
about it. Here we are now going sign something or agree on something that we don’t
know what’s in there. The whole thing could have been changed. So I would love to
hear from the LLC attorney rather than the man that we paying. I mean I don’t pay him
to debate with me. I’m not going do that. Mr. Shepard just came back last week
[inaudible] he needs to, he needs to, Mr. Mayor, take the seat and let the other attorney, I
think, defend or prove whatever the contract been.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I think our attorney is reporting back to us on the
results of the discussions and the continuing negotiations. If you have some questions,
certainly the attorney for the Augusta Entertainment is here and I’m sure Mr. Batchelor
will be happy to answer any specifics questions you have but our attorney is reporting
back to us on the results of negotiations.
Mr. Williams: We need to go into legal the, Mr. Mayor, if that’s what he’s doing.
I don’t think he ought to come to the floor and present what he’s present to us. He ain’t
just giving to us, he’s giving to the world. This is being broadcast. So we need to go into
legal and agree or not agree to the terms. I mean that, you don’t do business like that.
I’m sure you’ve been around a little real estate, Mr. Mayor, I mean you got somebody in
your house that do a lot of this. They don’t handle business like this. And I don’t think
the government ought to be handling business this way. We ought to go into legal now
and then discuss it so we can present, or tell them we agree or tell them we disagree.
Mr. Mayor: All right, if you’d like to make that motion to go into legal to
discuss this –
Mr. Williams: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion, is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
42
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second to go into legal to discuss this agreement. Any
discussion on that motion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: There is one item and I just hope that maybe when we come out of
legal that we can maybe take it up and I say that because I see Mr. Loyd sitting back there
from the Development Authority. He stayed with us about five hours. We’re talking
about people staying here. He stayed and stayed away from his private office about four
to five hours to deal with Development Authority work the last time we had a meeting, he
was in the committee meeting and we ran out of time, we’ve [inaudible]. He’s here today
on what I think is probably procedural. I would hope that before we get into [inaudible]
going to take up some time that maybe at least when we come out of legal, because it
may be something in his case that needs to be talked about in legal, but I would maybe
that we might get him. I just –
Mr. Mayor: That’s fine. Which item is he here for, Mr. Mays, do you know?
The Clerk: [inaudible] DDA.
Mr. Boyles: Item 14.
Mr. Mayor: DDA item? Okay. All right, we have a motion that’s been made to
go into legal to discuss the negotiations our attorney is reporting to us. Do we have any
discussion on that motion? Mr. Hankerson, did you want to –
Mr. Hankerson: Were you going to hear Sanford before we go into legal or
afterwards?
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a motion on the floor and we need to dispose of the
motion. And then Mr. Mays suggests when we come out of legal go ahead and take up
Mr. Loyd’s issue and then [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: And I backed off because you are right, we are in the middle of a
motion, I’d prefer that we go ahead and dispose of it, but from a procedural standpoint we
got to deal with the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Got to deal with the motion.
Mr. Williams: Can I enter that into my motion, Mr. Mayor, and allow us to go
ahead and take that and go into legal after we finish?
Mr. Mayor: You don’t need to put that into a motion. We can just do that
procedurally if that’s okay with the Commission.
43
Mr. Hankerson: Well, I was going – I wanted to clear 13 because I just had a
question on that and was going on the consent agenda and I’ve got my answer so I mean
I’m fine with it if everybody else is, too.
Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s see. Is there any discussion on the motion to go into legal
to discuss the MOU? All in favor of that motion then please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll go into legal and bring the MOU with us.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor: The meeting will come back to order and we’ll do the affidavit.
34. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Mayor: We need a motion authorizing the Mayor to sign the affidavit for the
meeting we have just come out of.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection? None is heard, so the Mayor will sign the
affidavit.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Pursuant to our discussion before we went into that legal session, Mr.
Sanford Loyd has been waiting with respect to item number 14. So Madame Clerk, if
you’ll go ahead and call item 14 we’ll go ahead and dispose of that item.
The Clerk:
14. Approve request for 2002 fund balance to Downtown Development
Authority.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, I think you’ve looked into that and you’ve put a report
in the backup information, if you’d give us the benefit of that, and then we’ll go on about
our discussion.
44
Mr. Russell: Yes, Mr. Mayor. If you’ll notice, behind the backup is a letter from
Mr. Persaud basically stating that in 2003 there’s actually not sufficient funds [inaudible]
pay that in this particular point in time.
Mr. Hankerson: Can’t hear you.
Mr. Russell: As you note in the backup, there is a letter from Mr. Persaud who
has reviewed the request from Mr. Loyd in letters dated August 11, 2004, and he
basically states that there’s no funds available to pay that amount at this particular point
in time.
Mr. Mayor: But the money could be paid from another source, such as the
reserves for the urban district or whatever, is that –
Mr. Russell: It’s not his recommendation to do so at this particular point in time.
There’s a deficient in the, in the DDA fund at that particular point in time.
Mr. Mayor: Sanford? If you’d speak right into the microphone so we can hear
you.
Mr. Loyd: Okay. Thank you. I think I have put most of the documentation
regarding how the situation occurred and I guess one of the things, well, a few things I
would like to ask as it relates to Mr. Persaud’s recommendation, even though he’s not
here, maybe Fred can help me understand those [inaudible]. In 2002, the Commission
voted to make Downtown Development Authority a true authority and actually separated
them from the City in the middle of the year. At that point in time, we sat down with the
accounting people, we sat down with – after, actually after the Finance Director came we
sat down and talked with him, as well, regarding how we should proceed as a true
authority. We actually had a meeting with the then Attorney Wall, also, asking him the
very same things that as of this day we’re a true authority, as of this day the way we will
receive our funding, that we will receive 1/12 of the year’s total each month. Out of that
then we would pay the expenses of Downtown Development Authority. It was agreed
upon that the reason we would not start that effective July 1 was simply because we were
halfway through the year and we would agree to let things stay in place as they were in
terms of exactly how they were executed simply as a matter of convenience, that what
we would do is continue to submit the documents for [inaudible] and at the end of the
th
year any funds that had not been spent as it relates to that 1/12 per month allocation
would then be disbursed to Downtown Development Authority and effective January 1,
2003 that 1/12th would kick into place, which it did. And we sat down and we talked
with everybody, trying to make sure that there was a true understanding of exactly how
that was going to work. At the end of the year, we then made a request for the un-
reimbursed funds. At some point in time we finally got a written denial for that request.
And because I didn’t understand how that came about after I was the one who sat in
every one of these discussions, I actually sat with the accounting people, I sat with Roger
Wahl, I sat and talked to David Persaud, this is not something I heard from somebody
else, this is something I went through myself and everybody along the way was saying
45
there is no problem, this is how this is going to work. This is going to work. So at this
point I’m totally confused as to what I misunderstood along the way that we’re at this
point and a request has been submitted to Finance and now is at the full Commission and
there is a recommendation not to disburse the funds. What along the way did I do that
was improper? Or what should I have done differently? Where did I misunderstand?
That’s, that’s, that’s the piece I’m trying to get through Fred cause David is not here. We
actually had a – when David sent the research back to the accounting people, they
actually wrote in there that if these things were true then the funds should be disbursed.
The funds went into urban services fund because since they were not disbursed at that
time, then the Commission, according to accounting, the Commission voted for the funds
to go back to the urban services district fund. And so now that they are there, they can’t
come back out without the Commission voting to do the same thing. So I’m just trying to
understand this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Russell was –
Mr. Mayor: Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you had your hand up, Mr. Mays, you
wanted to be hard. All right, Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, I have not had the benefit of the conversation with
Sanford or with the Finance Department and I expected David to be able to speak to this
today. The only thing I’m able to do is read the backup, as you are at this particular point
in time. And while I hate to suggest that Mr. Sanford might need to come back, Mr.
Loyd, I’m sorry, I would really hate to do that, I, unfortunately cannot give an answer to
his questions at this particular point in time. If – the only thing I can say is by reading the
backup apparently the money was reverted to the fund balance and it would require some
action on the Commission to bring that $17,000 back, based on the recommendation of
Mr. Persaud, the way I read it, that is not something we should do at this particular point
in time. I would be more than happy to meet with Mr. Loyd and David, come to some
recognition and some realization of his and able to report back without Mr. Sanford Loyd
– he’s looking at me [inaudible] having sat through this and I apologize for that.
Mr. Mayor: I’m trying to make sense of the backup and I have a feeling, and this
is just a feeling, sometimes it works, sometimes it don’t. But in looking at the backup,
the charging back the debt service to the DDA and you may have had a fund balance of
$17,900 on the operations side for the DDA if you back out the debt service, and that
may be the money that we’re talking about. In other words, you were budgeted $17,900
more than you actually spent, excluding the debt service. I don’t know. I don’t draw that
conclusion from what I see here, but I just have a sense that that may have been where a
number of that size came from, Sanford.
Mr. Loyd: I know where, I know where the money came from and I’m following
[inaudible]. I’m pretty clear on that part. But what I’m not clear at all on is why, when
there was an agreement, that that was how it was going to be treated, it was actually
46
treated differently and now it’s said that the dollars should not be disbursed. I understand
the flow of the dollars. That’s not my concern.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I think there is some question as to whether those dollars are
still there.
Mr. Loyd: Where could they have gone? I mean, I understand that When the
budget was done, the amount of dollars that were allocated to DDA every year, every
year, and every year there’s an allotment to DDA and every year there is a debt service
cost and every year the actual funds, the [inaudible] service that debt, car rental tax,
whatever it comes from, is not sufficient to service that debt. Now that may change since
the debt has been redone, but up until that point that was the case, but it did not affect the
amount of budgeted money allocated to DDA for its operations. And so now that these
dollars were already allocated to DDA, they were already actually agreed upon to be
th
disbursed to DDA in that 1/12 oft h annual budget amount. I don’t understand what has
changed or how [inaudible]. Now it could have changed, but I don’t understand what has
changed now that that be the case for that part of the theory.
Mr. Mayor: Andy?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We – DDAs all over this country run the
city. They do parking, like Savannah. They are building parking decks, they’re raising
revenue, they have a revenue stream apart from the government. This DDA is trying to
do some good things in the city of Augusta but like many other things in this city, they
are grossly under funded and short-staffed as compared to other cities this size. Unlike
Sanford, we need to come up with the money, we made an agreement. I know budgets
are tight right now and anything we have in our bank we need to take our hands off of for
our own operating capital. I’ve heard on several occasions that this board is like so many
others, what have they done? Well, we haven’t funded them at a level to allow them to
perform the types of things and realize the dreams that they have for this city, which are
significant. Mr. Mayor, I would like to see us come to some resolution on this. If we did
in fact promise the money to them and it is back into the account, for whatever reason,
we need to put this in their hands to allow them to go ahead and proceed with some of the
plans they have for this city. I’m going to put that in the form of a motion that we find
the funds that were allocated to them and come back, and this probably can be handled
administratively, but if we in fact have those funds and they were drawn back and held
for whatever reason and promised for the future, they need to be turned over. So I want
to make that in the form of a motion that we do research, find the funds, and then return
them back to DDA as promised.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Mays: I’m going to second it to get it on the floor, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. I notice in the backup for the agenda items, the summary,
the funds available for the following accounts, and Mr. Persaud has handwritten in here
47
budget amendment to draw down urban services district fund balance of [inaudible].
That’s where he recommends it coming from and I think what they’re talking about is
fund balance monies [inaudible].
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. That would obviously, because it’s outside the
purview of our ability to do that, if directed, we’d have to draw it out of that fund
balance.
Mr. Mayor: That’s what they’re saying, it is the fund balance, take it out of fund
balance. Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson:
Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I have the letter here, the communication
I’d like to
with Mr. Loyd and our Finance Director, and our Finance Director is not here.
make a substitute motion that we send this back to Finance so we can get a clear
understanding of why David, this letter that he wrote this to Mr. Loyd, sent to Mr.
Loyd on September 21, he explains the position of what he was saying, so I think we
really need to give our Finance Director time when we talking about crucial times
like this where we drawing down money.
Mr. Boyles: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and second. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays:
Mr. Mayor, two questions. If – and I want to see us get some action,
that’s why I seconded Commissioner Cheek’s motion. If that will expedite us where
But my first question would
we’re sure, I have no problem really with the substitute.
be, one, if maybe it could be a friendly amendment that when in this motion that if
it’s going to be sent to Finance, is there any problem with us requesting by official
vote that this be item number one on the Finance Committee when it comes there?
Okay.
The second question would be I think if we go back to – and I was scanning
through some of the memos, too, is that I notice that there has been some time that really
has passed in this and I do think going back to that fund balance, but this is one of the
things about whether you talking about contingencies, general fund, fund balances or
anything else, you know, if it’s, if it’s taken from somewhere and this is always the
danger about making a particular balance or contingency look real. You’re taking it from
some departmental function that you authorized to give funds to and you put it there. We
got to also remember that in order for that particular department, whether it’s the one we
talking about now or some other one to function, if you put the money in there it’s
somewhat of a holding place, then you got to return to that source of where you placed
that money, or else you got to almost say you are not going to support that department. I
don’t urge us to do that. I think we need to keep supporting it. But I think that’s the key
and that may give the administrator and Mr. Persaud some time to get back in there,
locate that’s where it was placed, cause I’m also looking at the notation in here as to what
directive was given when the [inaudible] was dealt with as it was, how it was then put
into authority, [inaudible] whole long [inaudible] I think you spent the night with us on
that deal, Sanford, a couple of years ago. And we committed to doing some things and
48
then part of that money, as you said, was held, but then I’m also looking at the letter in
here that was inside of finance on the internal memo which also said that at that particular
time that money went over into the fund balance. So quite frankly, and I respect the
administrator, the Finance Director who is not here. If you all are not going to get your
lights cut off and doors closed prior to that time, I don’t have a problem voting for the
substitute, but I’m just as comfortable voting for the other one, because I think that’s
where you are going to find the source of the money over there. That’s where it was
placed. And if it was put in there as the holding place and not in any particular account
of the department or creating one to do that, I think it was a lot easier to have it there and
to draw upon that interest in terms of it building some for that particular period. But
that’s where the money went. And I think that’s, Mr. Russell, where y’all are going to
find it. But if he can just be first when he comes down here and we don’t put somebody
else down here first before him, I have no problem with supporting the other one, on that
substitute motion. But he just needs to kind of be first and he’s first before he comes,
even though he’s first.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m just going to say this and I don’t have a problem with
the substitute motion, either, but this is money that is promised to DDA, they need the
funding to function. It doesn’t do us any good to set up boards and authorities and not
fund them to accomplish their mission. Anything short of restoring the funds is
expecting them to do the impossible, and I’d really not like to hear a word from anybody
on this board about how they’re not doing their job if we’re not willing to fund them.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I was just looking at this letter dated January
21, 2004, and the last statement says that those funds are not generated by DDA but
rather loaned to it by urban services funds and signed, our previous administrator. I think
the substitute motion is a good one that our finance person should at least come in and sit
down and explain something, that we made some promises and that won’t be the first
time we made promises and it didn’t go like it was promised. So that’s, that’s not a new
creature today. But I’m in support of the substitute motion that we do allow the finance
person, Mr. Persaud, to come in and explain and to show us and hopefully rectify, like
Commissioner Cheek said, rectify this so we be able to not have to deal with this kind of
situation again. Mr. Mayor, that’s my comment.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mays, I can keep this first on the
agenda, but I’m going to need some help from the other committees that if you’re doing
this in the interest of time, if the other committees don’t run over then I can certainly
have him first on the committee.
49
Mr. Williams: Finance should come first, Mr. Boyles, anyway. You ought to be
at the head of the list. That’s the way it used to be.
Mr. Boyles: Used to be that way.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We will call the question on the substitute motion.
All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
(Vote on substitute motion with amendment)
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Loyd: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Sanford. This was just about the 2002 fund balance.
Fred, you might include in that research for 2003. We’ve had another year in the
meantime. We don’t need for the question to come back up again. All right, let’s go
back to –
Mr. Loyd: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Well, your request was for 2002, and between then and 2004, we’ve
had 2003. I’d ask him that he go ahead and include that in his research so you don’t have
to come back again in another year.
th
Mr. Loyd: Well [inaudible] 1/12 per month, so everything is in the budget after
it came to DDA and there was no request made [inaudible] additional funds.
Mr. Mayor: I just wanted to make sure if there was something out there that you
were entitled to, that you got it.
Mr. Loyd: I appreciate it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s see. Let’s go back to item number 30, Madame
Clerk.
The Clerk:
30. Discuss Memorandum of Understanding Agreements (MOU) for the Sports
Arena and Amphitheater.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, lady, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Grantham, did you want
to speak?
Mr. Grantham: Yeah, I will.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
50
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, we have had discussion on these two subjects. I feel
like that we need to take a vote on these and I’d like to see passage on both of these
items. I think it’s important that we do that based on our SPLOST program that we have
out in front of us. It’s – we’re on a short fuse, and as Commissioner Williams might say,
our backs are about to get against the wall, and getting the right information out to the
general public, to the voters, to the taxpayers as to what’s going to take place, and I’ve
considered this on numerous occasions and I’m going to make a motion that we approve
the two MOU’s for these, for the sports arena and the amphitheater and that we instruct
our legal counsel that once this is done and once our passage of the SPLOST program is
in place, that contractual arrangements be put in place following the guidelines of the
MOU.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ve got a motion and a second. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We’ve got 33 days or so to do whatever we
can to promote this package. Taken as individual items, I’m sure there are some on here
that some of us are not pleased with, both in the language of the contracting or the scope
of the projects. The bottom line on all of this is the greater good of this entire city is
served by passing the SPLOST, especially initiative number one, which includes all the
infrastructure and all the other things we all fought so hard for. I urge passage today. We
do not have long to get out and spread the word about what this done to change the face
of the city of August for us and our future generations. It is a great package. It’s be
understated recently and erroneously labeled as being full of pork. It is very
comprehensive in nature. It covers a lot of ground for the next ten years or so in this city.
The very worst thing we can do is not pass this today, which will further shake the
public’s confidence in the SPLOST program, and then try to put together, cobble together
pretty much the same as we did this past time a program and expect the voters to have
higher confidence in the next initiative than they do in this one, which would make it
more difficult to pass SPLOST, and SPLOST is the only show in town for capital
improvements in this city. This has been very frustrating for me. We cannot afford
further delays. We need to move forward in this. I’m not pleased with everything about
the memorandums but the voters will decide on these. Let’s put it in their hands and then
do what we can to sell the package as a whole and then trust the voters will do the right
thing. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I was trying to see if anybody else had anything to say.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t see any other hands. That’s why I came to you, Mr. Mays,
you’re a pretty good closer.
51
Mr. Mays: Well, I guess I do, Mr. Mayor. And I’m going to respect my
colleague’s comments that he just made in reference to the fact that we need to have
public confidence. But I think public confidence also depends upon a government doing
what is right for and by its people, particularly when its entrusted to deal with and to
spend their monies. Now I think everything that he said is correct in reference to the
sales tax infrastructure parts of that project, for those things that government must do and
must have to do. That is one of the reasons why this particular Commissioner, and the
Commission, I think, as a majority approved the type of ballot that we did, that would
give people choice in this community and that would allow a lot of special projects, those
that are particularly having to deal with bonding aspects, that are having to deal with
increased costs of what we are going to pay. It’s not the first time that I can imagine that
a public official or public officials have been in tough situations to face voters. Some of
us may be a little more fortunate in the vote count than others, but we serve by the grace
of the people and ultimately by the grace of God. But you know, I have a real problem
when we’ve just come out of legal, we ask ourselves questions, we ask our attorneys
questions, we have a lot of uncertainty, and yet we can sit here and we can give basic
silence. I’d rather not be the one who is addressing this because I’ve had more discussion
on it probably than anybody else has. I would have thought that the largest project in this
city that’s ever been done in our whole history would have demanded some of us say
something and that some ask some questions. We have given I think what is a good faith
effort. Pretty much every major project that was on that list that was presented to people
at the public forums, it’s out there on those ballots. They are there. They give people a
choice. But the contractual deals lead us to something else. Just for example, and I say
this for the benefit of the general public because they will not be in a voting place dealing
with a memorandum of understanding or contract, but [inaudible] this Commission,
ladies and gentlemen of it, have acted in good faith, that you’ve acted prudent, that
you’ve been good stewards and [inaudible] of their money and their operations for the
future of this community. I have been consistent in the questions I’ve asked over a
period that goes back further than eight months, to go back into almost two years. Some
of those things that some of you have picked up recently [inaudible] asked what
predicament does it put us in? Size of the arena? Cost? [inaudible] seat space in terms
of whether or not we’re getting the best money, dollar for dollar, all of those things, but
then we are willing to sacrifice from the standpoint because – and I hate to say this cause
I said I’m going to love y’all after this meeting as much as I did before cause I got to
work with you – and we are all going be friends. But this isn’t about friendship. This is
about business. This is about $100 million. This is where you’re coming before to the
voters and you’re asking people to approve a contract or document that you put together
to vote on that basically assigns you to a project that where surrounding communities
have spent millions of dollars less for bigger places to be, you will spend millions of
dollars more for something that’s much smaller. I would hope that you would have,
some of you, would have at least asked the question out here that you asked in the back.
Now when I heard the other day about concessions, Mr. Mayor, being made and about
the agreement had been changed seven times, I took offense to that. Because, number
one, in the community that’s a diverse as ours, young, old, military, civilians, still
working, retired people, Asians, Hispanics, Native American, black, white, oriental,
every melting pot that you could have is right here in our city and other people that I’ve
52
not named of other cultures who come together, who make up this [inaudible] and for
people outside who will pay upon this tax. But yet we’ve gone into this so-called
partnership, as I mentioned earlier, I couldn’t find one that was defined like this where
the government does all the paying. We take all the dictates and we ask questions.
People say we’ve discussed it long enough. They’re not ready. Well, concession that
were made, number one, had they been done in good faith we would have never been
talking about them in the beginning. This started off as a five member board where three
of the board members by name were already named. How is that going to fly in a
community like this? I didn’t consider that a concession. I considered it something
where even my intelligence was being tested and if we’d have been stupid enough to
approve it, it would have been done. I don’t think that was a concession at all. That’s
should have already been on the table. I heard the flaky part about the 35% minority
participation. And by the way, as I said earlier, that doesn’t apply to me. Never asked
for it, because number one, when you put something together that’s as private as this,
when you selected the board, you selected the makeup, you selected the managing firm,
where you selected the construction company, you can write in anything that you want to
and best effort is a method of appeasement that some of us have been used to a for a
lifetime. It says nothing, does nothing, means nothing. Still doesn’t. What do we pay
and what price do we pay for sales tax in this particular project? Do we do it as though
folk are going to help us if they get the $100 million and walk away? Is that the price we
pay only when we in good faith have put this on the ballot, where we in good faith have
asked certain questions about the liability of certain things? What I asked in reference
the other day, in reference to Commissioners serving, and even our own attorney that
came forth with a proposal tonight said if one of us didn’t serve – and I don’t think any of
us ought to be serving anyway – but that it comes out of Augusta Entertainment group. I
don’t think that that’s still a fair method to do it when the public who elected us to make
this decision, would do it and we hand out the money, they will be the total recipients.
Yes, they paid for a nice study, but then whose expertise have we drawn upon to say what
is good? Everything we’ve built we’ve either asked for a second opinion, we’ve asked
for somebody else’s advice. We’ve done something to be able to say to the general
public we have studied this to the fullest and say do we have an agreement that puts us in
the best interest of getting dollar for dollar what we put out. No one on this Commission,
no one on our staff can answer the question as to a point from any 200,000 person in this
city as to whether or not dollar for dollar we’ve gotten a second opinion and whether
anything else could have been done. We’ve taken what has been handed, we’ve accepted
it as gospel truth, they have done some window dressing changes, and I’m used to those,
historically, too. And this is where we are in this process tonight. Now I don’t think that
I’m asking anything that’s been basically unreasonable, but to John Q. Public I still got to
[inaudible]. And let me back up by saying I would rather if this project goes through and
if we sign a contract with anybody, that it be done with the local people that we are
dealing with. But I have a real problem when you tell me I’m tired of coming, I’m tired
of discussion. Well, I’ve not been one that’s been shy about asking my questions.
Maybe everybody else is satisfied, but I guarantee you if any of you microphone folk that
are against the wall are sitting back there would stick one under any Commissioner’s
mouth before you ask, and ask whether or not dollar for dollar whether we consulted
anybody else, whether we know exactly what we are doing and what we’re getting out of
53
it, if you’ve ever seen a deer stand in the headlights, you’ll get it from one of the 11 of us
that’s sitting here tonight. Cause obviously we don’t know. Now I’m reminded in this
project in terms of what you pay sometimes, and sometimes it goes back to a matter of
principle. If we don’t have enough faith in the 11 of us that we can sell a project,
including what’s there in the special projects, then we don’t deserve to sit where we are.
If it’s a good project, you put your nose to the grinding stone and you get out and you
work for it, but you should never be ambushed and hijacked and bamboozled into a
decision in terms of you either make it this way or you hit the highway and we don’t
[inaudible]. I think that’s where we’re looking down the face of that gun tonight. I don’t,
for one Commissioner, appreciate it. I’ve had and I’ve listened to my constituents, too. I
heard the cries in south Richmond County to do something about Regency Mall. I wish
in hindsight now, Commissioner Hankerson, maybe something else had gone out there.
But to a point of where we are with this. And I, and I gave them that choice with my vote
and utmost consideration to get it to the ballot process where we could make a decision. I
heard a lot about soil testing. We’re getting into a whole lot of things, we sign
agreements and contracts we don’t even know if it’s fit to go on Regency Mall. I think it
will, but what happens tomorrow if it turns up and we can’t? Who answers that question
and at what point do we pay and who makes the changes in order to do it? I think those
are some serious, unanswered questions that we still have out there. I have heard the
question legally that there is enough language in there, oh, yes, we can back it up later on,
we can come back and change it. We’ve lost too many contractual agreements to this
city to the other side in the process that we could not answer because the rush to
judgment was there. I’m going to close, Mr. Mayor, but I remind myself and this
community of a gentleman that I consider a mentor even though I never had the
opportunity to meet him, and that person being Nelson Mandela. You know, Mandela
could have gotten out of prison a long time before he did, had he gotten out under
circumstances that were dishonorable. Had he agreed to do certain things just for the fact
that the jail doors would swing open and he would be out. I’m feeling a little bit like him
tonight. Sometimes getting some progress at any cost, you ask yourself whether it’s
worth it and do you pay it to do it. I think yes. This may be a good project that’s out
there on paper. I still think there are some serious unanswered questions. I cannot, and I
repeat for the record, as I looked at Columbia, South Carolina, 21,000 seats for concert,
19,000 for basketball, being built at $60 million to $63 million. Neighboring city of
Greenville, South Carolina, 15,000 seats built several years ago, we going to build 10,000
and have less than 10,000 for basketball. And we hear about the market. I still say what
was done in that case, it was designed to fit the existing needs of the entities that were
there. None of us were at the table, this government was not privileged to make that
decision or to seek other people to give professional advice and to do it, yet we sit to a
point where we don’t even have the business acumen to ask the question as to why we
spend that much and other communities didn’t and have larger and greater facilities than
we have. Yet the only thing that we’ve done is being pushed into a basic corner to say
okay, time’s up, let’s go and do it. Well, if that’s that case, then, time’s up. I learned
how to count when I came to this chamber in 1979. I live by the democratic process and
when you know you don’t have the numbers [inaudible] like Kenny Rogers said, you got
to know when to hold them and know when to fold them. I know when the game’s over
and when it’s up and I understand that. But believe you me, it ain’t really over till it’s
54
over. And I mention the fact that I remember sitting here as the [inaudible] when this
government got started and I served it longer than anybody else. Time I was in
bankruptcy court, didn’t have a quarter, and was hustling for every breath of life that I
could. But I went out on the faith of people and I told the truth while others were
scrambling, either getting defeated or running, I been able to serve longer than anybody
else, there’s a reason. When you have enough faith and you tell the truth, you don’t have
to worry about whether or not you do it, I’ve learned a long time ago that everybody
because they simply may have a lot of money don’t have to have all the sense. This
resembles to me tonight, Mr. Mayor, the greatest cast of political robbery that I’ve seen in
a long time. And I think if you approve it without fully exploring some of the things that
we asked in the back that y’all are going to discuss later, and quite frankly, that we would
have long asked of anybody else, if some of us were not possibly in fear of whether or
not we’d get a good story or whether we’d get a bad one. There are two things that
separate this deal tonight from a full-scale robbery. Jesse James is dead but this is the
st
21 century heist that I’ve seen, and what makes it different is two things: no robbery –
you got a robbery, but not mask and no gun. If y’all can live with it, I can live with it.
Democratic process rules and go ahead and vote. But I ask you to look inside your
hearts, you honestly say when those people ask you what are you going to tell them, this
is the only way that they would help us, cause we gave away $100 million. I had some
things I wanted to say but I wouldn’t ask them because I was afraid that somebody would
do it at least, at least put on the table the things that we have discussed in our legal hiding
session to at least let the general public know that it is a concern of ours about some
things that still must be done with this particular project. I beg you to do that and it
probably will fall upon deaf ears. We take the vote, cause life goes on, and I still got 14
months here, if I live long enough, and I got to work with every one of you. I’m still
going to love you and respect you as colleagues. But I had to get that in for the record
and I had to let you know that my conscience would not allow me to deal with this and
voting for it with the amount of things that we still have on the table that we have not
asked and what is not really a partnership at all.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir, thank you, Mr. Mayor. It’s been almost two years now
since we’ve been discussing the Regency Mall project. When I was elected on
Commission, questions were always asked what were we going to do about Regency
Mall? Business people asking what are we going to do about Regency Mall site? We
lost dealership and continued to lost business in south Augusta. And one of the things
that we wanted to work hard to try to get revitalization for that eyesore at Regency Mall.
We wanted to – first attempt, we tried to get the government building to be built at
Regency Mall site. That failed. We wanted, tried to get the judicial center at Regency
Mall site. That failed. We wanted retail to come back to Regency Mall site. That failed.
It would be real good this evening if we would have two proposals here. My message in
the community and with neighborhood associations and wherever I spoke, that I only had
one proposal presented to me. It would be good if we had another proposal. And a good
proposal so we could vote for it. I know how complicated it has been for us to get a new
judicial center to place, for us ten Commissioners to decide on what site or where we’re
55
going to build it, and to this date we still don’t know where the judicial center is going to
be. Supporting the project I think will get the SPLOST V, help get it passed. The
SPLOST V I think is an exclusive referendum. The referendum is exclusive because it
includes inner city, includes south Augusta, portion of west Augusta. I think there’s
something in there for everybody. Some people don’t want the SPLOST to pass at all.
So everybody has a different agenda that comes to me. Some don’t want it to pass at all,
some don’t want to go past five years. But I think that, and my position still stands, as
when I was first elected, every voice that I spoke to the community, I speak a voice of
truth. I spoke to the Augusta Entertainment LLC. I never backed off of meeting with
them or meeting with any Commissioners that wanted to meet. I suggested to this
Commission when we were discussing SPLOST V let us discuss the sports arena first.
Let us do that first since that’s the most controversial issue. But that fell on deaf ears. I
brought suggestions to the Augusta entertainment LLC and several Commissioners as we
were invited to meet. I have met, do have some input in it, but I was crying out for other
input, too, for someone to come before the last hour. I think that the project, the sports
arena, I would love to see a sports arena at Regency Mall site. I would love to see the
performing arts theater. I would love to see even the amphitheater, which today this vote
is set for both projects, and we’re putting it out before the people. I get tired of having to
go out of the city, spend money in other places for entertainment, and I think the people
of Augusta, they want drainage, they want the drainage problems solved. We saw that in
the most recent floods in Augusta. There is plenty of money in there for drainage
problems. Also we want recreation. There’s plenty of money in there for that. Also, the
quality of life projects. We can travel, we can go to other cities and we can spend our big
bucks to go to other arenas, other events, but why can’t we have something here in
Augusta that our people will come in and enjoy? We can invite other people to come in
and enjoy not only the sports arena but the other projects. I see the whole package as
something that is good for the city of Augusta. There’s a lot of things in there for inner
city, a lot of other projects that are visions and dreams that other Commissioners have
had, that they wanted. I think this is the opportunity for us to get this passed. If – some
people say let’s just wait, and there’s already organizations out there in the community
are lobbying already against the passing of the SPLOST V. I have spent a lot of time
with SPLOST V. I did miss a meeting, I think one meeting I probably missed, but I was
here until the wee, wee hours of the morning and trying to get some things passed, so I
resent the fact that people call me ignorant for what was passed. I resent that. I resent – I
think that the Commissioners that were here until 1:30 in the morning and through all we
went through, you have, you would have had to be here to experience what we
experienced here in this chamber. And I [inaudible] every Commissioner that was here
and they gave input until that hour of the morning. They had the spirit of stick-to-it-
tiveness. To stick it out until it ends. So now I think it’s time to harvest the fruit.
Everybody is not going to be happy. Everybody is not going to be satisfied, but I hope
for years to come, when these projects are built, that I’ll be able to go in, even in my
senior citizens years, and have an area in the senior citizens section, that I’ll be there to
enjoy, to say that I had a part of it. There are going to be some mistakes made and so
forth. There are some venues we have now that’s not really operating like we want to
operate. So I think the project is a good project for the Regency Mall site. The project
will bring revenue to south Augusta. The project would revitalize south Augusta. This
56
project would create economic development. It will bring jobs to this community, not
only the sports arena, but all construction, all construction is going to bring some new
jobs to this city. A new sports arena, I think, would bring revenue and visitors to our city,
and I think it would attract new business. I just want to see us move forward. I want to
see Augusta move forward, and I think that with the amount of projects we have, $480
million of projects on the table, the citizens of Augusta have the opportunity to vote them
down. We have put multiple ballots, and I think that’s the opportunity now for
individuals that don’t want the sports arena, vote against it. Don’t want the amphitheater,
vote against it. And I think that’s the most fair way. But I think we need to move on and
we need all the help we can get to encourage people to pass this SPLOST. I’m not going
to tell nobody that the SPLOST was a bad idea. Some of the things in it I don’t like. But
I’m not going to tell, I’m not going to tell anybody else I don’t like it, cause I was a part
of it. I don’t think you’ll find a meat cutter at Winn Dixie going out telling folks that
they got bad meat. I’m not going to do that. I’m going to support it, I’m going to support
it to the end and that the citizens will have the final decision to make. There are some
things in here that individuals have mentioned that they wanted changed, and I think that
if that’s the change that they want, I think they need to bring it forward now. But I think
that we need to just stop going back, back and forth, back and forth and go ahead and
vote the project up or down.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m not a meat cutter, but I’m going out
telling people not to support the SPLOST, so if that makes any sense, my little two cents
that I can throw in to tell the folks not to support this SPLOST, Mr. Mayor, for a number
of reasons. And I was the first to say I didn’t agree with the amount of time or the
amount of money that we went out with. I don’t understand what has been said, what has
been done. The understanding that’s really not an understanding. Very disappointed in
the legal side of this government. I still oppose that. I don’t think we was represented
well at all. I would hate to pay out of my own personal pocket. Taxpayers ought to be
looking at that, as well, and I’m hoping that [inaudible] ought to be looking. If you’ve
ever seen this Comcast program, this is when they really ought to be taking a serious look
at today. Nobody is against Regency Mall. Nobody is against even the sports arena. I
mean – and that need to be throwed out the window. We keep talking about Regency
Mall. We tried everything there. We still trying. We put this out for the voters to go on.
And the voters vote for it and the city, we’ll build it. But you talking about memorandum
of understanding, I still got a misunderstanding. And I probably have one every day. I
talked with Paul. I’m not against his group. But the way this format is laid out – I was
called into a luncheon, Mr. Mayor, but two ministers and they wanted to sit down and
talk Biblical, they want to talk about some spiritual things, then they want to talk about
the arena. They had talked to some other people on this board and said why are you not
supporting the arena? When I got through hearing with them about the over $100 million
we going spend and their eyes bucked, that deer in the headlights look you talked about,
Willie, came in their faces, wanted to know, well, we wasn’t told that. I said well you tell
whoever talked to you to call me along with you and the other Commissioners and ask
them point blank questions about the cost and what we going benefit and who is going to
57
be in control. I’m not going to sit here and vote to give away the store. I am truly
disappointed. I don’t think we been fair, I don’t think we’ve been with the taxpayers, to
go out and agree to something like this. I kept hearing in the back, and I came out of
legal because I really was getting sick to hear how we can change stuff later. Well, if you
can change it later, why ain’t we changing it now? That don’t make good sense if you
know that we can change it. I’m, I’m, I’m truly upset, Mr. Mayor, this is not about
location, this is not about a specific side of this city, this is about the memorandum of
understanding to agree to do something that we ought not to agree to. Now I’m like
Willie, I can count. I can count six votes. And – but I’m just hoping that the taxpayers of
Richmond County who also be able to count, as well. I’m hoping that the people of this
community would understand how serious this is and then we sit here like we don’t know
what’s really going on. Now if anybody else had brought this proposal to us, we’d of flat
turned it down. Commissioner Grantham said well, Williams talked something up
against the wall. We ain’t up against the wall yet. We’ve [inaudible] the wall for sure if
we pass this. This don’t make good sense to nobody up here. Not nobody. Now if you
think because somebody is going to talk against or talk for the sales tax, if we going to
pay $100 million to support the sales tax, well, I don’t have, I don’t have very much, but
if you give me half of that I can guarantee the sales tax be passed. That don’t make good
sense. I’m going to talk about it. I’m saying it on record on now, I don’t believe in it, I
think we got too much money, I think we going out for too long a time. I hope the
taxpayers, I hope the people of Augusta-Richmond County understand what is fixing to
happen here. So those who want me to support it, I’m saying now that I’m not going to
be supporting it. I may not be able to change it, but the little dent I can make in it, I’m
certainly going to make that little dent in it because I think the people of Augusta is
fixing to get hijacked. Mr. Mayor, that’s all I got to say. I’m ready for the vote. I call
for the question. Now if somebody want to speak, let them speak, but I’m ready to vote.
Mr. Mayor: We’re going to let – if somebody else on the Commission wants to
speak, I’ll be glad to give them that opportunity. Mr. Shepard, you had your hand up?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to confer with the maker of the motion so that
he is, so that we’re clear on what is being voted on.
Mr. Mayor: That’s fine, you go right ahead. While you’re doing that, Mr. Simon
is halfway out of his seat. Paul, I’ll give you an opportunity to – we’re not reopening a
public hearing here tonight, but go ahead.
Mr. Williams: Did everybody get a chance to speak, Mr. Mayor, I mean I see the
other side.
Mr. Mayor: I didn’t see any hands go up.
Mr. Williams: Well, I –
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I’ve given Mr. Simon the floor. I’ll be glad to
recognize any Commissioner who wants to raise their hands to speak.
58
Mr. Williams: Mr. Simon was on the edge of his seat, Mr. Mayor. His hand
wasn’t up. Now –
Mr. Mayor: Listen, now, I’ve recognized Mr. Simon to speak, as presiding
officer. He has the floor and I’m going to let him go ahead and speak.
Mr. Simon: Well, first of all, I’d like the body to know that I’ve done a lot of
deals in my career and I’ve never carried a gun in any of them. Willie, I’ve never robbed
anybody, I’ve done many, many deals and I’ve always been honest and I’ve made my
career on my reputation. And so I resent some of the things that you inferred there
because I’ve been kind of a leader of this group.
Mr. Mayor: You need to direct your comments to the chair, under the rules of the
Commission.
Mr. Mays: Well, you notice I said you didn’t have a gun or mask.
Mr. Simon: That’s right. But I still didn’t cheat, and I’m not trying to cheat.
This is a fair document and I think the city will be a beneficiary of it, as they have been
of other projects that I’ve work on for the city. And that’s namely the hotel project over
there. I tried to illustrate to y’all what that has accomplished for this city in the way of
taxes and economic development. And so I’m from Augusta, I’ve been here all my life,
and so what I do in this chamber for the benefit of the citizens is an honest approach to
problems that we are trying to resolve. But also, I would like to say that we are not trying
to buy your vote with a promise to support it. What I’m saying to you is this: we have
four weeks now before the election. If we as a company, that is Augusta Entertainment,
is going to support this in the public, then we need to get out there with a campaign,
which we have already put together. I’m not saying to you if you don’t do that, I am
saying if we don’t get the MOU why should we spend the money to try to pass SPLOST?
I am saying we will try to pass SPLOST, and if I could just take a minute, [inaudible] can
tell you what we intend to do in just about two seconds.
Mr. Mayor: No.
Mr. Simon: You’re not going to get into that?
Mr. Mayor: We’re not going to get into that.
Mr. Simon: Okay. But anyway, I just want to let you know that we think it’s a
good thing for the city and the community, economic development, SPLOST in itself is
going to be a great thing if we can get it done and get all these projects on the table and
under construction at one time.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you wanted –
59
Mr. Mays: Yes, yes. Mr. Simon, I think you are absolutely correct that there are
a lot of good projects out there. And I’ve never said that the arena wasn’t, was a bad one.
thth
What I said was for about the 19 or 20 time, depending on whether you ask me or you
ask me in private, it’s the contractual deal that binds us together. It’s not necessarily the
best one in the interest of this city. We can agree to disagree as gentlemen about that.
Now what I got some questions about, Mr. Mayor, that are still there, since the thing is
going for a vote, there were discussions which we could not make a decision on that I
want to ask at this point, whether it be – Mr. Simon’s attorney is not here, whether it’s
our attorney or whether it’s Mr. Simon – but there were questions that were raised and it
was conducted legal and I’m sure if particularly y’all want to know what I say, I’m sure
y’all will send your other attorney, Mr. Simon, to get it for public consummation because
it’s a recorded vote in legal session, and I have no problem with what I say out here and
what I say back there. But in reference to the question about two things, my colleagues –
some other people, other than myself, raised the question in reference to situation on size
of the arena. I long ago put down to a point never came into discussion about who the
personalities were in this thing. It was about what was best for this community. And I
been searching for a way in order to get it done. I was one who stayed here till 1:30 that
morning trying to engineer a scope that would get everybody’s project out there. But
what we asked, and what I heard last week, and I don’t mind, Paul, saying to you what I
said back there. I said to a point when you said I’m not going to negotiated any more,
and if there were questions we still asked and if I am one of the ten people that’s got a
vote to pay out the money, well, now, if I’ve still got an unreadiness about what’s to be
done, then there is still discussion. Obviously that will fall by the wayside, but what I’d
like to know so that it will at least be for the benefit of these people up here who think
that something can be changed later on, some of you have brought up the question about
whether or not we could deal with the size of this arena and the questions of it of what we
would do. And I think that needs to be to a point if that’s something some of y’all want
to discuss later on or to leave open, that was why, and the unreadiness I had tonight, to
move because it was still out there and Willie wasn’t the only one who brought it up.
Willie is just the only one, I guess, crazy enough to face y’all on [inaudible] in the
morning and get [inaudible] after it’s passed. I been getting them for 30 years, but I’m
still going to ask the question to a point dollar for dollar like I asked back there, whether
we were getting our best deal and just like we consulted other folk when it’s been about
wastewater treatment, we consulted other people when it’s been in reference to our water
plant, when we have built the jail, and in fact, folks close to y’all have encouraged and
we asked for those so-called second opinions of a professional [inaudible], but only in
this case are we being asked to deal with this in a singular fashion. I want to know when
we sign it, is it over and done with or can those questions be answered? I asked the
question about the [inaudible] in reference to whether or not about the subsidy. I notice
you backed off about the agreement about, you know, the non-compete. But I thought it
ought to be spelled out in terms of what that meant, that as soon as the point that the city
pays off the civic center that the subsidy, you all expecting the subsidy to go to the new
arena. Well, then, I think the city needs to have some provision to take care of that white
elephant that’s over there in that parking lot to a point that if y’all going to get the whole
[inaudible], those are the kind of questions I asked, and if they’re not legitimate for me to
ask as an office holder that represents by vote one half of this city and the other half of it
60
with other folk that decided they may not want to, and I take it on anyway, then I think to
a point that’s a part of my duty and responsibility to ask. And it ain’t nothing personal
about that. But I need to know whether or not there are provisions in this memorandum
once we sign it to a point that some of my other colleagues that have forgotten when they
were on the other side of the wall that asked about it that now are on this side of the wall
that don’t want y’all writing about them, so use me, I’m the guinea pig, but I’ll go on and
ask you since they are not going to bring it up to a point, what happens when we finally
get through with it? Can we still deal with that or is that as closed a door as it was last
week when you said y’all was through negotiating?
Mr. Simon: Mr. Mays, the contract, the MOU provides the city will have the
right to review and approve the design. So if you’re unhappy with the design and size,
that’s all part of the design and everything, then all of that can be reviewed, yes. And
you’re right, you do have the right to ask the questions that you’ve asked. My point
about ending the negotiations is that I thought – we’ve been working with your lawyers,
and by the way, they are good attorneys and they’ve represented you well, cause we’ve
been negotiating with them thinking, though, that you were the ones giving input, and I
know some of you were, because we met with a lot of you. Some of you chose not to
come to the meetings. Had many, many requests. But those that did come, as far as I
knew, were negotiating through your attorney and our attorney and myself to come up
with the document we’ve come up with. And as I said, we have changed it, eight times,
nine times. But that’s all right. What I was saying, in the way that we couldn’t change it
anymore is the basic document itself. That includes the finance and those kind of things.
Yes. I mean we have – we took it to the bottom line. But I thought that you, all of you,
have been working through your attorney, and as I say, Jim and Steve have done a good
job I think. I’ve worked with a lot of them.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I got –
Mr. Mays: Well, let me, let me just say this, if I can still [inaudible] and I think
we have been in that process and I think it ought to be clear for the record where if
anybody thinks because I’ve asked a whole lot of questions I hadn’t been with y’all. I
think I met with y’all on four to five different private occasions. That was before y’all
start coming in here, to this open session. So I mean I carried on those questions, I
reemphasize the fact that I didn’t come and change my rules in the middle [inaudible].
[inaudible] basically had out there and some of the things I pointed out that basically you
all did change. But I thought they were things we shouldn’t have had to argue about in
the beginning. But I was consistent in what I what I brought to you, still consistent in the
questions that I have asked, not as another [inaudible] in here that I mean for instance,
and I think this is for mutual benefit since we fixing to vote on it and pass it. There was a
provision that just over the weekend you all wanted to put in that we’ve asked that it be
stricken. I think that ought to be brought to the table. It’s small, but those are the kind of
things, Paul, that I’m talking about. You all asked for one, I believe in that section nine,
Steve, that we were talking about in there, and that we kind of said okay, fine, that needs
to be taken out. Well, I think in fairness to Mr. Simon and his group, if we are going to
take something out, then y’all need to know that. That’s what I’m saying about dialogue.
61
It’s not about, to a point, of making this personal. It’s to a point that when you asked
about us dealing with the attorneys tonight on a legal basis, as far as a legal session, a
legal one, to discuss anything about either one of these memorandums as a group legally
and what we were going to do. We held the first meeting over there to do that as a group
together, the first one, held over there, the first one. And I ain’t stymied no talks about us
not ever having one. I agree with Bobby when we talked about earlier, about what ought
to come out first. I don’t have a problem with it but also we have a serious problem
about we had a former administrator that had instructed folk not to put certain things in
our sales tax program that we had to get corrected for the people of this city. That’s why
we’ve got $140 million in public works. I joked with you when you juggled those
numbers [inaudible] I say you better hold them numbers, Paul, cause we are dead wrong.
We are way off, we don’t have inflation costs built into those projects, and they are not
there. That’s why we’ve got $140 million in public works now. That’s why we’ve got
$36 million in recreation. I do want to see it pass. I want to see us, if we can write the
right kind of deals, I want to see us to a point if everything that I’ve sat there and vote to
put in that ballot be done and that it be voted on and that it be passed, but to a point that
when you ask me to deal with something contractually that I think is not in the best
interest of this city, I will, like any other business person, I will fight to negotiate to get
the best deal that’s out there. Now when it’s all over, to a point I still got to live in the
city, too. I’m going to try and get this whole darn thing done, but I think to a point we
need to make sure that the best deal is out there, and the only thing I’ve asked tonight of
my colleagues is to a point if they know dollar for dollar can they explain? Because
okay, fine, we sign this memorandum and we got lock it in and we think we [inaudible]
providing out there, but again, when I get back to [inaudible] ask that question to a point
as to why are we paying more and getting less? We don’t have that answer on the side of
our fence, and the folk are not necessarily [inaudible] that’s what we were asking, that’s
what some of us talked about [inaudible] and that’s why I said if we can negotiation – I
mean if we can put something in, there where we finalize an agreement and the
agreement, we still have the right to go back into it, then my thing was why finalize an
agreement and adjust it later? Why not talk about what you are going do, what you ain’t
going do in this finality and lock that in and say this is what it’s going be? I’m always
afraid of a contract, Mr. Simon, when I vote into it and it say okay, it’s there, once it’s
done it’s done. And that’s why I was asking what open-ended [inaudible] and I think the
attorney needs to talk about the part [inaudible] scratching out that Mr. Simon doesn’t
want it in that we thinking about taking out. So we may be fixing to vote for something
that you think is in there that ain’t fixing to be in there. And that needs to be – you know,
you need to hear that.
Mr. Simon: If I could respond to something you said, and that is the contract, as
you understand, this is an understanding. From this, we’ve got nine or ten contracts that
have to be put together after the sales, SPLOST is passed. And you know, this contract
says what we intend to do. And we or you can’t – we can, we can’t move away from the
contract. In other words, we just following the terms that we’ve agreed to but you spell
out the details. For instance, like the design. In here, you’ve got the right to approve
design. Well, if we come up with a design and you don’t like it, then we talk about it,
change it. But – and then, too, as to the cost. This will be a bid contract. All the subs
62
will be bid. The contractor will be on a fee. So that any dollars that we don’t spend for
the quality of the arena that we want to build, that comes back to the county. We save
that money. We don’t get that money. So it will be our job, and we intend to do this, to
build the best quality product that we can produce for the dollar. Not to go over the
dollars, but to come under the dollars. That would be our goal and our intent. But the
contracts, this spells out our intent, this spells out your intent. Once the deal, ones the
sales tax has passed, then the lawyers will get together with all of us and put together
those nine or ten contracts that have to be put together. And would answer a lot of the
questions, I think, that are maybe considered unanswered at this point.
Mr. Mays: That was why I made the comment to my colleagues to a point that if
we had acted in good faith, number one, with people of good faith, and I think you all are,
not only from a business standpoint, but just people of good faith period. If we’ve gone
this far to place those items on a ballot and have gone out to do that and have put into
play a provision to deal with bond sources of money so that these things can be jump-
started and put up front, I think that’s a second act of good faith of this government. And
to be doing it based on the fact that the government bears all the responsibilities is the
third act of good faith. If that’s not any more acts of good faith, then you know, we need
to get, we need to hire Steve Martin and get into a leap of faith, because this is at a point
where I think we’ve exemplified that and if we got other contracts to sign, that was why I
asked our attorneys then why was the necessity and the absoluteness of the memorandum
of understanding which had to be done if we are sitting in a room and we juggling around
the room and we got uncertainties about what’s in there, well, then, if the contracts are
[inaudible] later and [inaudible] my thinking, does the memorandum tie, does it not tie? I
wasn’t even [inaudible] room I was in to a point of whether [inaudible] Columbia County
[inaudible] back down here and I ask him what his opinion, how binding it is. Because I
think we need to know those kind of questions, especially for $100 million. And it ain’t
personal. Still. It’s still business.
Mr. Simon: I my judgment, a memorandum of understanding is not a legal
binding document. However, it’s the intent of the parties and good faith that you are
dealing with, between the two parties to enter into a final agreement. Steve might want to
speak to that.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think we had public comment. I been waiting
patiently.
Mr. Mayor: I know you have. [inaudible] Mr. Williams, just a moment. I’m still
presiding this meeting. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. I thought it
would be in the interest of the Commission and the parties who are here, the presenters
[inaudible] both agreements. The developers. To allow us a little time for us to go over
at least what I saw as what this government is presenting, is presented, what you’re being
asked to vote on tonight, Mr. Mays. And I’ll just go through these and I’ll ask my
partner, Jim, if he’ll follow me in case I miss any, and I suggested to Mr. Grantham that
63
since he made the motion in the manner in which he made it that he may want me to run
down the terms that are in here, we want to make sure what is in here ought to be in here
and that what we think is out, it out. So that’s the simplest I can make it. And that’s
what I’ve been making my turn to do, and I’d like to do that at this time.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. I won’t be as bad as reading all those zeroes that I had
on the other.
(Laughter)
Mr. Shepard: but it is important and I wanted to take the time to do this. On page
1, section 1, the Commission has replaced the figure 10,000 with 12,000 persons for
hockey arena football and basketball, equestrian events, and up to 15,000 persons – that’s
replacing the figure 12,000 – for concerts and family shows. Now, if we go to the second
page, where it talks about the project concept, this document is presently written with part
of the language lined through and part of the language underlined. And in project
concept subparagraph A, what is underlined, which means it will be in, is the following
language, and I quote “or in the alternative, with the consent of Augusta Entertainment,
name four members to the board of directors of Augusta Entertainment, each of whom
must be the owner of a membership unit in Augusta Entertainment LLC in lieu of naming
the specified officeholders as provided herein.” That language is now in. At the end of
the paragraph, section 2, subparagraph A, this sentence has been added. It said, it says
“in the event that the number of members of the board of directors is increase, the
number of directors appointed from Augusta-Richmond County Commission shall
remain proportionately the same and the number of directors appointed by the Augusta-
Richmond County Commission from candidates nominated by Augusta Entertainment
shall also remain proportionately the same.” We’re going on to page 3, and page 3, there
are certain numbers lined out and they have to do on page 3, section 3, paragraph A, little
i, we have stricken through $60 million and placed in underlining $54 million. And that
is a change. Going further down the paragraph, it says that if the SPLOST is approve in
an amount that would provide bond proceeds of $60 million. That’s been out, that’s been
lined out. $54 million has been inserted. On page 4, I see no such lined out or underlined
changes.
Mr. Mayor: Top center.
Mr. Grantham: Top of page.
Mr. Shepard: I’m sorry. Thank you. Can’t read. We have placed an underlining
in a new – under the word “revenue” and we have stricken “excise tax.” Going on to
page 5, I see none. Going on to page 6, in the first full paragraph thereon, which is
captioned “Operating Agreement,” we have lined out “Augusta warrants that it will not
stage, promote or cause to occur events in the Augusta-Richmond County Civic Center
that could be held in the arena.” That’s out. Going on to page 7, particularly Roman
64
numeral VI, it’s the paragraph that begins “if the operations of the arena result in a
negative cash flow” then lined out is “Augusta Entertainment may elect to fund the
deficit if. If it elects not to fund the deficit” – that’s all lined through. So that will now
read “if the operations of the arena result in a negative cash flow, Augusta Entertainment
shall be deemed to be in default under the operating agreement and may be terminated
under the provisions thereof.” Then immediately thereafter, the sentence is added
“Augusta Entertainment may cure such default by funding the deficit in full within 60
days following written notice from Augusta of such default.” And I see no other changes
on that page. On page number 8, we are in an unnumbered paragraph right above the
agreement regarding hockey agreement, and in that paragraph it says “in addition,
Augusta Entertainment will make” – “makes” is lined out and “make” – M-A-K-E – “its
best efforts to hire and retain employees” – then we have underlined “of the Augusta
civic center who may be displaced as a result of this agreement in the employ of a new
arena.” Page 8, I don’t see any further. Page 9, there is a paragraph K which comes to
you as “additional sports franchises.” Presently in the maker’s motion, it is included. “If
Augusta Entertainment shall acquire any other sports franchises, which is based in
Augusta, Georgia, and for which it would be appropriate to have the franchise(s)” – that’s
with s in the parentheses – “play its home games in the arena, then in such event Augusta
Entertainment shall cause sports franchises to play its home games at the arena.” On
those are in the document as present.
Mr. Williams: Steve, I –
Mr. Shepard: I wanted to make sure the maker of the motion [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: I can understand [inaudible] but that’s why I wanted this discussion,
because [inaudible] made a motion but there was stuff we talked about that we couldn’t
make a motion on that was not supposed to still be in that agreement.
Mr. Shepard: Well, that’s why they need –
Mr. Mays: We need to get to that and find out whether they agree to that, cause
there may be something in there we can never [inaudible] with. I know at least three
things in there, cause I was questioning the other days when I dealt with size and they
said well – and we kind of laughed about it – that if we’d come up with some money to
pay for it, I said, well, I thought y’all was figuring on cutting some costs [inaudible]
money you had. So I mean we can talk about that now.
Mr. Shepard: And that’s the purpose of this exercise. And here again, I mean –
then I’ll go ahead with the second memorandum of understanding.
Mr. Mayor: Go right ahead.
Mr. Shepard: All right. In the second paragraph of the memorandum of
understanding between Augusta-Richmond County and Dickerson Entertainment, the
second paragraph has the figure $25 million stricken and replaced with $22.5 million.
65
And then in – on page 2 as presented, paragraph 1, source of funding, about the sixth line
down it says – we have stricken the word “to” after “bonds” and added “the principal and
interest for which shall.” That is added. All right. Then in paragraph 2, feasibility study,
a last sentence is added, which says “the cost of such study shall be reimbursed from
SPLOST bond proceeds.” Paragraph 3, oversight, no changes. Four, paragraph 4, in the
fifth line down we have the word, the figure “$8 million” stricken and “$10 million” has
been substituted. Then we have “shall be payable” has been added. And the next line
“only” stricken. “First” is added. “Rentals” is stricken and then added thereto is the
underlined sentence which reads “rent (as defined in paragraph 13) and if insufficient,
then the company shall pay rent under a lease of such property by the” which has been
stricken, and “such” has been added. In the next line we have “the” stricken and “such
additional” is added. And then at the end of that line, “of” is stricken, “as is sufficient to
meet” is added, underlined text. It reads on to the next line, added thereto begins with the
word “and the customary expenses of such authority directly related to the company
bonds.” In parentheses is placed “the additional rent.” Closed parentheses at that point.
Going down to the third line from the bottom is added “the issuance of company bonds
shall be.” And the next page, I see changes in paragraph 6, zoning. After ordinance or,
underlined is word “a” and then going down 7, no changes. 8, highway connection, the
government shall, and then this is added “from sources other than the bonds described in
paragraphs 1 and 4 above.” That is added. And then down at the end of that paragraph,
there is an added sentence which reads, and it’s all underlined, “company shall not be
obligated to operate the project until the widening of the roads as described above has
been completed or company reasonable determines that access to the project is adequate,
notwithstanding the described road projects described above have not been completed.”
Paragraph 9, on page 3, after the word “government” there is underlined the word
“currently.” And then further in the paragraph on line 3, from the beginning of the text in
number 9, “currently” is inserted and underlined. And then after the word “shall” “used
its best efforts” has been underlined, and then on number 10, particular privilege text
paragraph, “company leases” has been underlined. Paragraph 12 is – changes begin in
rd
the 3 line down which indicate “completion of the project with two” – T-W-O is lined
out and “one” is underlined, with numeral “2” in the parentheses is lined out and “1” is
underlined. Then “these first” in the next page is stricken and underlined is “option” and
then proceeding further down that line, after the term “15 years” the words “and the
second of ten” which is spelled out T-E-N and in parentheses “10 years” is stricken. “All
the revenues of the project” – and now we have additional language after that: “other rent
as defined below” is added in this document. Going down to the last of paragraph 12 on
page 5, we have stricken, the document has stricken “the Diamond Lakes area.” Inserted
therefore is underlined “south Augusta/Richmond County.” Going on to lease of the
project, the annual rent in the second paragraph is placed in parentheses, “the rent.”
Double underlined, meaning added. Then the following language is added – and my
notes may be poor here, Jim, so I have underlined “the sum of i” which would then have
been added. And taken out is “4% annual gross project revenues.” And we need to make
a correction there, Mr. Mayor. Percent, “4% of the net proceeds after deducting all
applicable taxes, fees and surcharges, but including any rebates from the sale of tickets
for events held at the project, which is sometimes referred to as ‘net gross’ which is
sometimes referred to in the entertainment industry (net gross)” and then there is “and (ii)
66
4% of any sponsorship revenue prorated but not discounted over the life of the
sponsorship and reduced by all commissions and direct cost to the generation of such
revenues, not to exceed 20% of sponsorship revenues.” To “sponsorship revenues” that
is all underlined. And 14, accountability, subparagraph a, is stricken. “Annual operating
statement for the project within 60 days of the operating year’s event.” And then
subparagraph b is lined out and there is – replace that with underlined a which says “an
audited statement of gross revenues,” which is stricken through. And then after that “net
gross and sponsorship revenue” is underlined for the project. And then stricken by lining
through is the following text “within 120 on or before the latter of” – “90” is underlined
and then finally at the end of that paragraph, “or ii to the end of the calendar year” is
underlined. Then 15, the community fund, under “a” and then underlined is “surcharge
on each” is underlined, so it’s added. Line 16, minority and local participation, in the
first line of that, “the company shall contract with qualified” we’ve stricken “minority”
and put in parentheses “businesses” – that’s underlined – “including minority and female
owned businesses.” “Minority and” underlined. No other changes that I see there. Now
19, assignment, the last sentence – excuse me, it starts before the last sentence, beginning
“affiliate of the company” is stricken and under that “affiliate of the company or to
members of Mr. Jerry Dickinson’s” – it says “Dickinson’s” here but that should be
“Dickerson’s” “immediate family.” And then “affiliate means any legal person who
controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the company.” That is all
underlined and would be in. And on the last page, paragraph 8, you have “August” lined
through and “October” underlined. Now the maker of the motion may have accepted
changes that I was not aware of, and due to the gravity of these documents, I would ask
him to start with the first memorandum of understanding which I read and for example, I
had number “k” marked. I would like to have the maker instruct us if that is to be
stricken. Number “k” in that first one, sir. And we just need – that is how the document
was presented. We could not amend it back there. If it is to be amended, it should be
amended on this floor and we can go through those changes. Jim, did I miss any?
Mr. Plunkett: I had three notes that were changes to be made from the meeting.
Mr. Shepard: All right. So let’s, let’s, let’s address them, please.
Mr. Plunkett: The first one was the –
Mr. Shepard: We’re in the MOU for –
Mr. Plunkett: Augusta Entertainment.
Mr. Shepard: Augusta Entertainment. All right. Please tell us.
Mr. Plunkett: The first change was the size of the arena, section 1 on page 1
[inaudible] adopted. Page 2, section 2, the language that began – underlined – it says “or
the alternative” – that entire section that was underlined was to be deleted.
Mr. Shepard: So that is coded add, but now it is deleted.
67
Mr. Plunkett: Added, but now [inaudible] meeting it would be deleted.
Mr. Shepard: All right.
Mr. Plunkett: And the third change I have was on page 9, paragraph k,
“additional sports franchises” was to be deleted in its entirety.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I had it X’d but the code of the document showed that it was
–
Mr. Plunkett: It was initially added, but based on the last meeting’s discussion
that was to be deleted as well.
Mr. Shepard: And so “k” is out.
Mr. Plunkett: That’s my understanding.
Mr. Shepard: All right.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham, is that a representation of your motion with respect to
this MOU?
Mr. Grantham: Yes, it is, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Shepard: If we could go on to the other one, Jim, if you wouldn’t mind. Is
[inaudible] correct?
Mr. Grantham: Yes, it is.
Mr. Plunkett: There was a replacement of $25 million to be replaced by $22.5
million.
Mr. Shepard: Got that.
Mr. Plunkett: It appears at least twice in the document, but at least global it was
going to be replaced.
Mr. Shepard: It also appears on page 2. I see that, too.
Mr. Plunkett: Correct. Then I believe the balance of the document would remain
the same except for there was discussion, and I’m not sure if it was included in Mr.
Grantham’s revision, paragraph 13, [inaudible] project. There was some discussion about
the appropriate [inaudible] in other words, 4% of what – and there was some discussion
and I am not 100% clear as to a final decision on that.
68
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Grantham: If I can speak to that, under that paragraph 13, the lease of the
project, and what I understood the original document read was that the “sum of 4% of
annual gross project operating revenue” and that was what we wanted to go back to.
Mr. Shepard: That is to be in.
Mr. Grantham: Is that, is that correct in what we talked about? Gentlemen, do
y’all recall?
Mr. Mayor: That’s what I remember.
Mr. Shepard: I wanted to present it as the document came in and then we –
Mr. Grantham: Right.
Mr. Shepard: So really, in that, in that section, the part that is lined through really
should be treated as being in the agreement, and the part which is underlined should be
treated as being lined out.
Mr. Grantham: That’s correct.
Mr. Plunkett: Mr. Mayor, I’m not sure if this is the appropriate time, but Mr.
Dickerson and his attorney and I have had some, a number of conversations of this. He’d
like to be heard on that particular issue.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ll give him an opportunity to be heard in just a
moment.
Mr. Plunkett: All right.
Mr. Mayor: I’m trying to go through this with the maker of the motion and try to
maintain some continuity here, if we may. Did you have, Don, any other –
Mr. Grantham: I think that spoke to the issue that we dealt with, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right, let’s go back to the MOU with Augusta
entertainment and we’ll see if there are any other questions or comments or issues with
respect to that one. Mr. Simon, you heard these changes in here.
Mr. Simon: If you could –
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
69
Mr. Simon: On page 1 is the arena numbers, is that right?
Mr. Plunkett: Yes, sir. That would be – 10,000 would be replaced with 12,000.
The number 12,000 would be replaced with 15,000. Page 2, there are two items that are
underlined on page 2. The first section that’s underlined would be deleted in its entirety.
Mr. Simon: Take that out?
Mr. Plunkett: Yes, sir. And then if you’d carry over to page 9, if I’m not
mistaken, the language that was added, “additional sports franchises” – that language
would be deleted in its entirety.
Mr. Simon: Okay. Then what was the last discussion about the 4%?
Mr. Plunkett: The 4% is not in your document.
Mr. Simon: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: You want it added to yours, too?
Mr. Simon: No.
(Laughter)
Mr. Plunkett: Three changes in the Augusta Entertainment document.
Mr. Simon: Are we to respond to that?
Mr. Mayor: Well, if you would like to respond. Are those acceptable to you?
That’s the motion that’s on the floor right now.
Mr. Simon: You know, all I can say, we’ve got to go back to the experts about
the seating, but we will – I – what do you think?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] man who has built many arenas and would be able to
quickly, quickly –
Mr. Speaker: This is about an $88 million project, of which about $80 million
goes to the design, the construction and the equipment, the equipping of the project, and
about $8 million roughly goes for the acquisition of land and the demolition of the mall.
Within that $80 million budget, of which we say in this document about $59 million we
project would go to construction and site work, we want to build the biggest, the best
building that can generate the most money so that we together can make money on this
project. This MOU says that if we lose money, we don’t see the naming rights. If we
don’t sell the suites, we’re out of there. We’re out of there unless we cure the deficit.
70
And it says if we make money, you get 50 cents on every dollar that we make. That’s
what this memorandum of understanding says. So with respect to the size of the
building, we want – and you’re right, Commissioner Mays, at that first meeting at the
Pinnacle Club you and the Mayor both said we want to build, we need a larger building,
we want to make sure that shows don’t go by on 20. We want to do the same thing. But
one thing that we don’t want to do, the one thing that Scheer Game has not done – we’ve
done five buildings in five years and every single one of them has been on time or ahead
of time and on or under budget. You’ve got $88 million, of this $54 million sales tax,
$24 million excise tax, $10 million of private money. And we’re not going to come in a
dime over that. Within that we’re going to do the absolute darn best building we can for
all of us, and the biggest building we can for all of us.
Mr. Mayor: Well, is that a yes or no, Mr. Simon? I think it probably would be
prudent to say yes tonight.
Mr. Simon: Well, let me ask you one question.
Mr. Mayor: As you said, the design and everything is something that will be
negotiated.
Mr. Simon: Right. Is that, is that a firm number you’re looking for, like the
15,000 seats?
Mr. Mayor: I think it’s up to 15,000.
Mr. Simon: You said up to 15,000?
Mr. Mayor: That’s what your language says here. Up to 15,000.
Mr. Simon: Okay. Well, okay – but the fact of those contracts, Mr. Mays, when
we get down to those numbers, we may – as I told you, these MOU’s are faith. And
when we make a commitment to you, we want to try to live up to it. But I want to make
sure I understand when we get to the contract and we look at it and make sure that
everybody is happy with it, that you’re happy with the building to seat those 15,000, or
you might say well, I’d rather have a better looking building at 14,000. So that’s the kind
of thing we’ll need to talk about at that point in time.
Mr. Mays: If I might respond to that.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Mays: I, my reason for bringing it up, four years ago rather than two hours
ago, was the fact that I thought it we could have had this conversation prudently to
seriously talk about the size of it, then we would not be down to this time just discussing
it. I been crying in the wilderness to a point to discuss this matter about size. Every time
I was told about size, I was wrong on size. Now let me flip against my own grain. I
71
don’t want to be right tonight cause y’all trying to get something passed. Because I think
I either was wrong two years ago or I’m wrong tonight, or I was right two years ago and
somebody ought to be talking about some different kind of money. This is the point I’m
trying to make about negotiations. We’re out here tonight trying to close a deal and still
dealing with size. I would much rather to a point where you got a good professional man
down in there, I’m not so sure we ought to set 15,000 or 15,500 or 16,000 or 14,500.
What I was searching for back there was to leave it open to a point to give y’all a little bit
more breathing room to say hey, what can you deal with? Because remember, when we
last left this and we were in a jovial mood, but when I start talking about some more seats
in this sucker, y’all said you are going to need some more money. Then that’s when I
opened the door to a point [inaudible] more money to a point this is what I been
searching for, whether our folk who do our construction management or who gets
involved with this, I was trying to figure out something that wouldn’t put y’all in a
detrimental box, compromise what you’ve spent time on in terms of the looks of the
building, but at the same time seriously talk about two things. One, how we can get the
best dollar for dollar out of it, and politically, how can some of us in some communities
be able to sell it to a point when we are confronted with the question how then, and I still
have not had this answered yet, how did they do what they did next door to us, 65 miles
up the road, and got 21,000 seats? I’m not concerned about their source of money. I’m
only concerned about dollars. To met, $60 in South Carolina spends as far as $60 million
in Georgia. Both of us right to work states and to a point that there is something there
that hadn’t been talked about. And I think in fairness to you, I didn’t want to lock you in
to a point [inaudible] we can move with it if we get 3,000 more seats. But then to a point
I don’t want you to say well, you know, we [inaudible] building cause wasn’t anybody
going see it. We built it different this way. It ought to be fair to you all in what you’re
doing, but to a point when I look at something that to a point it is arena seating and it’s
maximum capacity, it’s still 9,000 seats less and built for a certain amount of money.
Now you just mentioned about excise tax and [inaudible] get. We still have got a point
somewhere and I think the contract ought to be decided because if we not paying for the
building and we still going to give them excise tax, how do y’all count excise tax?
[inaudible] so there ought to be some more money you have to talk [inaudible].
[inaudible] cause see, they going be the ones, I’m [inaudible] do the legal work on it. But
to a point you got another entity over there in another building, Mr. Mayor, that I’m still
concerned about to a point it’s saddled on this government, how do we pay for it? And if
we going give them all of it, and what date do we do it, how do they do it, and if y’all are
depending on getting that money started by a certain date to match with the money that
you’re getting from sales tax and bond money? Because even though you can only spend
so much of it, it’s still costing the government sales tax plus the interest to do bonds.
And that is the true number of the project.
Mr. Speaker: Commissioner Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir?
Mr. Speaker: Two or three sentences, Mr. Mayor. The cost, I believe the size of
the Columbia building is now 21,000, but it’s in the 18,000 to 19,000 area. Secondly,
72
those dollars that you’re talking about where the construction dollars in 2001 dollars or
2000. I’m not sure when the gross of the guaranteed maximum price project contract was
signed for that building. And third, those numbers don’t include – that’s the building
budget. That’s not the project budget. There was no cost of the land. Here we have cost
of the land. The site improvement costs were not net. There were parking facilities that
were constructed, not net number. So we’re trying to give you an honest to gosh number
of what this project cost is in today’s dollars, with contingency money in it, and to
compare it to past dollars, it’s a tough comparison.
Mr. Mays: I got you, but I just was going by your numbers you quoted when you
told me $88 million. And you took $8 million out to acquire a building and demolish it.
And to a point I know that may run under or over, but to a point even if you take $8
million off of $88 million that still leaves $80 million.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Now, I don’t know what it took to construct on them. I just pulled out
information that I’ve got somebody cause I’m not that computer literate to pull down
websites and other stuff. Somebody got down for me, the folks that I have to pay to get it
down on the computer that I bought that I don’t know how to operate. But they pulled it
down for me, and the numbers that they got on there were still no greater than $62
million in what they spent. Now $62 million from $80 million leaves $18 million.
That’s a lot of parking lot. They still built a bigger building. So if we come down to the
same size, it means, what I’m still trying to get back to you, are we spending dollar for
dollar on the number of seats and what they cost per se? Because if we going, if we
going down to 12,000 and for the sake of argument you’re right and I’m totally wrong,
let’s go down to 19,000 seats. I know it will hold that many for something. If we got
down to 19,000 that’s still 7,000 seats more and it’s still $18 million, $17 million less.
Mr. Speaker: Commissioner, I want to say to you –
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] count money now. As an old undertaker, I learned how to
count money, count money forwards and backwards.
Mr. Speaker: I want to say to you again, we want to build the largest building we
can within this project budget and we want to build a first class quality building that, as
you said, is a real revenue generating building. Now I mean there are tradeoffs in all of
those phrases and we have to do it together. But that’s the objective of this and that’s
what we tried to say in this first paragraph.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I wanted, and I –
Mr. Mayor: No, I’m coming to you, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I –
73
Mr. Mayor: We’ve just got two other changes in here, we just need to ask Mr.
Simon if he’s okay with those changes and that was the change on page 2, you’re okay
with that. All right. And then the other change on page 9, paragraph k, you’re okay with
that?
Mr. Simon: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. Now I’ll recognize Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to bring to the table that we
talked in this same room about seating and we was told that smaller was better, we was
told that we didn’t need to be, to build something of that magnitude. I’m like
Commissioner Mays, we are spending more money and we are getting less. We talked
about shows coming and going down I-20 and not stopping here. First of all, Augusta
only has 200,000. Maybe 225,000. Maybe 250,000 even. We don’t have a multi-million
people in this vicinity. We would not attract those shows that go to Atlanta and maybe
even to Columbia. If we got to depend on people driving an hour and half or two hours
to come to our show, and after our show the only thing, the only place you got to go is
Waffle House, we not going to need very many people in the first place. So I guess that’s
my whole point. We are spending a lot of money and we’re not getting what we, what it
look like on this paper. Mr. Mayor, I asked for the question to be called so we can go
ahead and take a vote so we can go on with something else. We got other items to take
up and still got to go back in legal.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we do and we still haven’t talked about the MOU on Diamond
Lakes and we’re going to do that before we go to a vote, because there were some
changes that were offered by the motion maker in that and Mr. Dickerson wanted to
respond to those changes. We, in fairness, need to hear from Mr. Dickerson on that and
we’ll do that at this time. Jerry?
Mr. Dickerson: Commissioners, particularly Commissioner Grantham, all concert
events – well, ladies and gentlemen of the board, all concert events are settled with artists
on net gross. That’s the same way rent is settled. If you go to the Fox Theatre and do a
show, the show is settled on net gross. Tax come off the top, fees and surcharges come
off the top, then the settlement begins. It is not done on gross operating proceeds or
revenues. And I apologize for that misprint in the previous draft, but that’s just simply
not the case in the business. It is settled on net gross. Rent only. And we gave you a
document, you participate in everything, it’s very forthright. There is no ambiguity here.
I would appreciate it, if you’re not [inaudible] this [inaudible] by a misprint. It is net
gross. I don’t care what building you go into in the country, and even these gentlemen
can acknowledge, every settlement is done on net gross. Rent, artists, etcetera.
Mr. Mayor: Let me address that, because I think you’re mixing apples and
oranges here, Jerry. A promoter would pay to rent a venue based on net gross. This is an
operating agreement for a contractor to have a turnkey operation from this city to give
him a venue to operate and then to promote in it and to sublet it to other promoters to
74
come in and use it. And to me there’s a great distinction between having total, 100%
control of a venue 365 days out of the year and someone who comes in to rent it for one
night to put on one show. And I think truthfully in the document you gave us, I don’t
believe it was a misprint. I think gross project operating revenues from a contractor who
is managing the facility, who is operating the facility for the taxpayers of this community,
I think that is a fair return for the taxpayers, a 4% return on that investment. And that
would be my response to what you just said.
Mr. Dickerson: Mr. Mayor, in answer to you, not that it never happens, but we
don’t got into these venues with the intent of subleasing to other promoters. You don’t
do that. You promote exclusively. That’s the only way you protect the integrity of the
building. It’s not like the arena where they would sublet to every promoter in the
country. Amphitheaters don’t operate that way. That’s why I came with a self-contained
team. We will operate and promote the venue ourselves. We will not be leasing it out to
our competitors. That is not how it works. The Dodgers don’t lease their stadium to the
Braves, and the Braves don’t lease their stadium to the pirates to play their home games.
It don’t work that way.
Mr. Mayor: But they do lease their stadiums for other uses. Non-competing uses.
I can’t –
Mr. Dickerson: A matter of discretion.
Mr. Mayor: I can’t imagine that you would deny a church the right to come and
have a revival service at the amphitheater.
Mr. Dickerson: Well, Mr. Mayor, I was forthright in the programming in that we
intend to have church revivals there.
Mr. Mayor: Then you’re not promoting those. Then you are the management fee,
the management company of the amphitheater.
Mr. Dickerson: Wait a minute. If we go out and procure the appearance of the
Billy Graham Crusade, we are promoting that. We just said we’re not charging an
admission to come in.
Mr. Mayor: It’s similar to the GreenJackets having control of Lake Olmstead
stadium, and if anybody wants to use it they have to go to the GreenJackets and rent it
from the GreenJackets. And the GreenJackets are not paying us a rent based on net gross.
They’re not doing that.
Mr. Dickerson: I don’t believe they’re paying you rent prior to taxes being
deducted.
Mr. Mayor: I’m not talking about taxes.
75
Mr. Dickerson: That’s what I mean. I’m speaking to you from the concert
business perspective, Mr. Mayor. These gentlemen can verify that. Every event is settled
on net gross. Rent is paid on net gross.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Dickerson, but you’re going to pay us rent whether you promote
anything in there or not. If you go two months without a show, we should be getting 4%
of what you get for advertising, anything you’re taking in from concessions, from
parking, from ticket sales, we ought to share in that. The taxpayers are giving you tens of
millions of dollars to provide you with a venue, a first class venue, that you’ll go out and
promote, bring entertainment in, you’ll be able to use it to your benefit because you’ll
have the exclusive control of that facility.
Mr. Dickerson: Everything that takes place, Mr. Mayor, you participate and
benefit from. Whether we’re promoting or even if that scenario should occur where we
sublet it out to somebody, you are absolutely right. But you’re talking about rent. I’m
telling you rent is calculated on net gross of ticket sales. It is not – you don’t roll parking
into the gross revenue, you don’t roll popcorn sales into the gross revenue, you back out
the cost of the popcorn then you calculate the net.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we can change it from rent to lease payments. How about
that?
Mr. Dickerson: With all due respect, Mr. Mayor, I think you’re pulling the cow
by the tail. I’m speaking from experience, you’re speaking from [inaudible] assumptions.
Mr. Williams: Can’t pull but one cow, though.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, is there anything further? We have a motion on the floor to
approve these two memorandums of understanding. They’ve been read, amended,
explained.
Mr. Mays: Question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you have a question?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir, I just need to know from the, from you or from the
parliamentarian, since you’ve got two different contracts but you’ve got one vote, can
that be delineated and stated to by the Clerk? For instance, if you abstain on one, vote no
on the other one, or vote yes on one and abstain on the other one or vice versa, how is
that to be recorded and as to what way? Can that be done, I guess I’m asking in the vein
that [inaudible] with a, with a consent agenda, where we may have 29 items and we in
term say that I voted – [inaudible] Sunday sales, I voted a certain way on item number5.
Is that allowed or do we need to deal with a different motion on the floor in order to do
that?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, can you respond to that parliamentary inquiry?
76
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, the maker of the
motion made a motion on both and I would – an appropriate motion. Therefore, if you
wanted to separate it, a substitute motion would be the only vehicle that I could think of
to separate, Mr. Mays. But now I think, can you vote them both together? The answer is
yes.
Mr. Mays: Okay. So it’s different than when we do a consent agenda, then?
Mr. Shepard: Well, it’s in essence a one item in an agenda. You voted, you’re
voting for both projects or voting against both.
Mr. Mays: What I’m saying is we have sometimes ten items or forty items on the
consent. Something like that. And it is when you do consent agenda. Cause on consent,
we have motions, we have Commissioners that are recognized by the chair all over the
board which say on item 3 -
{End of tape 1)
(Beginning of tape 2)
Mr. Shepard: And that’s exactly why Mr. Grantham coupled those two together,
as is stated in our agenda book. Therefore, I see no difference on this than any other
motion that might have put two contracts together.
Mr. Mays: I have no problem with that. I just need to know what were the rules
of the game and how could you vote on it. Mr. Mayor, then I make a substitute motion
that they be handled separately.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and a second to vote on these two items
separately. Is there any discussion on that? If not, we’ll proceed with the substitute
motion and we’ll vote on these separately in the order they are listed in the agenda
caption. I think that’s a fair way to do it. So we’ll call the question first on the sports
arena. All those in favor of the MOU for the sports arena please vote with the usual sign.
(Vote on substitute motion regarding the Sports Arena)
Ms. Beard, Mr. Mays and Mr. Williams vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion fails 5-3-1.
Mr. Mayor: All right. That takes us to the MOU for the amphitheater. All in
favor of that memorandum of understanding, please vote with usual sign.
(Vote on substitute motion regarding the Amphitheater)
Mr. Smith and Mr. Grantham vote No.
77
Ms. Beard, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Colclough and Mr. Hankerson abstain.
Motion fails 3-2-4.
Mr. Mayor: Before we move on to the – let’s see, the substitute motion failed.
What does that do, take us back to the original motion?
Mr. Shepard: Takes you back to the original motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Takes us to the original motion. Which seems kind of redundant,
since we just voted on both of them.
Mr. Shepard: Well, sir, that’s the motion that was made and that’s the motion
that’s on the table.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll take a vote on the original motion. All in favor of the
MOU’s for both of these projects, please vote with the usual sign.
(Vote on original motion)
Ms. Beard and Mr. Williams vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Motion fails 5-2-1.
Mr. Mayor: Unless there is another motion, we’ll move ahead with the order of
the day. Okay, I think that takes us to item 12, would be the next item in numerical order
here, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
12. Motion to approve contract with Sentinel Offender Services, LLC for State
Court Misdemeanor Cases.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: As I pointed out in the material that was sent along with the
contract, if you look at article II – conditions, the first paragraph numbered there under is,
states the agreement shall extend from one year from the date of execution. The second
paragraph then says notwithstanding the date of expiration of this agreement, this
agreement shall annually automatically renew under the same terms and conditions as
provided for herein, unless written notice to the contrary is directed to the other party 30
days prior to the date of expiration. That is Evergreen. If you want to change that, that is
where you would make that change. You can leave it in or strike that first sentence. I
know the preference of this body about Evergreen contracts. So I just make that as a
matter of information.
78
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I’d like to make a motion that we refer
this to the next full Commission meeting. I’m still in conversations with some other parts
of this contract that we have not come to agreement with yet with Sentinel. As of
yesterday, I think they were kind of – they didn’t quite understand that it keep coming
back on the agenda unless they call the Clerk and say don’t put it back on yet. So that’s
why you don’t even see any of them here, because I was in conversation with them
yesterday and I explained it to them, well, that’s because of the way it was put on there
the first time it’s going to automatically return unless they call the Attorney or call the
Clerk and request for it not to be placed on the agenda.
Mr. Cheek: Second on that motion.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to move this to our next meeting.
Mr. Colclough: I have a question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Colclough: Is this winding up being one of these other evergreen contracts
again?
Mr. Hankerson: No, he just took that out. That was one of the thing that need to
be taken out.
Mr. Shepard: I pointed that out and I know what the body, you know, has
collective feeling for is you do not support evergreen agreements.
Mr. Colclough: Okay, fine.
Mr. Shepard: So I lifted that language up.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams:
Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. This was on the public safety agenda, we
didn’t have a quorum. I would like for this to go back to committee. I am concerned
about the evergreen side of it, also been in discussion with some of the things that been
. I would ask this body to send it back to public safety and
happening with them
maybe have some discussion, have some those folks to come in and address some of
those issues, then it will probably be back to this board after that meeting.
Mr. Cheek: Second that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to send it back to committee, would be the
substitute motion. Any discussion? All in favor –
79
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: One thing, and I don’t – I can vote for either one of the motions that’s
out there, either one [inaudible] but what I just wanted to know, if the administrator can
possibly – and I’m not sure whether this fits into that time frame. I know it was
something he was concerned about and working on. But what I’d like to see in those is
another set of numbers that may not directly reflect this contract, but what I would like to
see is that if there can possibly be numbers which reflect the amount of pre-trial people
that we’ve got in jail and do an equalization or explanation as to how many of these folk
are folk that are there, on whether they’re paroled – not paroled, but whether they’re
probation and such on non-violation crimes has placed them back in the lock-up situation,
so that we can try and get a handle on the numbers of the people that we’ve got there that
are in those kind of non-violent situations and whether we do the contract or not, that we
make some type of evaluation as to whether or not these costs are getting so out of hand
that we need to be looking at a better means of keeping track on some on some of these
folk when either they fall out of grace, [inaudible] job, the economic get hard, they miss a
payment, and then they out at Phinizy Road. That’s not the most economical way to
house a lot of these. And I think if got an entity to a point and they got to stay in
business, too. But the part of their staying in business is driven to a point of making sure
that they find a way to [inaudible] this money at all costs. We not necessarily paying out
the best amount of money to get these folk in there. I like to see something come back
with those numbers when they do that, as to that, that equates to the amount of folk we
got locked up that are there on non-violent situation that we might be able to work
something of dealing with a better means of supervision that’s not as expensive on non-
violent criminals that we got.
Mr. Mayor: Good point.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Could I ask Mr. Mays a questions, cause I have a meeting
tomorrow.
Mr. Mayor: You certainly may.
Mr. Hankerson: Are you speaking of ones that have been on probation and have
been paying to Sentinel and for some reason couldn’t make their payments? How many
of those have been locked back up because of that?
Mr. Mays: Yeah, and I know all of them don’t belong to them. Obviously. But,
but, but I wanted to see if there was a number that we might could address that might be
80
significant, and it may not be. But to a point that I think the last time Fred checked in one
case out of 1200 we had about 500+ that was there that were waiting to trial. Now it may
be where none of them will come out of that probation part of it, but if it’s 20%, the 20%
on a non-violent basis might be something we want to look at in terms of the cost versus
housing and incarcerating these folk. And if it’s not ready by that time to do it, I can
understand it, but it’s just something I thought we needed to keep, if nothing else for
budget season coming up. To a point that – cause I don’t think we are going to be
changing any contracts per se. But I think we need to look at where those numbers are,
what it’s costing us, and how we can get to the bottom of it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, let’s take a vote.
Mr. Mays: And that may be a little too quick. [inaudible] numbers there of
bringing it back in time.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I’m hearing, Commissioner Mays, but I’m hoping it’s coming
through Public Safety that we can address all these issues Mr. Mays is concerned with
with them, rather than negotiating outside of Public Safety, so at least we’ll have a handle
on exactly what’s going on there. Now I know there has been a lot of concern, a lot of
people who have been complaining, but I think it need to come to Public Safety and then
we can hopefully get some kind of resolution to it, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, we have a substitute motion that we send this back to
the appropriate committee. All in favor of that motion please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Williams, that will be coming back to your committee.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right, I believe we need a vote on 13. Is that correct, Madame
Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll take a vote on item 13.
13. Motion to approve Children & Youth Coordinating Council (CYCC)
additional funding for Juvenile Court enhancement programs for juvenile
offenders.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, you had asked that this be held back from the
consent agenda because you had a question, but you’ve had that answered?
81
Mr. Hankerson: Yeah, it’s been answered. It’s clear. I was concerned about the
funding and they said that they had the funding, the $1,000. I was wondering where it
was going to come from or whether it could come from –
Mr. Mayor: You want to make a motion then?
Mr. Hankerson: I motion for approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor then please vote with
the usual sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: I believe the next item is 16, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
16. Consider a request from the Richmond County Board of Health for an
additional $10,000 in funding for the Mosquito Control Program.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles:
The Board of Health – I represent the Commission on the Board of
Health, and they have gotten a little bit short with the mosquito control, and we’ve had
In talking with Mr. Persaud and
quite a bit of problems here lately with mosquitoes.
Mr. Russell, this $10,000 can come out of our contingency fund.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Boyles: I’d like to make a motion that we approve that.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second that we approve the $10,000 out of
contingency. Any discussion? Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I wish I had talked to my colleague before this. But I’m just
concerned, isn’t this a little late in the game for $10,000 for two months for mosquitoes?
And it’s already cool, getting cool? I mean to me, I know that we been pushing, making
82
sure that we control the mosquitoes, but we only have – they said for two more months.
Seem like this request came in a little late cause it’s getting cool and the mosquitoes –
that’s my opinion. I support it but –
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I think this goes back to about July when they really
needed to make the request in and they did not. So they may have already spent,
overspent some of their budget and they’re trying to because they’ve lost so much State
money, too. I don’t know about where you live, but up where I live there’s plenty of
mosquitoes.
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] larvicide and all, these mosquito eggs will set up until it
rains and you still treat them year-round. One of the problems they had was actually
budgeting for year-round operations and that’s why we had Public Works and Utilities
and the Recreation Department dispensing larvicide in these pools. I urge passage on
this. They do run a pretty frugal program.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m in agreement with some of that, but I can’t – do
we have the opportunity or the right to look at some of these? Cause people been coming
to this entity asking for funds for programs. Don’t they have some reports coming that
we can receive that and show us what they spent, what they have done, what they have
not done? The mosquitoes at your place – I’m in south Augusta, too, but I haven’t seen
very much activity from anybody, either the Board of Health or anybody else. And you
talking about $10,000 for two months.
Mr. Boyles: It’s really for longer than that. I mean it’s just a request that came in
in September. It should have come in about late June or early July. But I can certainly
request that and have it put on the Board of Health agenda to give us that report and pass
it on to all the members of the Commission. Be happy to.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, in speaking about the mosquitoes, of course we’ve
had enough rain and enough settled water in this area, as well as other areas surrounding
us that’s just going to breed mosquitoes. I saw a report the other day, out of interest – it
said over four million mosquitoes breed in one acre of land. And that’s what we have
right now. It just – even on this short period of time, we’re having a little bit of cool
weather, but it’s going to take freezing weather in order to do any damage to the
mosquitoes or to the larva, and I don’t think that does it. They go into this pine straw and
everything, and you’ll find that there will be mosquitoes in mid-wintertime that you’ll
have out there. So I don’t think that’s a good argument and I think that in order to protect
our people in this area for health reasons, then we need to go ahead and approve up to the
$10,000 they are requesting. And if they don’t use it all, Tommy, then maybe it ought to
be that they could refund some of that money back to us. But I could, I could, you know,
see to approve that much. And I think we’re just being a little naïve about this.
83
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, since we’re going to get a report back, I’d sure like – it’s
been about a year – get a report back on all our in-house disbursal activities from
different departments, how much chemicals we bought, how many people we have
disbursing the larvicide, and the difference departments doing it. And perhaps a
statement of how effective the program is in conjunction with the Health Department.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We have a motion to approve the funds and
take it out of contingency. All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: The chair will recognize Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek:
Mr. Mayor, I’ve had something brought to my attention. I forgot
about it earlier. Item 25, we need to bring back up for reconsideration. We have state
and federal DOT’s coming it to discuss the project on St. Sebastian Way. We’re going to
need an official determination as far as the direction this Commission is going to take, as
So I make a motion to reconsider item 25.
far as funding or not funding.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to reconsider item 25. Is there a second to that
motion?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. All in favor of the motion, please vote with the
usual sign, and that will get it back on the floor.
25. Discuss status of St. Sebastian Way Project.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, item 25 is back on the floor for discussion.
25. Discuss status of St. Sebastian Way Project.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, there are three alternatives listed in the backup. One is to
allocate $6 million from Phase V SPLOST funding, which we already have the project
[inaudible] deleted from that project. Also, we’re looking at item 2, allocate $6 million
from existing SPLOST for the St. Sebastian Way project and identify $6 million in
84
existing projects to be discontinued, which would require reprogramming. Teresa, if you
could, come to the mike maybe and back me up or correct me. Three is to not approve
the money for the remainder of the work and kick the $15 million back to the federal
government. This is earmarked for that. One of the things I caution the Commission to
understand is that if we kick this money back and do not do this project, when we go to
the federal government and ask them for project money in the future, the first thing we’re
going to hear is you didn’t use the money for St. Sebastian that you asked for, so why
should we give you any more now?
Mr. Mayor: There’s not an option to borrow the money, to issue a COP?
Mr. Cheek: We have asked the Attorney about that and we – that was a different
option. We wanted to come to the table with as many options for the board. I, for one,
on this project since it’s designed and ready to go pretty much, would not have a problem
with a certificate of participation for it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? We’ll go to the Attorney first here and then we’ll –
may have some startling legal advice for us.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. I told the Engineering Services chairman that due to
the earmarked work, it’s worth a second look at certain other types of financing. I
thought that the SPLOST probably was committed. SPLOST V is yet to be approved.
And let me just go down the alternatives. The certificate of participation would require
some kind of collateral. The roadway cannot do that. Could not serve as collateral. The
issuance of a general obligation note was – we talked to Mr. Persaud and that was not
appropriate. Of course, a GO debt to do this could be done. But I would offer one other
suggestion, which is not much used here. But we could consider for the local, for the
local part, we could consider setting up some sort of toll on the road. The only problem I
have with that suggestion is it sounds fine in theory. There’s Code authority for us to do
that. The question is would it turn out costing more to administer the dog-gone thing
than it would bring in sufficient revenues to pay for your project and pay for the expense
of that type of mechanism. If the financing is a problem, the suggestion was that we try
to have some kind of feasibility study to project what kind of revenues we could expect in
some sort of toll bridge or toll part of that versus the expenses. Obviously you don’t want
another situation like the old parking garage where you had more expenses to collect the
revenues for the parking, and this is the garage that is now the Board of Education
property. So I throw that into the mix. If – I don’t have the figures of how much a
feasibility study would cost, but that was the last alternative that I could think of where
could we get local money from. I don’t think we could get it from, like I say, from a
COP. Any other kind of bonds would have to be paid back, including GO, and that’s my
suggestion.
Mr. Mayor: We’d have to do the research to see if it qualifies, but it might,
economic development, and that’s to use a Section 108 loan from HUD to do that. That
may also be an option, because I think we can leverage up to about $100 million on a
Section 108 loan.
85
Mr. Shepard: Well, we’ve got to identify a pay-back source.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, the idea is good, and Steve, I
hear you when you say a toll road, but the only toll roads I’ve ever seen to be successful
is the only road that goes to a certain place. And you know, I think we’ve got too many
accessibilities as far as roads go that would come into that particular area from the area
we’re talking about. But the, but the point I would like to make is that I think we have
some options here that we can deal with and I would like to ask Commissioner Cheek and
Ms. Smith, you know, under option number 2, I’m not familiar with those projects and I
know it would be coming out of some of the areas of the various Districts, and I guess as
a Super District Commissioner I can ask this question easier than the individuals can.
But you know, have you identified any projects that we would even be looking at and has
any conversation been given to those Commissioners that those projects would be
affected?
Mr. Cheek: No. I would not dare broach a list of projects and consider taking
away money from anybody’s District. What we’re trying to find out is, is it the will of
the Commission that we go after a funding source? I think we both realize that 1 is un-
doable, 2 is going to require us to give up projects somewhere. And so what we need to
find out for tonight basically is, is it the will of the Commission that we go out and find
funding [inaudible] grants. There’s money out there that we can still investigate, but is it
the will of the Commission or are we wasting our time trying to find a matching $6
million to put with the $15 million and $2.5 million we already have?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make one more comment.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Grantham:
And this is not in response to Commissioner Cheek. But I think
we should omit option 3. And the reason I say that is turning away $15 million I don’t
think is really a good choice on our part. I think it shows that we’ve not exhausted all
areas to try to find the monies to do that with. Surely we can – we omitted it from
SPLOST V when we talked that night, and I think that we need to revisit some things
now. I think we’d be sending a bad message to our Congressmen, to the different
put
Congress people that are involved in these projects with us. And so I’d like to just
this back into the hands of Engineering Services that they continue to explore this
and I’ll be happy to help any way I can, and I feel like all the other Commissioners
will, too. But maybe we should send the message to Congressman Norwood that,
you know, there is deliberation being done on this and that we’re exploring ideas
and we don’t want them to think that we’re not appreciative of the $15 million, that
we need to do what we can in order to spend this money in the most advantageous
way for that particular project. I’ll put that in the form of a motion, Mr. Mayor.
86
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that?
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a second. All right, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we do need – and Teresa, correct me if I’m wrong, but
we need to come to the table with at least – and this is a project that didn’t make SPLOST
V, there hasn’t been a real definite vote of confidence in this either way. We’re going to
need to come to these guys with a vote of confidence from this board that says when we
find the funding that we will support and follow through with it I order to give our staff
assurances when they meet with these folks on Thursday, that they can confidently tell
the people in Washington and Atlanta that we plan to follow through, that we’re
exploring every avenue for the funding. Teresa, if I’m leaving something out, please,
please let us know.
Ms. Smith: There isn’t anything in particular that you’re leaving out. If you
would notice in the information in your backup material, there is a current schedule. That
schedule has shifted by about three weeks. But in approximately six weeks, according to
the schedule, we will be slated to start spending the money that we are currently in need
of, if by chance, in order for the project to stay on schedule with the HFWA’s anticipated
let date.
Mr. Cheek: So we do have a tight timetable, and if we do go back for
reinvestigation, we’re going to continue digging. We’re going to have to leave no stone
unturned and at least have a commitment that we’re going to do our best. But I’d really
like to leave tonight with a vote of confidence. I’m not at all confident that it enjoys a
six-vote majority support to follow through with it.
Mr. Mayor: As I understand it, Teresa, we have a date on here to begin right-of-
way acquisition. But that’s actually beginning negotiations and acquiring sales contracts
and those type things, so we’re not looking at starting the closings in a month, where we
have to actually write the check that quickly. It could be several months before we start
writing checks; is that right?
Ms. Smith: We anticipate that it will be a few months. In an effort to move
forward with the schedule – up until just a few weeks ago, the Attorney’s office is
already expending some of the funds that will be right-of-way funds. Not for the $6
million but the ones that we currently have. So there is –
Mr. Mayor: A little breathing room.
Ms. Smith: - a little breathing room but there expenditures that continue to be
underway, but we cannot start the negotiation process in accordance with federal regs
until we identify that we have the money to support the activity.
87
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you. And that, that also – and I’m not, I’m not saying
that’s not the way to go, but that was discussed at the last GDOT meeting Wednesday
two weeks ago, and it was brought up by the state people that, you know, if we could
start a process of acquisition or whatever we need to do, then we would be at least a little
ahead of the game. We might spend some monies, until we could find what we had. But
that was a recommendation from the state saying that we’d like to see you go ahead and
make a move in that direction. And I know you were not that and I’m sorry you were not
there, but Commissioner Smith and I did attend that and it was there, the interest in the
St. Sebastian Way project that we try to get something moving in it.
Ms. Smith: And as I indicated, we started that about a month ago, Steve, maybe
six weeks where we started the process of having the title searches done, and some
additional information underway with respect to supporting right-of-way by the
Attorney’s office.
Mr. Shepard: That’s right, and I can, I can go with all deliberate, perhaps, speed,
and that means we can speed up or slow down as necessary.
Ms. Smith: I actually think that activity is anticipated to be completed in two
weeks and we were told this week that they’re on schedule.
Mr. Mayor: All right, any further – Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Let me, let me ask this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, go ahead.
Mr. Mays: Let me ask this, Ms. Smith. Since there was some creative measures
put out here and I think the chairman is basically trying to seek some support in here and
we can’t solve this one tonight, but let me maybe throw a couple of more out there just as
options that may or may not work, but just searching right now, Andy. One thing I
thought about, and I mentioned this the other day in committee meeting and I didn’t, I
didn’t think we were going to get too solid [inaudible] on a roll particularly with us
depending upon another government’s money to make that work. There are just so many
changes that can occur when you don’t control the whole money stream. But I’m just
wondering if this might be an option. As bas as we’ve hated to want to spend money in
terms of having to expand the jail situation and with the specter of court order looming
over us, is that maybe one option we may want to think about in terms of if nothing else a
buying time aspect of possibly doing a shift into sales tax money and then actually maybe
moving the jail pod situation or one of the jail pod situations over onto COPs, which
would then give you a solid building, per se, structure that you’d be more inclined to get
the finances probably to accept that one and then maybe – and I know you’ve still got a
gap hole cause you got to say when you take that back, how do you fill the one that
you’ve got? But I’m looking at it to a point that if that helps you to satisfy that , that it
88
might be good if we are going to look at COPs at all, that we send the Attorney in the
direction that will get one where we’ve got the most pressure on us to have to do and one
that’s not going to disappear off the, off the radar screen, and then look back into Public
Works’ budget on that one and possibly deal with maybe taking that one out of there and
doing at least one part slide over and then that wouldn’t [inaudible] for a $6 million hit.
It might mean that if you only searching for $2 million that we could get through eight of
those Districts to probably look at maybe coming up with $200,000 or $300,000 here or
$200,000 or $300,000 there. Maybe not on an equal basis of doing it, but of finding a
way to put those in. That’s just one option that we might could, you know, on that non-
Easter egg hunt we’re trying to see could we find on that one. Just as something else to
possibly, to possibly do. The other one might be, and I don’t know how this works, but
are we, are we – I know we committed a lot to push up on Windsor Spring Road. Okay,
now our little revisions we needed to do, are we, we all through with that, that we needed
to do? Cause what I’m searching is not, I’m not getting into Windsor Spring Road
tonight but what I was getting into is the fact that if we have committed a lot out of our
sales tax to deal with it and I’m searching, if some of that from DOT is to a point been – I
won’t say not needed or not required – all we can get from them is needed, but that if
there is an amount that is left over in there to a point that might not have to go into
Windsor Spring Road, that might be in that part of it, maybe we might could approach
them from a different mindset, that if we are going to try and do a faster track on dealing
with parts of Windsor Spring, that – and I don’t know, there may not be any money left in
excess from them, but that might be a source that we might do in combining and we
might do a smaller COPs to deal with it. And I’m just searching, but I just wanted to
throw those two situations out there cause I think our Attorney and the chairman are
looking for as many, many as they can get to get some numbers, and I’m committed to
try and help you, us get that in there. Cause it’s not a one person situation that’s in there,
one District [inaudible] willing to try and do that.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner, is your hand up? No? Okay, I’m sorry. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I’d just, Mr. Mayor, tonight I’d ask that [inaudible] Engineering
and I be tasked to try to find something. We’ve turned stones up and we’ve basically got
to find a revenue source somehow. I’m not giving up because there is $15 million at
stake.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, and I agree, and I think there has been some wonderful
suggestions. Having fought for this [inaudible] Phase V of SPLOST and touting its
benefits to that area, at this point I don’t ask for a whole lot but I’m asking for a vote of
confidence on this to say that we have commitment to follow through with it. If we find
a reasonable funding source that we’re going to follow through with it. That’s not an
unreasonable request. And I just ask for that as a body. Not for an addition to the motion
but if you make your vote tonight, don’t vote for it, for it to go back to committee if
you’re not going to support it when it comes back to the floor. Let’s either terminate the
thing now and quite wasting time on it, or be committed to do this. This is a tremendous
89
project that’s going to develop an area that is going to otherwise sit there idly, got a $15
million to $26 million impact on the city. It’s a lot of pluses to it, and I think we should
proceed with it, as I’ve said in the past. Quite frankly, not seeing it pass muster on more
than one occasion, I have my doubts whether it enjoys a majority vote right now and I
would like a vote of confidence on this. When you vote, I’m asking you to vote now to
send this back to committee and we’ll continue to research it. Don’t vote yes to send it
back to committee if you’re not going to vote yes to support it later on. That’s all I’m
asking.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We’ll just go ahead and move ahead with the question
on this. All in favor of the motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Boyles and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, stay at the podium. You’re next. Next item is number
26.
The Clerk:
26. Update/status report from the Administrator and Public Works Director
regarding recruit process for professional positions in the Public Works and
Engineering Department. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Have you a report for Commissioner Williams?
Ms. Smith: I –
Mr. Mayor: He was not at the committee meeting.
Ms. Smith: Okay. The information presented at the [inaudible] meeting
identified that the assistant traffic engineer’s position has been filled and the assistant
preconstruction engineer position has been filled. There remained vacant positions for
county engineer, traffic engineer, and preconstruction engineer. I did not bring to them
floor and will get a brochure for Commissioner Williams and whichever other
Commissioners were not at the meeting to receive one of the brochures that we’ve
identified that we’re handing out at conferences. We did some at the American Public
Works Association conference and will be doing the same at the American Society of
Civil Engineers Conference.
Mr. Williams: Ms. Smith, how long have those been positions – I think you
named three – still vacant, how long have those three been vacant?
90
Ms. Smith: The traffic engineer position has been vacant for about two years.
The preconstruction engineer position has been vacant for six months. And the county
engineer position has been vacant for six, seven, nine, somewhere along that time frame.
Mr. Williams: And the reason I had this put on the agenda, I wasn’t able to make
the meeting, but the reason I had this put on the agenda, because I think that’s extremely
long for a government facility to go without and with the economy today and with the
situation of jobs, what are we doing wrong or what do we need to do different? Now you
know, we talked about some pay raises and we talked about the cost of living and the
average cost around the world and all that kind of stuff. But a year, two years, six
months, nine months, that’s entirely too long for a critical position in this government.
Now the other position that you filled, how long was they vacant?
Ms. Smith: The assistant traffic engineer position was vacant for 2-1/2 years
maybe and the assistant preconstruction engineer position was – it took us about six
months to fill that particular one. The Human Resources Department has been working
to compile some information on going back through and looking at the files and some
historical information on why those people left those positions and the commonality that
we found is salary related issues, where they left for higher paying jobs that were either
similar in duties and responsibility to those that were here, and on some rare occasions
there were changes to their job duties that allowed them additional compensation for the
work that they will be required to perform. During our interview process, some of the
things that we have heard that have been of concern raised by the candidates has been for
professional that we’re attempting to bring in with five to ten years of experience. In a
lot of instances, they’re already tenured in the places where they’re currently working and
we require a one year probationary period where they’re not allowed to take vacation
during that time frame, and they only get six days of vacation for the first year.
Mr. Williams: If that’s a problem, have that been brought to this body? And I
mean I hear the excuse, I hear the explanation. But if those are the things, I mean I don’t
think any department head, any elected official should not address those issues. We
talking about one, two, three years for a position to be filled. And this hype about
Augusta is not a good place to work, Augusta is not a good place to be. When the few
rain drops we got from last recent hurricane said Augusta a great place to be. A lot of
people wished they was in Augusta. But I just don’t understand what’s the hold-up, why
we have not done those things. If it’s tenure, if it’s vacation time, even if it was salaries.
We done brought folks in here and gave them a lot more than other people that been here
for a while because we try to get them here. All I want to do now is get this ball rolling
so we won’t have to continue to do this same kind of thing, we don’t have to wait. If
that’s an issue, Ms. Smith, I’m asking you to please bring it to the committee, bring it this
body and say this is what we need to do, and we may need to change some things.
Ms. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Williams: But I think that’s a critical part of public works, to have those key
people in place. And when you don’t have those people in place you’re not going to be
91
able to do the work that we are asking you to do. So I hope this is the last time, I hope
those things will be, have been put together by your staff or somebody, personnel or
somebody to bring to us so we can go ahead and get those critical people in those
positions. That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. I think, Madame Clerk, before we get to the
Attorney block, we go to the addendum agenda, item number 1 is that pension item. It
will take unanimous consent to bring this up this evening. Is there any objection to
taking up item number 1 on the addendum agenda? No objection is heard, so Madame
Clerk, if you’ll read the caption for us. If you’ll read that caption and then I believe
we’ve approved everything else on there, including GMA dues.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 1. Report from the Interim Administrator regarding the reopening
of the 1977 Defined Benefit Pension Plan and closing the 1998 Defined Contribution
Plan with amendments to the 1977 Pension Plan.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, do you have a report for us today? I didn’t see anything
in the backup here.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. This item was on the agenda at the last Commission
meeting and it was sent back to have meetings with the employees to explain it to them. I
commend our Human Relations Department for the great job that they did in putting this
together and having the meetings. It was three meetings. I attended two of them and the
employees asked a lot of questions, had a lot of concerns about it. My understanding, we
have over 1100 employees out there under the 1998 plan. I had – a majority, over 99-
2/3% of the people, employees that met was really happy about we’re doing something
about their defined benefit plan here. I want to thank the subcommittee, this two man
subcommittee, Commissioner Andy Cheek and myself was appointed about two years
ago. We been working on this. This is the first phase of our assignment that we had
working on it. We talked about early retirement and some other things. But we did come
up with this defined plan here. About three years ago, upon being elected, one of the
employees came up to me and asked, said to me at a breakfast – we had a breakfast, all of
the Commissioners was there, and said I’m about ready to retire but I can’t retire, I’m
sick, I can’t retire because I don’t have insurance. And she said I hope y’all do
something about this retirement, the ’98 plan. And some other employees mentioned
about they wasn’t in another plan, the ’77 plan or even the ’49 plan because someone
talked them out of it. So I’m happy that we had these meetings and we did stress that
everybody have the opportunity now to be a part of this plan. I think this is going to help
attract new employees, give some incentives for those employees that looking forward
for retirement, those employees that work for this government and look forward for
92
longevity. One of the most important things that I see in it, that if an employee choose to
retire, they will be able to have insurance benefits. And I think that is great. I was
shocked to know that we had such a plan that employees that worked so long and long
enough to retire didn’t have benefits. And that’s very good and most of the employees,
the 1100 employees, that’s what they are happy about. Commissioner Cheek worked
hard with me on this, also. And the finance, David Persaud, and Robin, Ms. Pelaez also
worked real hard. And also I’d like to thank Commissioner Tommy Boyles. I asked him
to just give me some advice, too, because he retired, he know about the system and so
forth. We had experts in this and I’m just grateful that I had the opportunity to do this.
This is only Phase I of the retirement system that we’re looking at. We’re looking at
some other things. We are continuing to work and I hope today that we can move
forward with this and approve this so our employees will have a better pension plan,
defined benefit plan.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just want to place credit where credit is due.
Commissioner Hankerson, thank you for your leadership on this. This is truly one of
many steps, I hope, that will correct a well-overdue problem to improve benefits for our
employees. I just urge support. And again, there was a lot of hard work put in by a lot of
people but Commissioner Hankerson, your leadership was the key to bringing this up and
making the changes. There has been a lot of talk about it over the years, but you helped
make it happen.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Along with Commissioner Hankerson, I
attended a couple of these meetings and I think it’s important that our Commission face
be shown at these particular meetings when our employees are there. And I feel like that
I saw a lot of interest and a lot of enthusiasm in what was taking place. It’s to the point
that these people realize that we are now taking them very seriously in their retirement
and Commissioner Williams, this should add to or hopefully bring in people on board to
work for this government, because we will have a good plan for them to retire under and
have benefits under. I think the jury was out on what would be offered in the plan if one
switched from one to another, what would they lose. Those explanations were given very
clearly and I feel like with the understanding the people now can make a decision as to
what plan they want to go in. And this shows progressiveness on our part in trying to
take care of the employment of this government and I just applaud the committee and this
government for looking after its employees. I think that’s very important. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Grantham. I think since we don’t have the
documentation, we would need a motion to approve the reopening of the ’77 Plan,
closing the ’98 Plan, and directing our attorney to draft the amendments to the ’77 Plan
and bring those back to us for approval. Is that what we need to do? How do we make
this happen?
93
Mr. Hankerson: I move that we approve this plan, that we approve the
closing of – excuse me, closing the ’98 plan and reopening the ’77 plan, defined
benefit plan and closing the ’98 combined contribution plan, with amendments to
1977 Pension Plan.
Mr. Cheek: Second that motion.
Mr. Mayor:And directing our attorney to draft the appropriate paperwork,
or whatever needs to be done.
Mr. Shepard: It would be subject to the attorney’s review and pension
counsel.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Are there any other comments?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: We may have an amendment to the motion here.
(Recess)
Mr. Mayor: We still have the discussions going with respect to the motion. Let
me poll the Commission, if I may while they’re having that discussion. Mr. Russell has a
legal issue that will take about five minutes, Mr. Shepard has a legal issue that might take
15 minutes, so if we can get a quorum to remain for about 20 more minutes we can
dispose of the legal issues. Otherwise, we can reconvene at a later date. Do you think we
can get enough to stay? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I might be able to dispense with one of those items out here. We are
being revisited, we are being revisited with an item we approved many years ago that
hadn’t been settled yet on a sewer backup case. Our attorney needs reauthorization to –
Mr. Mayor: We’ve already approved this?
Mr. Cheek: Yeah, we approved it before and now we’re having to approve it
once again. It’s not Steve’s fault, but he needs reauthorization.
Mr. Mayor: Where are we with this? What’s this thing about? I feel like I’m in
traffic on 285 at rush hour. We’re backed up and we’ve got no exit, escape lane to move
on to something else. All right, we’re at the bare minimum. If anybody leaves, we’re
lost. Where –
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I suggest this. I don’t have to do all the legal meeting
tonight. Just selected issues.
94
Mr. Mayor: Wait a minute. We’ve got a motion here to vote on on the pension
thing. That’s what you all were consulting – are we ready to vote, Mr. Hankerson? You
think not? [inaudible] move on to another item [inaudible] table this.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to make an amendment to my motion that we
approve it with our, with consulting with the attorney on some legal matters that he
get with the pension counsel for some legal matters in there that need to be
critiqued, at the last minute, and if we could do that and let him take care of a
couple of those things that he need to do.
Mr. Cheek: Second second.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Do we have any objection to the amendment to the
motion? All right, let’s go ahead and vote them. All in favor please vote with the usual
sign.
Mr. Williams and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a request from the attorney to go into legal session
for the purpose of –
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, GMA dues?
Mr. Mayor: We approved that on the consent agenda.
Mr. Hankerson: Oh, you did?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, that was on the consent agenda.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, one of the legal items, I can handle that in about two
minutes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, to expedite the meeting I will recognize Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Gentlemen, you will remember Ms. Lida who came down here
on several occasions. She’s been in the process of resolving a claim that we
approved for $10,000 on sewer backup. This has been kicked around through Jim,
to Utilities, it’s back again. We authorized it and now we need to reauthorize it for
some different reasons. She’s done everything that we’ve asked her to do, she’s got
a disclaimer from her insurance company that says they won’t sue. She’s willing to
sign any release that there will be no further action against this governmental body.
95
She’s done everything, but we need to authorize a settlement that approved already.
She’s been in this for two years, and I make a motion that we authorize the attorney
to make a settlement.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Discussion? All in favor please vote with the
usual sign.
Mr. Williams and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you. Bless you all.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Attorney, we’ll recognize you for the purpose of calling
the legal session.
33. LEGAL MEETING
A. Pending and potential litigation.
B. Real Estate.
C. Personnel.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Your Honor. I would ask that we go into legal meeting
for the purposes of personnel as Mr. Russell has requested and pending and potential
litigation. I will keep it as short as possible, and I will ask that item 30 be deferred until
after legal meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have a motion to go into legal for the purposes as
stated?
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we will go in. What about item 30 being deferred? We
don’t even have an item 30.
The Clerk: 29.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. It was unanimous, Madame Clerk, to go into legal.
Mr. Williams and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
96
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We just need to finish up here.
34. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The chair will entertain a motion authorizing to sign the
affidavit.
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Colclough: I made the motion and Jimmy seconded it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Shepard: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: I’d ask that I be authorized to present to 635 Broad Street
Investment Company LLC a right of entry on our sidewalk in the 600 block of
Broad Street to eliminate the underground heating oil tank which would be done at
no cost to the city and would be done in conformity with all environmental
regulations by 635 Broad Street Investment Company or its contractors.
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Any discussion? If not, all in favor
do so by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0.
29. Discuss protest ordinance.
Mr. Shepard: I would also ask to delete item 29 pending legal session next
week.
Mr. Williams: I so move.
97
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Got a motion and a second. Further discussion? All in
favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Ms. Beard and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on October 5, 2004.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
98