HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-01-2005 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
February 1, 2005
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:20 p.m., Tuesday,
February 1, 2005, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Grantham, Mays, Cheek, Beard, Williams,
Sims and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Colclough, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by Rev. Steve Dodson.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll go ahead and start with our delegations. We
have a presentation, I think, first.
The Clerk:
PRESENTATION:
Mr. E.G. Meybohm
Mr. Ed. Tarver
Ms. Jan Wiggins
RE: Destination 2020
Mr. Mayor: E.G., Ed, it’s good to have you with us today.
Mr. Meybohm: Good to be here. We want to tell all of you how much we
appreciate the opportunity to come back before you. I think most of you remember that
we were here about a year-and-a-half ago, and as I reflect back on when we started this
process, I realize that it’s been almost three years ago since we embarked on this project
to create a vision for our community. And Ed and I have been involved, but there have
been a lot of people that have been a whole lot more involved than we have and I feel
kind of guilty sometimes standing up here taking credit for things that maybe a lot of
other people have put a lot more effort and time into. In particular Jan Wiggins has just
done a yeoman’s job in this, and [inaudible], who was giving out the copies to you, has
been such a big help to us and has donated not only time but a lot of her effort and her
expertise in putting this presentation together. I think most of you are aware of what this
is all about. We, as again, started about a year-and-a-half or two years ago with meetings
and this is 100% volunteer driven. Everything that you see here today. We have come
together as a result of an initiative that Leadership Augusta brought to the forefront about
three or four years ago, and over the period of the last – as I said – two-and-a-half years
1
we’ve had a series of meetings, both to get grass roots participation and also to make sure
that we touch on every aspect and every group of people that were involved in our
community. I’m really not going to spend a lot of time going through all this, cause I
know you have a busy agenda. I think that what I would like to do is just kind of tell you
where we are today and then give you the opportunity to ask any questions of Ed or
myself, that what you see today is not the finished copy. We have one more little
proofreading to do, but we should be ready to print this brochure that you have in front of
you sometime within the next two weeks. We’ve raised the money from private
individuals to take care of the printing and we really hope that this is going to be a
resource that you can look to, that will help guide you in your deliberations in the next
few years. As I said, we started with a 20-year project and we’re already into 2005. I
would mention that we have had a few successes, which I think are very important in
what we’ve done, in that some of the things that the community has recognized that needs
to be done have already been accomplished in our proposal, and you may see those as
you read through. And the last thing, I think, I think when Ed and I signed on for this
project, one of our concerns was that this be a working document, that this be something
that would not sit on a shelf but that would become a true vision that this community
could focus itself on. And in that regard, we have formed what we call an
implementation committee, and the implementation committee is responsible for making
sure that this vision is, becomes a reality. It has a lot of responsibilities, which I won’t go
through each one of them, but probably foremost is to monitor the events on an annual,
actually on a quarterly basis. It think it calls for quarterly meetings to review this. We
wish we had the money to hire a fulltime period, fulltime staff person, to help us
administer this plan, because this plan really, ladies and gentlemen, is a result of many,
many hours, and many, many days of a lot of hard work from a lot of people. We
estimate somewhere between 500 and 750 people have been involved in either
committees or at some of our forums or meetings we’ve held, and have played a very
active role in doing this. So rather than keep talking, I’ll hush and Ed, have you got
anything that you’d like to add? We’ll be happy to try to entertain any questions that
anyone may have.
Mr. Mayor: E.G., let me just say to open the discussion how much we as the local
government appreciate the citizen involvement in putting this plan together. And we
understand that this plan goes way beyond what happens in this chamber. It’s a total
community and region vision and certainly the timing of it is good as we get ready to
enter our SPLOST deliberations, to work with that effort again, and the other initiatives
we have in this city. But I would just like to, on behalf of the people up here and those in
this organization, thank you all very much for the time and energy that you’ve spent on
this.
Mr. Meybohm: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Yes, I would simply like to add that I concur with him. I think you
are to be commended for what you’ve done. It’s very impressive. It’s something I have
2
looked at and that even when I saw it in its first rough draft, I said, you know, this is
something we need to look at. And I want you to know we are up here and we want to
move in the direction of this vision.
Mr. Meybohm: Thank you.
Ms. Beard: And hopefully in twenty years we’re going to see it.
Mr. Meybohm: Our goal is - I didn’t mention this – but our goal is to in the year
2020 to be recognized around the country as being the premier mid-sized community in
the country.
Ms. Beard: I believe it’s possible.
Mr. Meybohm: I do, too.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess in my time in government and
living in this city, as I have my whole life, the vision, the place we want to be in twenty
years is what’s been absent. What do we want to be when we decide to become that city
you just mentioned? That premier city. Mr. Mayor, I just would like to say in witnessing
and participating in this process and the way the committees were brought together,
composed of people from all walks of life and all areas of this community, combining
that into a package and a presentation of a vision for this city, that this city, that we as the
governing body of this city adopt this vision and work with this group to develop the
milestones, the steppingstones that will take us successfully that in 2020 we achieve the
Mr. Mayor, I would like to move that we adopt this
vision that is in this book.
Destination 2020 as the official vision for the city of Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: Would you want to wait, Mr. Cheek, until they bring the final
version to us? He said this is not the final draft of it.
Mr. Meybohm: The only thing that would change, Mr. Mayor, would be maybe
some grammatical stuff, but the content is not going to change.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to adopt it subject to the presentation of the final
version? We could do it that.
Mr. Cheek: That would be fine.
And seriously, I’ve seen us talk many times
about we’re the second largest city, we have the Masters, we need a road map, we need a
And so I will so move in the manner in
target, we need a destination. And it is here.
which you just spoke, subject to the grammatical changes and so forth, that we
adopt this package and embrace it and then work with the presenters today and
those responsible for bringing it to us to achieve the dreams.
3
Ms. Beard: I’d like to second that. And the reason I am is because I feel it covers
every aspect of this community.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mayor Young. I, like all of the rest of the members of
this Commission, have received numerous emails and letters and phone calls telling us
that there is no vision in Augusta. I was privileged, I guess, to get an advance copy of
this and I’ve read it from cover to cover over and over and I think this is a tremendous
document. And the most impressive thing is that it’s put together by the citizens of
Augusta and not the members of this government. So I just want to publicly say I think
this dispels that myth that’s been out there about we don’t have any plans for the future or
no vision for the future. And I personally thank you and Ed for everything you have done
and all the people you’ve worked with to make this a reality.
Mr. Meybohm: Thank you. One other comment, if I may. To piggyback a little
bit on that, I think one of the things that was so good about what we did was that we had
cooperation from every facet of the community, and people came to our meetings. We
had people from all walks of life involved. They all had a clear idea of what they wanted,
and I think that it truly is a real community vision.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Yes, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Mayor, I want to say that these two gentlemen [inaudible] pull off
something like this, and I personally appreciate your leadership.
Mr. Mayor: If there is nothing further, we’ll vote on the motion then. Madame
Clerk, Mr. Hankerson just came in. You want to read the motion for his benefit?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The motion was to adopt as the official vision of the City
subject to the final presentation, with the desire to reach these goals, in the vision, to
achieve the goals as written in the vision.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Hankerson: Could I ask them a question? I’m sorry, I just got in.
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
4
Mr. Hankerson: I read through this thoroughly and it really is a good document. I
wanted to ask, is it in the vision or has it been mentioned in the vision of a connection
with the central inner city to the south Augusta area, the Regency Mall, the motor mile,
as Martin Luther King – I noticed you said, there were suggestions that Laney-Walker be
connected to the Broad Street inner city, the Common and so forth. Has the thought
came up as connecting Martin Luther King Boulevard to Deans Bridge Road, which is
the motor city where the car dealerships and where we’re looking at Regency Mall site
for development and revitalizations for Deans Bridge Road, that you have a gateway into
downtown central, downtown besides Gordon Highway?
Mr. Meybohm: I can’t tell you exactly what it says.
Mr. Tarver: I don’t believe it’s articulated as you have stated it. But one of the
things we try to emphasize regarding this document is that it’s meant to be marked up, to
be changed, to be modified, and if it’s not in that, in the form that you envision it, then
we ought to add it. But we want to encourage everybody that has a vision for where this
community should go in the next twenty years to include their thoughts and their
comments so that we can make them a part of this document..
Mr. Hankerson: Right. I just thought it was very beautiful, everything that you
were doing, and I was going to email Jan back to make those suggestions that we want,
we live in the city of Augusta now and it’s from the county line to county line and we
need to extend our boundaries as the vision as we’re working on south Augusta, and we
don’t need south Augusta working over there and still separate, that all of this connect
into one beautiful city.
Mr. Meybohm: I think there is a lot written in the document that says that’s what
our vision is, that we have one city, and I will make sure that they take a look at what the
– I don’t know exactly what the language says in there in terms of the transportation area,
but we’ll definitely take a look at that.
Mr. Hankerson: I certainly appreciate that.
Mr. Meybohm: Thank you.
Mr. Tarver: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, the next item, I believe, is the delegation.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
Ms. Dorothy Tarvin
RE: Rural Metro Ambulance Services
5
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Tarvin, if you would give us your name and address for the
record, please, and under the rules of the Commission you have five minutes. Mr.
Russell will keep time for us.
Ms. Tarvin: 3611 Highway 11, Blythe.
Mr. Mayor: If you’d speak right into the microphone, please.
Ms. Tarvin: 3611 Highway 11, Blythe.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Go ahead.
Ms. Tarvin: All right. About 11:25, December 11, I heard a loud noise in the
bathroom. My husband was slap on the floor. I couldn’t get any response, so I did CPR.
He gave two short breaths and that was all. I called 911 and told the dispatcher I needed
an ambulance and what had happened and that my husband was also a laryngectomy, and
she replied ma’am, I don’t know what that is. So I told her she was a neck-breather. The
ambulance came. Two male attendants. They did CPR several times on my husband and
they got no response. The last time I asked them, they said no, ma’am, and I’m sorry. A
little bit later they brought in a stretcher and put him on the stretcher and carried him to
the ambulance. I asked to ride with him and they said no, ma’am. So I said where are
you taking him? They said University unless something happens on the way. I went to
University and he was not there. They had carried him to Eisenhower. And when we
finally got through the gate at Eisenhower and to the hospital, the doctor came out and
said your husband didn’t make it. The coroner came out and gave me his belongings.
She talked with me for a while. Gave him his belongings. His wallets with $200 was
missing. I had counted his money that morning. He had $180 in twenties and two $10
bills. The coroner made a note of that and she went back to the staff and they came back
with her and said that his clothing had been cut off and he was covered with a sheet only,
and the way they knew his name was by his medicine bottles. From the looks of that, it
seems to me like he was just left out at Eisenhower like a piece of garbage or nobody.
My husband was not a nobody. He was somebody both to me and to our family. He was
83 years old, disabled, a 25-year cancer survivor. He had lost all the fingers on his left
hand due to an accident years ago. He carried everything in his right pockets. Keys in the
front and tobacco pouch and wallet in the back. The tobacco pouch was there. I had
made him – he used [inaudible] tobacco and I had made him this little pouch to carry it
in. Okay, his tobacco pouch had been put in this bag. I was too upset to do anything
about it when I got home, the shock of my husband dying like that. The next day I called
a deputy and he came and made a report and said he’d have the supervisor to call me.
Well, she did and she said I’m sorry, but things like that happen. Okay. I called Channel
12, “On Your Side” to talk to Mr. [inaudible] but he was too busy to talk with me. He
said I’ll call you Monday. Monday hadn’t got here yet. So then I decided to write a letter
to the editor. I talked with Mr. Kirby and told him what had happened. He said I’m
sorry, but we cannot print your letter. They can print one about a dog be stripped of his
collar and tagged, but my husband was stripped, too, not only of his belongings but of his
dignity. He was 83 years old, like I said, and after my retirement we had been together
6
24/7. And he just did not deserve to be treated any such a way as he was treated. I don’t
know if there is anything that can be done about it, but I appreciate the opportunity of
being up here and being able to talk with you. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Tarvin, all of us up here share in your loss and we certainly are
sorry your husband passed and even more unsettled by the circumstances that you’ve
brought to us today. Mr. Russell, have you had an opportunity to discuss this with Ms.
Tarvin or has our staff had an opportunity to look into this and review this?
Mr. Russell: No, sir, I have not yet met with Ms. Tarvin. Rural Metro does have
representatives here that I spoke to and they have read the information that was available
to them. It’s my understanding that they did have somebody speak to Ms. Tarvin. If
you’d like, sir, I’d be more than happy to speak to her and try to put together some
recapsulation of what happened.
Ms. Tarvin: There’s something else, I forgot, I got the ambulance –
Mr. Mayor: Just a – Ms. Tarvin, just a moment. I’ll come back to you. Go
ahead, Fred.
Mr. Russell: If you’d like, sir, I’d be more than happy to make arrangements to
speak to her and put together some response and report that could be forwarded to the
Public Safety Committee in a manner that we could objectively look at what happened
and try to come to some conclusion on what occurred, sir.
Mr. Mayor: As the administrator of the contract with Rural Metro, we have a
duty and a responsibility to do just that. Ms. Tarvin, you wanted to say something else?
Ms. Tarvin: I’ve got the ambulance bill. It was $867.19 on the 19tth of
th
December. And I also got a call the 29 of December from an ambulance company out
in Arizona about the amount that we owed.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you are chairman of Public Safety.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, thank you. And I certainly sympathize with what
happened, but I’m interested in knowing some more details, if Mr. Russell can get those
for us for Public Safety. She came to address the ambulance service, that provided there
were some things that were lost, there were some things that didn’t go right, for sure. I
would like to have those details, as much as we can find out about from the hospital to
where he was transferred and who told her where her husband was going to be taken to
and did not take him there and for what reason, where it was changed. I’m sorry – I
forget - your name again?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Tarvin.
7
Mr. Williams: Ms. Tarvin, I agree with you when you said they would print a
letter in the newspaper about a dog or something else, but human beings, people who
have a good, legitimate story to be printed don’t necessarily get it. But give us an
opportunity to look at this and to research it and to find out what we can and we will
certainly get back with you and let you know what our findings will be through Public
Safety. And we just thank you for bringing it to our attention and we just so sorry there is
nothing else we can do at this point. But please, ma’am, give us an opportunity to
investigate.
Ms. Tarvin: Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Tarvin called me, it’s been about
six weeks, I believe now, about this issue. That’s why she’s here today. I did speak to a
representative from Rural Metro about that part, cause it’s two issues here she explained
to me. One issue is the dignity of her husband, and I’m not pointing at Rural Metro or
Fort Gordon hospital, but that part was questioning, but the other part is about the
missing money, which disturbs me that she couldn’t get no answers from Fort Gordon,
either. She did say that had contacted Rural Metro and they said that they didn’t see, they
didn’t see the money, and the way her husband was covered and so forth and left
uncovered at Fort Gordon, so I couldn’t do anything about the Fort Gordon issue, but I
knew that if she come here that maybe we can, you know, further look into it for her,
because she was in a lot of pain when she called me on the phone and we talked about it a
couple of times. So the money issue is an issue there, also.
Mr. Mayor: I think given Mr. Russell’s background in law enforcement, he’s
going to get to the bottom of the missing money issue. I’m sure he will pursue that.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make it in the form of a motion that
Mr. Russell investigate this and bring it back to the Public Safety Committee that
we can address that from that point.
Mr. Mayor: And advise Ms. Tarvin.
Mr. Williams: Right. And advise her as to what, what our findings would
be.
Ms. Sims: I’d like to second that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All
in favor of the motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Tarvin, for bringing this to our attention.
8
Ms. Tarvin: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: While we’re on delegations, a presentation we have on the addendum
agenda, presentation, we need unanimous consent to add this item. Madame Clerk,
would you read the caption?
The Clerk:
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
ADDITION TO THE AGENDA:
PRESENTATION:
The Buffalo Soldiers Motorcycle Club to the Augusta Recreation and Parks
Department Youth Scholarship Foundation.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to adding this to the agenda? None is noted. Is a
representative from the Buffalo Soldiers Motorcycle Club here?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Beck and Mr. Howard.
Mr. Mayor: If you’d identify yourself, give us your name and address for the
record, please. Go ahead.
Mr. Roll: Good afternoon. My name is James Roll.
Mr. Barnes: My name is Jimmy Barnes.
Mr. Roll: I am – first of all, let me give you [inaudible], Mayor Young,
councilmen and women, citizens of Augusta, today marks one year from the last time we
were in this chamber to present you with a check from our motorcycle club. On behalf of
Lawrence Johnson, who is also one of the founders of our organization, we would like to
say to you we are working throughout the community, we’re involved in your churches,
we’re involved in law enforcement, we’re involved in political action groups, but the
number one thing that we as Augusta Buffalo Soldiers believe in is being involved with
children. We selected the Augusta Parks and Recreation for one reason, because it gives
back to the youth, the youth that one day will replace some, if not all of you on this
council. So I will not waste your time because I know you have a lot of things on your
agenda today. I would like to thank several people before I present this check to the
appropriate authorities. I’d like to say that the MLK Day parade was a success. We
brought 38 chapters into the Augusta, Georgia area for what’s called a National
Association of Buffalo Soldier Motorcycle Club meeting. It may not be a lot of money,
but it is funds that are brought into our community to support what we believe in. We as
Augusta Buffalo Soldiers have criss-crossed the country this year on our motorcycles
representing our city, and our goal is sincerely to give the Augusta, Georgia warm feeling
that I first received when I came here in 1992. I would like to personally thank the
9
sheriffs of Richmond and Columbia Counties. I would also like to thank Pat Jones of the
Augusta Youth Center. We’ve worked with her on several occasions and her kids, were
involved with mentoring those children, and it’s a great feeling to now that we can give
back to our community. I also would like to thank the Augusta Parks and Recreation.
The entire staff has just went out of their way to assist us as a motorcycle club trying to
get involved in the community professionally, and I personally would like to thank
Robert Howard. In closing, I would like to say on January 16, 2005 I resigned as
president of the Augusta, Georgia Buffalo Soldiers Motorcycle Club. I didn’t do that
because there is something wrong. I did it because I had gotten the organization where I
thought it should be. I’m passing the torch now to my successor, Jimmy L. Barnes, who
was elected by our members to be the president of Augusta Buffalo Soldiers Motorcycle
Club. His task is to ensure that it continues to do great things within our community, as
we will all continue to do. Mayor, thank you very much for allowing us to be here today.
Ladies and gentlemen, citizens. Here is your check, and the amount this year – the
amount last year was $1,000. This year, we wanted to keep doubling this thing so we’ve
got $2,000 from our hearts. God bless you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, words can’t express how
much we appreciate groups like the Buffalo Soldiers. In our budget challenges that
we’ve got today, this is what’s going to make it happen. Not just the money, but the
involvement from groups like the Buffalo Soldiers. That’s what is going to make us
move forward. So thank you very much and thanks to the Buffalo Soldiers.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Tom. Well said. I’d like – we’ve got a couple of people
here for item 27, Madame Clerk. I’d like to go ahead and take that item up. I’ve put at
each of your places a GIS map of the area that we’re talking about, with the Judicial
Center.
The Clerk:
JUDICIAL CENTER SUBCOMMITTEE:
27.Discuss the Phase I/Phase II Environmental Assessment for the proposed
Judicial Center.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke:
Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, first I’d like to thank
you for your patience in waiting in getting the report back on the piece of property that
this Commission selected as the location of the new Judicial Center. It took us a little
while getting some things worked out with some of the property owners as far as getting
access to do the work that we needed to do. But I’m pleased to report to you that we’ve
done a Phase I and a Phase II on the property and to report to you that we have an
Specifically to
acceptable piece of property to move forward on with the Judicial Center.
advance the project at this time, the following steps are offered for your
10
consideration: The first is to proceed with authorizing Jim Wall on behalf of the
city to obtain contracts for the purchase of properties between Walton Way, 9th,
th
Walker Street and 10 Street. This would include the authorization to hire
appraisers as needed for acquiring these properties. Contract for the acquisition of
the properties would be contingent upon the completion of soil tests and
compression tests. Number two, to authorize proceeding with soil tests and
compression tests as directed by the architect on the project. And three, to negotiate
necessary amendments to the contract with the architect to include an update of the
project definition, revisions of the schedule for deliverables and authorization upon
approval of the contract amendments and satisfactory results for the soil tests and
compression tests to move forward then with design development of the Judicial
Center. We propose that to you for your consideration and we need your direction
to let us know where to go from this point.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, thank you. This is indeed a long awaited and
anticipated report from you.
Mr. Kuhlke: I thought I was in that program 20/20.
Mr. Mayor: Appreciate your diligence, you and Mr. Wall working on this project.
. I would
I would ask the Commission – I’ve provided each one of you with a GIS map
like you to consider expanding a bit on the land acquisition as outlined by Mr.
Kuhlke so that we can provide some enhancement for the Judicial Center site. The
two block area that Mr. Kuhlke outlined for the Judicial Center itself is on Walton
th
Way and James Brown Boulevard, bounded by Fenwick Street and 10 Street. I
would like to see us acquire from Atlanta Gas Light Company the parcel across
James Brown Blvd., the little triangle identified as 706, which abuts the Augusta
Canal, and it would ideal for green space or a little park across from the new
building. Likewise, on the north side of Fenwick Street, the Wachovia Bank and the
Sprint tracts identified as two numbers with zero and then 906. I would encourage
you to acquire that for overflow parking for the Judicial Center and also as shared
parking for the Bankruptcy Court building which is now under construction right
now at Telfair and James Brown Boulevard, and likewise, it could be used for
activities on the Augusta Canal after hours and on the weekends. I would
encourage you to expand the acquisition of property for this to include those
additional tracts that I’ve identified.
If you can’t locate them on your map I’ll come
down and mark them with a highlighter for you. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: A couple of questions. One, on the project itself for the Judicial
Center, we established a project ceiling during the last round of SPLOST which I thought
was somewhat appropriate. About $55 million for the entire project. Is that what we’re
going to pass on if we pass this today, to the architects to work within that budget
ceiling? Are we going with the original dollar amount?
Mr. Mayor: That is not the request from Mr. Kuhlke, but certainly the
Commission could put a ceiling on it if you wish to do that. You might want to wait for
11
the design team to get a ways into the design to give you some feedback and then have
that discussion with them.
Mr. Cheek: But we got into the discussion the design where we had a courtroom
per judge and a building three times the size of this building and that’s why we don’t wait
until after you design something to put constraints on funding and so forth. I’d really like
to see us give them a dollar figure and allow them to work back from there. Because my
concern again, we’ve put ceilings on and we’ve had discussions over and over again and
we keep going back to this very large building that’s going to cost us $1 million a year to
heat and cool and staff.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Commission Cheek, our proposal is to work within the money that
we have at this point, and I understand where you’re coming from and I think it’s very
valid. One thing that I think you all know is in the delay in getting started with this,
there’s been some significant increases in costs during that period of time. Concrete and
still being one. The other thing, and I’ve talked with the Mayor about this, I think since
we went through the last project definition, I’m not sure we had the public defender in
there. But we may have. But if we didn’t, we’re talking about roughly another 12,000
square feet that may have to be added to that facility to accommodate the public defender.
I would say this, we’ll work along whatever the Commission would like for us to do, but
it may be, it may be better suited if we go back and revise the project definition and then
report that back to you to see what we’ve got, what we’re having to work with to see if it
has any impact at all on the amount of money the Commission wants to spend on the
Judicial Center. Because I think the whole idea initially was to try to consolidate the
judicial function of this county, so we would not have gone too far that you couldn’t then
come back and say this is how much money the Commission is going to spend or
authorize, and then we begin to amend the project definition and may have to find other
places for things we can’t accommodate.
Mr. Cheek: My concern again is I’m looking at a project that will consume 3-1/2
to 4 years of sales tax. We’re already talking about the next round limiting that to 5 or 6
years. There are an awful lot of other needs and must haves that we have got to fund in
this city over the next 5 to 6 years. I go down to the second floor on a regular basis and
see the courtrooms empty on a very regular basis. I don’t want us to retrace the ground.
All of us Commissioners would probably like to have our own office and everything else.
The judges don’t need, every judge doesn’t need a courtroom. It’s not fiscally
responsible for us to do that, heat and cool empty space. There’s a lot of economies that
can be gained by better scheduling the utilization of existing facilities as well as new
facilities. I just want us to build something we can afford and not have you guys go out,
make plans for one dollar amount and then we on the Commission find we can only fund
a lower dollar amount and then have to go back and revise the plans. I’d rather give you
guys a target to begin with that you can work from, rather than – I guess my conception
of designs and plans is this is the dollar amount that we have, give us all that you can for
the dollar.
12
Mr. Kuhlke: We’ve got to get to that point.
Mr. Cheek: And I’ve got another question. We won’t actually broach that point
by passing what’s here today [inaudible].
Mr. Kuhlke: I think it would be our obligation once the project definition is
revised that we would then come back and give y’all a report on what that shows. At that
point I think then you say we’re not going to spend but so much money. If what we’ve
got proposed will not work, then we’ve got to cut back.
Mr. Cheek: Well, the only thing is we came back – this came to us initially with
we need a courtroom for every judge, and that’s just in my opinion not the case. And so
by passing this today we will enable you to come back to us with the information that
you’re talking about?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: The second question, on the GIS map, I notice two areas indicated as
detention ponds. Are those part of the design proposal? I guess my question is I guess
that’s the post office and iron works and while I’d like to see certainly the iron works
moved, we’ve got a 20’ concrete channel that’s running through that area. Why do we
need detention ponds?
Mr. Mayor: Andy, I think that’s an error in coding on the map.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Because there are no detention ponds on those properties.
Mr. Cheek: Okay, I know there weren’t but I didn’t know if we were planning on
acquiring –
Mr. Mayor: No, sir, I saw that, too, when they brought me the maps this morning.
I believe that’s just a coding area.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson and then the Mayor Pro Tem and then the Attorney.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Also, I think we need to look at rather
than talking about the ceiling on the amount of the structure, $55 million for quite a
while, and Andy brought up some good point. But also we have some new problems
since the last time we discussed the Judicial Center. I recall that my colleague,
Commissioner Williams, mentioned about how many floors and said that it was more
economical to add another floor on. I can see more [inaudible] what he was saying at that
13
time because right now rather than to put $9.5 million in that jail over there, I think we
might need to consider adding a floor for administrative staff and all of that at the same
complex and we’ll come out saving money by adding a floor there. And it’s cheaper to
build pods than to build a whole new jail like we have at 401. I think we be using the
money very wisely rather than to put $9.5 million in a building that come up later on and
still going to be some problems with the building. While you building this Judicial
Center - you mentioned indigent defense- make sure that you put another floor needed,
to add another floor, and you have [inaudible] for more of the Sheriff’s Department and
that staff over there and build the pod somewhere else. I think it’s a lot to be considered
in this proposal, the acquisitions that you’re talking about, land acquisition that we didn’t
discuss before that we might have to look at a little different.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Hankerson, I – just the little bit of feedback that we’ve gotten is
that it’s probably not too smart to combine judicial and the Sheriff’s Department. But if
you recall, this particular building right now, seven of the nine floors, I think, Rick, are
pretty much taken up by judiciary. Am I correct? So what you’re going to have when
you get to a certain point, and I don’t know the timing on it, is you are going to have
space available in this building that potentially could take care of the Sheriff. But you
know, we’ll look at anything you’d like for us to.
Mr. Mayor: Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. How are you doing, Bill?
Mr. Kuhlke: Hey, Marion.
Mr. Williams: Miss you, man. Miss you.
Mr. Kuhlke: Wish I was up there with you.
Mr. Williams: I tell you what.
(Laughter)
Mr. Grantham: I can make arrangements for you.
(Laughter)
Mr. Williams: Like my twin said, Andy has brought some good points.
Commissioner Hankerson brought out some more points, as well, but I been advocating a
larger building for several reasons and once we move people out of this building, Bill,
you right, there’s going to be some space available. But whether or not we can mix the
courts with the Sheriff and that kind of thing, I don’t know about that, but I do know that
we still renting a lot of space around the city of Augusta that if we going build a building
– and like Andy, I agree we ought to have a cap, but if we going build a building, why
not build the nine floors and shell out nine more that if we need them, we can renovate as
14
we need, rather than turn around trying to find another building in nine or ten more
years? So I guess all I’m saying is I agree, I want us to come back, I hope that what we
passing today would be just to get everything into motion. I hope when the architects get
to that point they will come back to us, that we be able to look at what’s there and try to
see whether or not we going in the right direction. I’m, you know, the newspapers say a
lot of things about you when you were here and they say even more about me. I still
believe that I’m not crazy when I say that we ought to build a building of some
magnitude that was going to give us some long, long in the city of Augusta. We, we
ought to have a building that we can have a multi-purpose. If the first ten floors goes to
the courts and the judicial process is good, but I just think for sure once we build it that
it’s going to be rough to go on top and add to it or to build next door to it when we can
save, when we can be smarter, that’s all. I’m in favor, I just hope when the architecture
part comes available that it is brought back to us. This motion will not pass that, will it,
Mr. Mayor, that the architectural firm will be coming back to this body to show us where
they are?
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: Okay, I’m in favor. I agree with Andy, I don’t want to just open
the door and say well, go at it, but at the same time I want to be smart while we’re doing
it. Let’s build something that we can get a lot of use out of for a lot of years. This
building here has been here a long time. Had this building been a taller building, more
floors on it, I believe we’d have more of our government facilities in here, we would have
saved those monies that we spent out on Marvin Griffin and other places that we are
renting places to house our people at now. And that’s going to help us on that, on the low
end, I think.
Mr. Kuhlke: If I could just, Steve, if I could just say a couple of words.
Mr. Shepard: Go ahead.
Mr. Kuhlke: I think that the steps we would go through is what we are asking for
y’all to look at, is Mr. Wall would begin to purchase the property over there. We have to
get appraisals and so forth. And I’m sure that there may be some instances where we
may have to come back to the Commission for some approvals on that. We would have
to amend the contract that we presently have with the architect. You will have to approve
that amendment before that takes place. Then once they go through the project definition
and determine the scope of the job, then we would bring that back to y’all to tell you
what they are saying that we need to have, and it’s all going to probably relate to a dollar
amount at that point. That’s when you give us direction on how do we move ahead. Jim,
am I correct on that?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
15
Mr. Shepard: My suggestion, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Mr. Mayor and
members of the Commission, would be that these contracts, we’re talking about obtaining
contracts for the purchase of properties, be specifically made subject to the completion of
the soil tests and compression tests and I would recommend that the closing of these
contracts be subject to the prior adoption by this body of a revised project definition.
And that would include your determination to include or exclude the public defender
from the facility, to include or exclude the sheriff from the facility. That I think would
keep the matter under a status of moving forward as presented today and have this
Commission be able to have its wishes known as to the size of that building.
Mr. Kuhlke: Steve, if I could ask you this, do – I had a little different idea. I
didn’t know whether the Commission wanted to move ahead with the signing of the
amendment of the contract until we had ownership of the property. Because if we don’t
own the property, and Jim, correct me if I’m wrong, but do we want to begin spending
money on revising the contract and so forth until we have possession of the properties?
Mr. Wall: Well, I think we can do it in any order that we want to. For me, I think
we would be working simultaneously [inaudible] getting the appraisals and the other
information to acquire the properties and be negotiating on the contract amendment as
well as the project definition, bring those back to the Commission for approval. The
Commission has to approve all the contract amendments and each of the contracts for
purchase has to be approved by the Commission as well. So [inaudible].
Mr. Kuhlke: So do it concurrently? That’s what you said, wasn’t it? Steve?
Mr. Shepard: I think yes, Bill, is the answer, but I want to make sure that the
Commission and the committee agree that if our, if this Commission’s budget is a
constraint that that somehow be observed. I mean that’s what I’ve been hearing from this
Commission, that we have to have some budgetary constraint and therefore I don’t think
we should buy all this land without some contingency, that that be one of the
contingencies.
Mr. Kuhlke: I think we can do that. We’ve already been through a project
definition so basically we are going to be updating what we’ve already got. It’s not going
to be quite as time consuming as it was initially. When we come back to you, it’s going
to equate to a square footage of building. And that is going to be so much a square foot.
That will be a dollar amount. At that point, the Commission then gives us the direction
on what’s the maximum we’re going to be able to spend.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard and then Mr. Boyles?
Ms. Beard:
Well, all of the input is a little difficult for me, but I – if I’m not out
I’d like to move that we begin purchasing the land.
of order,
Mr. Mayor: We had two other elements that Mr. Kuhlke asked for. We
could embody those in your motion, Ms. Beard?
16
Ms. Beard: That would be fine.
Because I do feel a need to begin work on this.
Mr. Mayor: And when you say purchase the land, would that be as Mr.
Kuhlke presented it, and would that include the additional parcels that I
encouraged the Commission to purchase?
Ms. Beard: With the purchases you have indicated here.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ll continue our discussion. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: On the parcels that you outlined, 70600 and 906, has the
environmental study been done on those parcels, too, or was that maybe done in an
earlier report that we got some time ago when the site was moved a little bit further to the
north?
Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Wall may be able to answer some of that
with respect to the Wachovia property. The Atlanta Gas Light property is being
remediated right now.
Mr. Boyles: I think that was mentioned, 706 was mentioned in the report that we
have, 00906 I was curious about.
Mr. Mayor: One of those has already been cleaned up and the other one
[inaudible].
Mr. Kuhlke: 906, Tommy, has been remediated, I believe. The two zeroes have
not been.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] in the process of being remediated.
Mr. Kuhlke: The big piece.
Mr. Wall: The big piece.
Mr. Kuhlke: The triangle has not.
Mr. Boyles: So we wouldn’t have to wait. If we incorporated what the Mayor
asked for, we wouldn’t have to wait on another study to come back on that, we’ve got
that in hand so we –
Mr. Kuhlke: Have everything we need.
17
Mr. Boyles: Good.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you had your hand up?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Let me try and make this pretty quick cause it’s
always good to see Jim. Bill got plenty of money, but I want to get these two fellows
that’s on the clock off the clock so we won’t have to pay them as much. Bill looking
over his right shoulder and his left shoulder to get an answer. This probably directed
more to Chairman Kuhlke, and it’s always good to see him, as well as to the
Commission. I think we got a good motion that’s on the floor to move ahead. But Bill, I
guess I’m going to flip back a little bit to what we did at the last Commission meeting,
which was kind of a joint thing and was suggested by both our Finance chairman and
Commission Hankerson in reference to moving ahead with the, with the SPLOST outline
and of putting those numbers together. Is it possible in considering those things that we
might have to put that have changed since the last time, not only to – when we come back
to talk about the definition, the footprint of what we’re going to have, but also since they
are building these things across the state and across the country, different prices for
different areas, but for the most part, I think the experts can plug in the numbers, can we
possibly on whatever fast track that we are working with then, and I’m trying to eliminate
another bog-down meeting, because I think if we come back and we have in place what
the size, square footage might be, and then if there is a budget – whether we go with what
was plugged into the last sales tax or not, I’m looking at the fact that in the previous sales
tax we have already money that’s sitting, that’s there. It’s one of the things that I think
we have to carry out unless you’re going to go through a Herculean deal of unraveling the
law. I think that has to be adhered to because that $20 million was voted in. So it’s in
place and it’s going to have to be dealt with. Whatever we put on as addition to that is
going to have to be dealt with with some other financial source, whether it’s SPLOST or
something else. Can we possibly be able to look at some numbers on varying types of
buildings that could help us to make a clearer decision? Because I think if we are going
to stay on the track that you all put us on, Mr. Finance Chairman, of going out and talking
about SPLOST, then this is something that is probably going to be at the top, inasmuch as
you’ve got $20 million that’s left over from the previous SPLOST. It’s probably going to
go out as your item number 1, and if you’re going to talk about it I think we need to be in
an intelligent vein to talk about whether we’re going to spend something that is going to
cost $55 million, whether it’s going to be $65 million, whether it’s going to be $65
million, whether it’s going to be $70 million, whether it’s going to be less or what’s
going to go into it. So I think when we come back, whether it’s three weeks, whether it’s
a month, we need to be able to start defining where the budget fits within the size, and
there’s going to have to be some balance that’s in there, and if SPLOST is going to carry
the total load of what’s going to make up for the new Judicial Center, then I think we are
going to have to be very accurate, as close as we can, in putting that out there. So I just
wanted to plug that in. I’m going to support the motion fully. I think it’s time that we
move on with it. But I do think that our next discussion should involve more than
probably just what we are going to put into the building. Because there’s going to have
to be a cost associated with it, and we’re going to have to decide – I’d like to – cause
18
everybody here doesn’t have the expertise of building, and I know when you do that you
are going to have to decide whether if this is taken out, this is what it’s going to cost. If
this is added on, this is what it’s going to cost. And I think we are going to have to deal
with it somewhat on some level of some elementary terms to get into that format when
you’re talking about a variation that could be as different as $15 million to $20 million.
And that might happen. And it wouldn’t take much changing to make that building jump
from $55 million to $70 million, and I think that’s getting back to where Andy’s coming
from of what’s going to actually go in there. But I think it needs to be where we can
actually say okay, fine, this was built in this particular county, this was done in this
county, this is what’s included in it, this [inaudible]. And I think we [inaudible] with the
jail situation. There were a lot of examples of what we could get that were out there,
when we compared the bed space, the medical and everything else put into those types of
buildings and say okay, fine, this is what we are not going to be able to do, and if we got
to work with other people within the judiciary to say okay, fine, this is not what we’re
going to be able to provide. This is what we are going to have to put in and this is what
it’s going to cost us. But if we are going to stay on a two month track to get out on that
part of it, ladies and gentlemen, we better be ready to move with a concrete figure of
what we are going to start with. Cause somehow or another, this one is going to end up
being either at the top or near the top, mainly because we’ve committed by vote $20
million that’s in that package that’s sitting there and I don’t think we could easily undo
and say we are not going to do it when voters have approved that $20 million. So I just
wanted to throw that in there.
Mr. Kuhlke: I think we are fortunate in this regard, Mr. Mays, and I understand
where you’re coming from, is that located in this area is Tom Gunnells, who is a court
administrator who has been involved in building over the last few years a number of new
courthouses. So in addition to the architectural firm we’ve got, we have that expertise.
And I can assure you that when we come back to you for an approval to go ahead with
the amended contract that when we get with the architects that we’ll make them aware
that cost is an important thing and we need to have some latitude of being able to go one
way or the other when we come back to you to move to construction documents. And if
we go and work the schedule that the motion indicates, then – and it works well – by the
time we get finished construction documents, the next SPLOST will have been – that
vote will have been taken.
Mr. Mays: Well, it would be most helpful and I’m glad that the Mayor’s
suggestion on those other properties are in there for another reason that we’ve not
mentioned. And while, if we say, for instance if we’re not able to do what the Mayor Pro
Tem wants to do in terms of the size of that building, I think we are going to have to
make up for that in the over-abundance of land property that we are going to have to buy.
Because if you’re not able to put that in and shell it in right now on a larger building, then
God knows we’re going to need to buy the excessive amount, which may seem excessive
at this point, but if you look into the future you either got to put it in building or you got
to put it in land space where you’re going to be able to put some building later on, and it
may mean that where you’ve got some flat space parking that’s in this decade, we may
have to go to deck parking if you turn around you have to build an addition tower
19
building to go with that in another generation at that point. So I think you are going to
need the land space that’s there, over and above that, I think this building is the perfect
example of that. It’s a beautiful building but to a point when we walk between these two
streets, you know, we’re out of it. It’s gone. And I think that’s a perfect history lesson to
a point that while it was good and it’s outlived its usefully but to a point if we are going
to do this we need that amount of property, and we could probably end up getting some
more. We do well to get it. Because if we can’t put the building there and don’t have the
money to do it with right now, then I think the land obviously will be a lot cheaper, but
for the future we’re going to need it.
Mr. Williams: I agree with you.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further? We have a motion on the floor that’s been
seconded. All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Smith out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. We have a number of people here for item
10, which is on the consent agenda. So if we could just pull that off, Madame Clerk, and
read the caption and go ahead and deal with Mr. Johnson’s project and then they can
leave and then we’ll move on with the consent agenda.
The Clerk:
10. Motion to approve plan of Airport improvements financing with Augusta
Regional Airport Bonds, 2005 Series – total not to exceed $21,990,000.00. (Approved
by Finance Committee January 21, 2005) Series 2005A – not to exceed $7,425,000.00
(Secured by the Airport Passenger Facility Charge and General Revenue) Non-
AMT (alternative minimum tax); Series 2005B – not to exceed $8,000,000.00
(Secured by the Airport Passenger Facility Charge and General Revenue) AMT;
Series 2005C – not to exceed $6,565,000.00 (Airport General Revenue Bonds) AMT.
Mr. Boyles:
Mr. Mayor, this came through Finance and it was also heard by
Administrative Services. I think they didn’t have a full committee that day and it came
I’ll go ahead and move for approval.
on to Finance. Since it is on consent,
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Anybody have any questions or
comments? We’ve got a room full of people here associated with this who can answer
any questions. Mr. Shepard, you had a question?
20
Mr. Shepard: I just wanted to indicate that it was to be revised to a not to
exceed amount of $21,500,000.00 and that the Series A and B would have a total not
to exceed amount of $14,500,000 which would be issued in two series which would
be secured by the airport passenger facility charge and general revenue. The Series
2005A is what they call non-AMT (alternative minimum tax) and Series 2005B is
subject to the AMT.
I’ll supplement the first page of the agenda item with this
[inaudible].
The Clerk: I think you have revised copies at your places.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you had your hand up?
Mr. Williams: Well, I did, Mr. Mayor, but you need to write this down. I’m
going to take it down. I’m not going to have anything to say. I’m going to let this go at
this particular point in time.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Williams: I did have it up, but I don’t now.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, we have a motion to approve. Any further
discussion?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, bond counsel is here today. They want to file a revised
resolution with this body at this time with the Clerk.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Mays, you had your hand up?
Mr. Mays: I was kind of listening to what the Attorney had there [inaudible].
The Clerk: The revisions of the revised figures. [inaudible] concerning the
revised figures [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Yes, Mr. Nichols just brought it to you today.
The Clerk: No, that’s what Mr. Mays is asking.
Mr. Mays: Is it something different that they didn’t present or is it basically a
technicality of where you got to just correct something in there [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: A technicality, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Nichols: Yes, sir, Commissioner Mays.
Mr. Mayor: Matt, if you’d give us your name for the record and your affiliation.
21
Mr. Nichols: I’m sorry. I’m Matt Nichols with Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, the
bond counsel for the airport issue. The – what went out in the books, there is a master
resolution with [inaudible] the framework for all bond issues from the airport. This is
their [inaudible] so we must have a master bond resolution. And then a first
supplemental bond resolution, which is also in your books and which contains the exact
figures, the revised figures that Mr. Shepard just read out. So those correct figures were
in the books and that is what is before you. There were some technical changes to the
master resolution based upon feedback from rating agencies between the time that the
agenda materials were prepared and today. And those are absolutely what I would call
technical corrections. And I’ve got those.
Mr. Mayor: Since we had a motion on the floor before these technical corrections
and everything [inaudible] forward, let me check with the maker of the motion and make
sure your motion embodies these technical corrections and these figures outline by the
Attorney. Is that –
Mr. Boyles: It does, Mr. Mayor. I realize that we worked on another sheet
in Finance Committee and then I did see we had at our desk the revised copy, and
they do look like there are technical changes in there and I – that’s the motion I’m
working from.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair is just trying to clarify that your motion says what we just
heard and we don’t have two different things out here. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, before I ask what I was going to ask with my hand up, let
me just ask this about the little technical things there. And I say this in a, in a
lighthearted way. Does that save, does that put us in a position of getting us any more
money or saving any with those new technical changes, or is that strictly paperwork?
Whenever I hear technical change, I always like to make sure it’s not a dollar sign
associated with it that goes backwards.
Mr. Nichols: No, sir. These are technical changes, but they were made in order
to secure a more favorable credit rating, which is bound to result in lower interest costs
for the airport.
Mr. Mays: That’s along my line of answers. [inaudible] Sanford & Son, but the
bottom line by money. Now what I wanted to say, Mr. Mayor, and I said this in the
meeting the other day that I was going to vote for this proposal and I still am, and I do
applaud the leadership of the airport that’s worked real hard for a long time on trying to
get this to the stage of where it is, both current and members that may not be there now.
But I said this the other day that if, if there were any shortcomings about what we were
doing, that I certainly apologize for them because if anybody got them into that particular
situation it would be this Commission in terms of assumptions of everything going the
right way and of everybody doing the right thing. Now while I have, I’m going, I’m kind
of going to bite my lip and I’m going to vote because I owe this to the airport and to the
city in terms of moving on with this particular project, but I would hope that in the future
22
of doing business with all of this, and we are going to build a lot of buildings if we get
some sales tax, we got a lot of stuff we are going to have to do, but I’m just hoping that in
both a gentleman and lady-like way from doing business and of making sure that things
are handled in a manner that we do what’s right, that we keep that in mind and that we
not have to make sure that we inspect everything with a microscope that we were doing.
I did not have the opportunity to sit in on Finance because we had a simultaneous
committee meeting going on at the same time which was important, in Engineering
Services, and I realize a lot of discussion was held there in those committees, and I’m
going to respect that because I think that was the time to do it and the time and place to
get it done. I think a lot of ground was covered in there, but I think a lot of good
discussion came out from those meetings from the standpoint that I think that the city of
Augusta has a lot of work in terms of itself doing for future business and of how we are
going to handle matters of this nature, both at home and we’re putting outside contracting
people that we do business with. So I’m in support of the motion that’s on the floor, but I
want that in there for the record that I want to make sure that while we’re on these trust
factors that as we start business anew to do with other things, that we are going to really
have to seriously sit down and develop a game plan that’s laid out. As I said last week in
the early committee that morning, when you have a team, you have a team. You don’t
get the first team that comes out on the field and get the second team out an hour later.
Everybody comes out at the same time. Everybody wears the same uniform. Whatever
is allotted there on the game plan, everybody knows about it. I’m not going to rehearse
or rehash that. I’m just going to cast a vote in the affirmative for it. But I may not be
around here when you all do the next one of these things, but I want it on this record that
to a point that I think you can still come back as a guest, but I’ll be somewhere reminding
y’all about it, I guarantee you that. So, Mr. Mayor, I’ve made my comments.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wasn’t going to say nothing, and I
couldn’t get by without doing it, look like. I just need to ask the question to the attorney
is that the figure that the amount that is presented, those would not change, those are what
they are, is there anything that we don’t know that we need to know? Is there anything
that hasn’t happened that should have happened? As the attorney – Jim gone now,
[inaudible] since [inaudible] is – and I’m asking you as the attorney now. Commissioner
Mays brought up Finance meeting. We had a lot of discussion in there and I was really
disappointed and I’m still disappointed. I don’t think y’all need my vote to get this
passed. I don’t want to hold it up, but I can’t, I can’t [inaudible] but my question, Steve,
everything that been proposed is – there are no surprises?
Mr. Shepard: That’s correct, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Okay. All right. Well. That’s all, Mr. Mayor. Y’all can go ahead
and vote and do what y’all got to do.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion please vote with
the usual sign.
23
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: Let us know when you’re breaking ground. Madame Clerk, I know
we’ve got a number of people here for item number 11, too, if we could go ahead and go
to that one and then I think we can get back into the rhythm of the day.
The Clerk:
11. Motion to approve increase of benefits for the (19) 1945 participants who
retired prior to January 1, 1996 by $150 per month retroactive to January 1, 2004.
(Approved by Finance Committee January 21, 2005)
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham:
Mr. Boyles, if you don’t mind, I’ll speak to this in regards – it
came before the Finance Committee and in looking at it we asked attorney Jack Long to
present the information to us based on the actuary information that he had received and as
to what he had given us and we did talk to Mr. Persaud in this same light. And with the
way the number of participants in this program, I think there are 19 of them now left in
this, in this benefit package, and it would not affect the long-range plan for that
so I move that we approve.
retirement plan,
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Is there a second?
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mayor: Let’s start with Mr. Cheek, then we’ll come back around.
Mr. Cheek: How does this, both the retroactivity of it and the percent increase,
compare with the other percent increases we’re able to give our other pensioners on the
other funds? Are we giving our other pensioners the same amount of increase or is this
just for this group?
Mr. Grantham: No, it’s just for this group.
Mr. Cheek: How in good conscience can we give people one percentage and not
give other people the same thing?
24
Mr. Grantham: Here’s what you look at. You look at the plan as to how much
money they have within the plan, based on what is due them. Under the ’45 plan, the
way I understand it, I don’t think Mr. Long is here, but the ’45 plan does state that once
this, these people are exhausted and there is money left in the plan, then the plan is still
obligated to pay to their estates. That’s the plan was written. This is not any, any, any
method or monies that is actually owned or is controlled by the government other than
disbursing it. So we don’t have a control over these funds other than disbursing it to
them based on the way the plan is written and the way it is devised. This is not like the
’77 plan.
Mr. Cheek: I guess my concern is gosh, we wrote some really good contracts in
the past for these types of things. But my concern is we have other pension plans and
other people just as much in need and just as deserving. And it’s troubling that while we
can afford to give one group a percentage, we just leave the other groups hanging. And –
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I need to interrupt on that point, if I may.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Boyles: Because the 1949 pension plan was done in August in 2004. That
was plan was done.
Mr. Mayor: They were given an increase.
Mr. Boyles: Yeah.
Mr. Cheek: And I guess that goes back to my question, how – and simply
[inaudible] answered probably a few minutes ago, is how [inaudible] percentage-wise
increase, we giving them 6%, 5%, 2%, how does that compare to what we’re giving the
other people?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, maybe if you ask Mr. Persaud, he can get that
information while we hear from the Commission. Mr. Williams had his hand up and Mr.
Mays had his hand up.
Mr. Williams: I was in support in Finance and am still in support, but I was
waiting on a report I thought Mr. Persaud was going to bring back. We asked him to do
actuaries to see, to make sure that what we was told was correct. That’s supposed to be I
think 19 people that’s going to be affected by this and not only that, but once they was no
longer on the plan or not here anymore, not around, that it would decrease as the number
of people that’s left. If it’s ten, it means those ten, it was only going to affect those ten. I
just wanted to hear from Mr. Persaud what the actuary came back to say, whether or not
that is [inaudible]. I was in support in Finance and am still in support, but I think the
Commission asked him to go back and bring that back to us and we were going to hear
from him to see what the actuary –
25
Mr. Mayor: Here is comes right now with that information.
Mr. Grantham: I think one thing, too, that maybe help clarify, and I’m sorry
[inaudible], that these funds cannot be co-mingled. You know, based on whether we can
disburse, that’s basically our responsibility to disburse the funds, not to co-mingle funds
within these pension plans. So we have to, we have to delegate, I mean designate the
right amount of dollars to the number of people within that plan. That’s the only way we
can give an increase [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Each plan is like a separate enterprise.
Mr. Grantham: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Just like you give pay raises to the employees at the airport, it comes
out of that enterprise fund and every other department is treated appropriate as to the
fund.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this begs the question – and I heard earlier that we pay
into the estates after one of these –
Mr. Mayor: Well, the plan does.
Mr. Grantham: The plan does.
Mr. Cheek: But I mean is that in perpetuity? Is it –
Mr. Mayor: Until the money is gone. Until the money is exhausted.
Mr. Cheek: Why don’t we just split and split it equally among all that are there
standing? I mean –
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me, let me say this. I support it. I supported the other
increase and I want to support this one probably. I know everybody that’s in both of
them where the increases have gone probably by name and by face, and that’s not what
would make me do it. It would be on the merits of it. But if I might change the
complexion of it a little bit before Mr. Persaud comes, one I think, and I used this
statement many times that every mule has got to carry its own backup. I think that’s
where you’ve got to go first with these, with these pensions from the standpoint that it
has been the said the plan supports what you can do or what you cannot do. And every
plan has to be able to do that. What bothers me a little bit, and I’m going to flip the script
just a little bit, and this is why I would like to hear from or at least hear what the actuary
says based on a different formula that may or may not have been given. Again, I didn’t
get a chance to sit in when y’all were talking about this in Finance. But I think there is
one factor that’s different in here, and maybe this will [inaudible] something and clear the
26
matter up, is where the age situation sets with those who would now be recipients. That’s
number one. And of where they are versus where you may look at a normal retirement
age versus where the folk who are asking for the increase may be at this point in time in
their age bracket. That age would probably be much higher making them older, even
though they don’t look like it [inaudible], but everybody would fall into a different
bracket on that. But what I’m looking at as the fact that they’re asking for the $150, it
might be that if they could on their age versus what is considered your normal retirement
that’s in there, it might be that the $150 is too low. And that’s the other side of the
equation [inaudible] the floor. It may be too low. And I think you’ve got to figure it on
where you sit with those numbers. So it’s not that I’m against it. I do think that we need
to wait per se. I’m not against where your motion is going, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Boyles,
but I think to a point the $150 based on the age group of people that you’re talking about,
and the small number that’s left versus what’s in there and I think probably before we get
too far talking about estates, cause they’re not going anyway, but I think that’s something
though that we do need to deal with some clarity on in terms of where once everybody is
out of that pension and [inaudible] where you have a zero [inaudible] situation in there as
to whether or not how those monies can then be spent. And I think that will help you
determine better in terms of what the increase probably should be based on their ages, as
well, because some of that money may be passed on to estates and dependent upon the
fine writing in that venture, some of it may be passed on to estates and some of it may be
government retained. So I think that’s something you need to look at that’s in there.
[inaudible] but I think it needs to be spelled out in this government’s language so that
everybody is clear on it. These folk up here, they change and they get gone and you
don’t need to have to fight that battle, so while we’re talking about the increase it may be
something at a different date but not far away that we may want to look at as to what that
language actually said. Y’all follow it closer than what we follow over here. But Mr.
Mayor, if I could yield to Mr. Persaud on whether there are some different numbers based
on where this age group is, and in terms of us making a decision probably on the $150 or
making a decision based on whether or not it could higher than the $150. Cause I mean
they’re not, they’re not folk who just retired yesterday.
Mr. Mayor: David, there are a number of questions up here.
Mr. Persaud: I’ll try to answer. Prior to 2004, the 1945 pension plan was fully
funded. Because of the volatility in the stock market starting January 1, 2004, the city
started to fund their plan’s contribution beginning again in the amount of $171,000. A
request was made June 2, 2004 to look at the actuarial impact on the $1,800 per month
for the entire plan participants. As of January 1, 2004, there were 41 plan participants.
The impact would have been for all the participants $119,000 per year. If it goes back to
1996, the [inaudible] impact would have been $62,000. I have been told that there are
four fewer, less participants and we are in the process of doing our 2005, January 1, 2005
actuary valuation, and we should have those results [inaudible] but that’s where we are in
terms of the actual impact on the employer’s contribution and this increase [inaudible]
per year.
27
Mr. Mayor: David, Mr. Cheek had some questions with respect to the percentage
of the increase.
Mr. Cheek: How does this allocation compare to what we’re doing for other
pensioners, percentage of increase of the total? You know, are we giving this group 5%
and are we giving the other groups 2% or 1% or is there some parity?
Mr. Persaud: It will be difficult to calculate the individual impact because the
retirees – the retirement check is based on several assumptions or actual information,
such as your number of years worked, compensation last three years [inaudible] average.
When the calculation was done, it was based specifically on $1,800 per participant so it
will be difficult to give you a specific calculation per capital.
Mr. Cheek: I guess, though, from plan to plan, I mean say base $1,800 per month
or whatever for these group of participants in this plan, $1,800 in plan B, I mean what
kind of increase have we given these other folks? I guess that’s my question.
Mr. Persaud: [inaudible] rate of 10%, not more than that. [inaudible] individual
retirement check. Because the 1945 and the 1949 have quite a bit of similarities.
Mr. Cheek: I just want to make sure that while we’re trying to give cost-of-living
and other increases to one group that we try to do the same for others.
Mr. Persaud: Yes, that’s a good point [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, I shared the concerns of the actuarial computations in the
committee, but looking at the actual cost of this, Mr. Mayor, members of the
Commission, there are 19 employees who are involved in this proposal and the annual
cost I think is only $34,200 with all of them filing claims. The idea was to reduce what
was perceived to be a surplus in the plan and the retroactivity issue was because this dates
to a request dated November 2, which is in our backup material, which has been filed
with the Finance Committee because that was addressed to me when I was Finance
Chairman, so that’s why we were going back to that, to that date. However, if you want
the actuarial computations, then those are not here, but we thought that the funds in the
plan would be reduced because we wanted to get the money out to those persons who had
been pensioners who are, who are surviving, and that was the thought. And I was of the,
I was of the opinion we should wait on the actuarial study, but I believe you said no, let’s
not wait, let’s go ahead and give them the $150 now. I think there are sufficient assets in
there, but here again my expertise is not in actuarial information on the plan. I defer to
the Finance Chairman, I mean the Finance director on that point. But still, this claim has
been filed since November 3, 2003, and I think we are going to have to adjust it as of the
filing of that claim with our committee. The other matter is that if the heirs can’t be
found, there is a device in the law called [inaudible] which if you have trust fund monies
left over in any kind of trust fund, be it pension or be it some other kind of fund, then you
28
file an action in the court at that time to determine a equitable distribution of what you
can’t distribute. And that court then looks to a charity or another qualified organization
that any undisbursed monies might be disbursed, too. So that would be, if the heirs of
these individuals were not tracked down, located, and paid, if you just ran into dead ends,
and sometimes that happens, the doctrine of [inaudible] would be available for this
Commission to go into Superior Court and say we have these monies left over from this
fund, we will suggest these charitable distributions, and then the court can pass an order
which would insulate the then-Commissioners from any liability about distributing it
under [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: If I can [inaudible], what I guess I’m asking is that if we could
possible do two things. If we could – and I know in the world of government it moves
slow, but if we could fast track from an actuarial position the discussion that came up last
week on the age factors, could we possibly get a different readout based on that? And I’d
just be perfectly clear with it. If people have left here that long or is that considered in
that mix? Cause what I’m looking at, if you’re looking at 62-65, versus say 79-82, then I
think actuarially they should be able to look at a different rate of life expectancy. And I
know there are some things we don’t necessarily like to talk about, but it’s about life and
it’s the point that if they are 20 years down the road from retirement that’s already taken
place, then the chances of that group of people using up thousands of more dollars is far
less than those that would come out that, in the world of medical science, would live from
62 to 65 to 95 to 105, those who have accumulated another 20 years of like that’s been in
there, those expectations would be different. And I’m wondering if there could be
something that they could do with a different [inaudible] blend in there possibly, fast
track it to us, and then maybe get a different number. It may mean a little bit more time
in doing it, but what I’m digging at to a point this probably a bigger issue because it’s
why I wanted Steve to read out about some of those monies that’s left, I’d hate to see is
[inaudible] on monies left in a fund that we get in a court maybe to decide on because
some of the people that may be there may not have any other surviving relatives at all,
and [inaudible] that money then that they worked [inaudible] then it goes, whether it’s to
charity or whether it’s to the government, I’d much rather see those participants in there
spend that money on a larger scale inasmuch as [inaudible] their money that’s in there.
And that’s where I’m driving at. [inaudible] against the $150, but if I could play with a
few days to get that $150 possibly up because of the age of where they are, I’d rather, I’d
rather wait those days to a point with a different formula going in there [inaudible].
Possibly even from the $150 [inaudible].
Mr. Persaud: Commissioner Mays, that’s a very good point. [inaudible] based on
several assumptions. As the number of participants decreased, the [inaudible]
correspondingly decrease. Therefore you have more assets. I’ll be happy to have the
actuary look at the capital issue [inaudible].
29
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I can appreciate what Mr. Mays is
saying, and I know we passed this last year to do just what we’re doing again today. And
that is to get an actuarial report. And we received that actuarial report and we all
concluded to the fact that that actuarial report used the average age of present retirement
time, which would be 62-65, and that’s what Mr. Mays is saying. And in looking at the
19 that are involved in this plan, that retired before 1996, if you are doing an actuarial on
their age, which would probably be in the low 80s or maybe even a 79, but that is going
to allow you to have those funds to be able to provide this increase to them. So as much
as I’d like to see an increase for these people over and above $150, I’d like to see them
get the $150 now and then let’s work on what is coming down the road, which I think is
an excellent idea, but one that we have not used in the past as far as receiving actuarial
information. So I hope that we can do that for these people today and that then we will
still receive the actuarial report that David can get for us based on actual age of the 19
people that are involved in the plan, David.
Ms. Beard: If that’s a motion, I second that.
Mr. Mayor: We already have a motion.
Mr. Grantham: Yeah, we have a motion.
Ms. Beard: okay.
Mr. Grantham: I guess I was clarifying it more than anything else.
Ms. Beard: Was it seconded?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, it was.
Ms. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I’m going to ask for the question to be
called, but I got a statement. Item number 10, we just voted on some money that’s 20
times more than these people sitting here talking about and we [inaudible] voted cause I
told you I wasn’t going to support it but we, we, we, we, we here with the small stuff,
discussing some stuff that people done voted and worked for and I think they entitled to.
We did this last year and we here again today, so I’m going to call for the question to be
called, Mr. Mayor, we go ahead and take a vote on this, so we can move on with today’s
business.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. The Chair will rule there has been
adequate debate on this item, so we’ll move ahead with the vote on the motion to approve
30
item number 11 as captioned on the agenda. All in favor of that motion, please vote with
the usual sign.
The Clerk: Mr. Mays, you’re note voting?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’d like the record to state I have a real problem, I’m still
going to work on pushing for the greater increase and I’d like for it to be stated in the
record that I have a real problem if the Commission asks for an actuarial study and it
comes back and it says you can’t do it. You are the trustees of every pensioner’s money,
on every pension that’s here. And I think with the world of everything that’s gone wrong
with Enron and everywhere else, you would be very, very conservatively fool hearty if
you did not at least take the time when your financial advisor, even if you’re going to use
a different formula to do it, sounds good to say you’re going to do it, but if it came back
negatively then I’m wondering what then do you do when you [inaudible] study to be
done on anything else. Now you’re right, it’s a small amount of money, and I’d like to
see it probably done to $200 [inaudible] I think it can go that. But I also would like for it
to be for those folk who have to do the checking on our pension money in order to do it.
And that’s my reason [inaudible]. I won’t vote against it and I’m going to still push for
it. I’d like to work with Mr. Persaud on that before I leave because I think these folk
ought to be the ones who end up getting the money and it ought not be retained by the
government. And I think that’s the way to go about doing it. Ms. Bonner, I hope you got
enough lights over there without me to do this. The fundamental reason I’ve got that I
think that’s the way it ought to be done.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, would you publish the vote, please?
Mr. Mays not voting.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: We will take up now the consent agenda, items 1 through 22A.
Madame Clerk., if you have any zoning or alcohol licenses?
The Clerk: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: From the regular agenda, is there any objection to moving over
to the consent agenda item number 23?
Any objection to moving item 23 to the
consent agenda or do you want to keep that for discussion?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
23. Motion to approve authorizing up to ten (10) part time employees in the
Recreation and Parks Department to drive city vehicles.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams did you have a question?
Mr. Williams: No.
31
Mr. Mayor:Madame Clerk, we’ll add 23 to the consent agenda.
Item
Would there be any objection to moving that
number 24, which is an alcohol license?
to the consent agenda?
24. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-05: A Request by Un Kyong
Grzeskiewicz for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Mom & Pops located at 2025 Broad Street. District 1. Super District 9
Mr. Mayor: None is noted, Madame Clerk.
If you’ll just read that caption, in
case there are any objectors here for that?
The Clerk:
24. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-05: A Request by Un Kyong
Grzeskiewicz for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Mom & Pops located at 2025 Broad Street. District 1. Super District 9
Mr. Grantham: Move 29 to the consent?
Mr. Mayor: Number 29? All right, number 29, any objection to moving that
over to the consent agenda?
29. Motion to approve the renewal Lease of Tag Office at Augusta State
Farmers’ Market for Tax Commissioner.
Mr. MayorAnd then on the addendum
: If you’ll do that, Madame Clerk.
agenda, we would ask that you add to the agenda, and if we could move it to the
consent agenda, item 1 approving the resolution opposing funding cuts for
Community Development Block Grant funds.
I think most of you are aware that there
may be a move to cut those funds by as much as 50% when the President’s budget comes
out, and our Congressmen have asked us our position on that, so we’d like to take that to
them that we’d be opposed to a cut. So if we can put that on the consent agenda, I’d
appreciate it.
Addendum Item 1. Approve Resolution opposing funding cuts for Community
Development Block Grant Funds. (Requested by Mayor Young)
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right, do we have a motion to approve the consent agenda
as published?
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, now we’re going to pull some items. Mr. Mays, you wanted
to pull an item?
32
Mr. Mays: 7.
Mr. Mayor: Number 7 for Mr. Mays. Any other items you’d like to pull, ladies
and gentlemen?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I had had some discussion and I know I’ve been a
real [inaudible] supporter of agenda item 5 and 6, and I just want a little clarification and
I know we have our chief appraiser here today, but this is the one that I had been talking
to you about, being the liaison with the Tax Assessor’s board and working with the
School Board, and they have, they have confirmed their support of the reevaluation
program, and so I [inaudible] any questions in regards to these two items that need to
come up today, and I was going to pull them at the request of our Commission if we
needed to do that.
Mr. Mayor: Is anyone going to have any questions or comments on 5 and/or 6?
If so, we’ll pull those.
Ms. Sims: I’d like to, I do have some questions.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll pull those two items then.
Mr. Grantham: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Any other items?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: [inaudible] discovered some problems with item number 2 in
relationship to the code enforcement officer position. I’d like to have that continued for
two weeks or refer it back to Administrative Services.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, let’s pull that item then and then we’ll take care of that. So far
we’re pulling 2, 7, 5 and 6. Any others? Let me just state as you’re looking at the
agenda for item number 13, which is additional engineering for the Augusta canal
licensing process, that’s our [inaudible] application, I’ve asked Mr. Russell to schedule a
work session - doesn’t need to be all day - to bring the Commission up to speed on this,
and we do have some new Commissioners on board and we are spending literally
millions of dollars on this licensing project. It’s getting rather lengthy, involved and
expensive and we want to make sure that each of you knows where this money is going
and why it’s being spent. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just for clarity’s sake, on item 2, that is going back to Administrative
Services?
33
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: We’re not thinking about putting our national police and discharge
elimination inspector in the Marshal’s Department, are we?
Mr. Russell: That’s one of the considerations we’ve got. [inaudible] sworn at this
point.
Mr. Cheek: I just –
Mr. Mayor: We’re going to get to that item for discussion. Okay?
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: I’ve got it pulled. Any other items?
Mr. Mays: 3 for clarity.
Mr. Mayor: Number 3. Okay, Mr. Mays. All right, we have the consent agenda
as amended, moved. We’re pulling items 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Any others?
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve retirement of Mr. Ronald Shirey under the 1949 Pension
Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee January 21, 2005)
2. Deleted from the consent agenda.
3. Deleted from the consent agenda.
4. Motion to approve setting the qualifying fee for Augusta Commission
Districts 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 and for Marshal of the Civil and Magistrate Court.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee January 21, 2005)
5. Deleted from the consent agenda.
6. Deleted from the consent agenda.
FINANCE:
7. Deleted from the consent agenda.
8. Motion to approve refunds on eight accounts from Tax Assessors Office.
(Approved by Finance Committee January 21, 2005)
9. Motion to deny a request for purchase of surplus police vehicles from the
East Central Regional Hospital (Gracewood) and the Richmond County Board of
Education. (Approved by Finance Committee January 21, 2005)
10. Deleted from the consent agenda.
11. Deleted from the consent agenda.
12. Motion to approve allowing members of the Commission to purchase their
respective chamber chair in the amount of $25 each. (Approved by Finance
Committee January 21, 2005)
34
ENGINEERING SERVICES
:
13. Motion to authorize additional engineering services to Zimmerman, Evans
and Leopold in the amount of $220,000 for the proposed additional engineering
services to support the Augusta Canal Licensing Process. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee January 21, 2005)
14. Motion to approve funding in the amount of $2,161,368.80 and award the
construction contract to Eagle Utility for the construction of the Horsepen Branch
Sanitary Sewer offsite phase, Bid #04-152. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 21, 2005)
15. Motion to approve the Deed of Easement Dedication to the Augusta Utilities
Department for an easement crossing a parcel owned by Augusta, Georgia, located
on Gordon Highway and New Savannah Road. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 21, 2005)
16. Motion to approve CPB Change Number Two to transfer $35,000.00 from
Project Contingency to the Utility Account. Also execute a Franchise Agreement
with Georgia Power for utility relocations in conjunction with the Bungalow Road
Improvements Project (CPB# 323-04-299823595) with a cost of $34,997.00.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 21, 2005)
17. Motion to approve revised State-Aid County Contract Priority List.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 21, 2005)
18. Motion to approve Amendment No. 7 to the existing Program Management
Services Contract with CH2MHill, Inc. to provide Program Management Services
for the 2004 Series Bond Capital Improvements Program at a cost not to exceed
$8,250,000 with a two-year initial with a one-one-one year renewal and revised
contract language. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 21,
2005)
19. Motion to ratify funds in the amount of $17,000.00 for the replacement of an
8” concrete sewer line on the Rae’s Creek Sewer Project – Phase II (Project 60111)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 21, 2005)
20. Motion to allow Public Works and Engineering to enter a contract with and
award of contract to the lowest responsive responsible bidder, Cooper, Barnette &
Page, Inc in an amount not to exceed $4,662,811 to provide construction services for
the Deans Bridge Road Landfill Phase III, Stage I, Cell I to be funded from bond
proceeds. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 21, 2005)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
21. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meting of the Commission held
January 18, 2005.
PLANNING:
22. ZA-R-169 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition to amend the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County by amending Section 8, 9, 10 and 11
relative to certain developments permitted by Special Exception in single-family
35
residential (R-1) zones. (Approved by the Commission January 18, 2005 – second
reading)
APPOINTMENT:
22A. Motion to approve the appointment of Dr. William Welsh to the General
Aviation Commission (Daniel Field) to fill the unexpired term of Dr. Tom Jackson
representing District 7.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
23. Motion to approve authorizing up to ten (10) part time employees in the
Recreation and Parks Department to drive city vehicles.
24. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-05: A Request by Un Kyong
Grzeskiewicz for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Mom & Pops located at 2025 Broad Street. District 1. Super District 9
29. Motion to approve the renewal Lease of Tag Office at Augusta State
Farmers’ Market for Tax Commissioner.
Addendum Item 1. Approve Resolution opposing funding cuts for Community
Development Block Grant Funds. (Requested by Mayor Young)
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion then please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1, 4, 8-9, 12-22A, 23-24, 29, Addendum Item 1]
Mr. Mayor: All right. So that will take us to item 2, then, the one – if you’d read
the caption, Madame Clerk, and then we’ll dispose of it.
The Clerk:
2. Motion to authorize Public Works & Engineering Department to create a
new Code Enforcement Officer II position (pay grade 43) to be funded by NPDES
fees and by the fines collected through the Magistrate Court. (Approved by
Administrative, Engineering Services and Finance Committees January 21, 2005)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, you had [inaudible].
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. In conversations yesterday and again this morning, we
discovered an issue in reference to the ability to have that gentleman sworn where he can
actually write citations. At this point, I do not know the answer to that question and to
move forward with that, I feel uncomfortable doing so until I can actually answer that
question. One of the options that we’ve looked at is having him sworn under the auspices
of the Marshal’s office or the Sheriff’s office and I am yet to determine whether or not
we can get that done under a building official kind of position at this particular point in
36
time. It’s done in other places. So at this point I’d feel uncomfortable moving forward
with that until I could figure out him actually getting sworn. Him or her sworn.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Andy?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I understand that, but you know, we have
people in departments that are sworn officers to deal with code enforcement. I see guys
in Public Works and other departments walking around with some of these capabilities.
We have guys managing litter patrols or convicts I think that are parts of other
departments. I may be wrong in that. But this is a – my concern is that this is a Public
Works job, over doing Public Works oversight and inspection. This is not an expertise
held in either the Sheriff’s Department or the Marshal’s Department. The support
structure is necessary to carry out the type of enforcement, and investigation and
inspection are held within the engineering design and maintenance sections of our Public
Works Department. I just want to see it maintained in that department. The position
needs to be there. So that’s Andy’s opinion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, would you anticipate bringing this back to the
Commission at the next meeting?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: We need a motion to defer this until the next meeting.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Further discussion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I understand our Administrator and what his
concern is, but I do understand Commissioner Cheek. You know, we been getting a lot
of negative talk about what’s not happening, what’s been happening. This is a position I
really think that need to be filled. We’re not talking about arresting people and taking
them in. The person that we swear in to this job will be swore to do, sworn to do the
work that we ask them to do and authorize them to do it. And that’s where, Fred, I think
you know more about this now. But the authorization of him having, having to be able to
go and cite people, whether they receive the citation or not. A lot of people would just
refuse it. Well, he won’t have the power to arrest. But he would have the power to go
ahead and cite those, those individuals, and I think we need to – and I know where the
Administrator coming from and I don’t think he’s trying to hold up the train but this is
something we need to get on board as soon as possible and it should have been there.
37
Mr. Mayor: Let me make a suggestion, if I may. Since Mr. Russell is going to
bring this back at our meeting in two weeks, why cannot Public Works go ahead and start
advertising for the position? Clearly it’s the will of the Commission to create this. They
could go ahead and start advertising now and then in two weeks the position will be
formally established.
Mr. Russell: I have no problem with that.
Mr. Mayor: That would keep it moving.
Mr. Williams: Well –
Mr. Russell:. If you want to
[inaudible] certainly convinced it was right
approve the position and the funding the way it’s written now, and let me work out
the details, making sure that the swearing is – the ability to write the citations is
done in a lawful manner, I have no problem with that.
Mr. Williams: I make that as a substitute motion then
, if I can get a second
for it –
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Williams: - we’ll get this ongoing in another two weeks and maybe another
two weeks after that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second then. Any discussion? All in favor
then please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mays: I just wanted to ask one question. If the substitute look like it’s going
to pass.
The Clerk: It passed.
Mr. Mays: If he can’t get the arresting side of it worked out, then I guess he’ll
bring that back to us.
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That would not impede getting a person in and getting them
on board and getting them to work.
Mr. Williams: He ain’t got to arrest them. We got somebody else can go arrest
them. He just needs to put the citation out there.
38
Mr. Mays: I think what he’s concerned about, though, we’ve had cross
departments of people that [inaudible] citation, not knowing the law. Having the
expertise in one area and then write a citation that won’t hold up in court. And I think
that’s what the Administrator is asking you to allow him to work out so that we don’t
send somebody out there that knows what they’re doing on one side of the job and
writing the wrong citation, get somebody in court, and it flips back on us. That’s all he’s
asking.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, I think item 3 is the next item.
The Clerk:
3. Motion to approve retirement of Ms. Nancy Culpepper under the 1977
Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee January 21, 2005)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you wanted to keep up her on the payroll?
Mr. Mays. In fact, I’m
: Mr. Mayor, no, I pulled this for a little clarification
going to make the motion that it be approved
and congratulate her for her time of
services. What I kind of wanted to know through Administration, HR, somebody,
whether or not – we got some discrepancies there in terms of what happens with the 77
plan. It’s been one that all of us inherited and probably one that nobody kind of wanted
to see, even the people who are under it. But what I’d like to know is has everything in
terms of the full benefits that can be awarded under this system and afforded to those in
the ’77 plan, is that being articulated through HR with these ’77 people prior to their
leaving? Because I’m getting some comments on that, as I stated, around the courthouse,
on that book I’m going to write. There ain’t no secrets here. There are some little,
unsettling things there and I want to know whether or not all those things have been
explained, not just to this employee. I’m asking it because she happens to be the one
that’s on there. But I want to make sure that if we grant the retirement that they walk
away with everything that’s due and that if there is extra compensation that can be
afforded, that answer has not been explained. And I’d like to hear that information.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, can you respond to the Commissioner?
Mr. Russell: Commissioner Mays, I don’t have an answer to that question
available to me at the moment but I would be more than happy to get that to you and I
assume that’s what you were asking.
Mr. Mays: Yes. Cause it’s coming from ’77 and when it’s getting back into
probably some of the department, some people are wondering whether or not there are
areas in which they can receive compensation for and it’s not being necessarily, I’ve
what I’d like to make the motion so that we approve it
heard, explained to them, and
but subject to the fact that if there is compensation to be forthcoming, that it will be
39
given to this particular employee if it is not within the retirement package that’s on
board.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: And that would be my motion.
Not to hold it up, but I just kind of
need some checking into that one, cause there are some more ‘77s going to be coming
and there’s a little difference about the explanation in this thing as to where they are
going with some of it. And I’m sorry to have caught you with this one but I just got this
information from an underground well.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Need a second.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Have a second. Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, in the future if we have an agenda with a department
head supposed to be here to address these questions that we may ask, I would like, Mr.
Administrator, to have someone in here from that department. We have somebody on
here for retirement and I don’t see anybody from HR in here. We never know what
questions are going to come up and in the future I’d like to see somebody from HR when
it’s retirement issues or employment issues. I’m stating that as Administrative Services
Chairman.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. We’ll go ahead and call the
question on that motion if there is no further discussion. All in favor, please vote with
the usual sign.
Mr. Cheek and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item on the agenda that’s been pulled is item number 5 and
we’ll take these together, item 5 and 6. Ms. Sims, you had some questions about these?
Madame Clerk, if you’ll read the caption first and then we’ll take questions.
The Clerk:
5. Motion to authorize the Board of Assessors to work with Information
Technology to develop RFP’s and accept bids on a new CAMA and a complete
revaluation of all real estate parcels. The final contracts would be brought back to
the Commission for approval. (Approved by Administrative Services and Finance
Committees January 21, 2005)
40
6. Motion to authorize the Board of Tax Assessors to advertise and accept bids
to perform a business audit by an outside vendor. Once the vendor is selected the
contractual agreement would come back to the Commission for approval.
(Approved by Administrative Services and Finance Committees January 21, 2005)
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims:I frankly would like to have
Yes, Mr. Mayor, I pulled these because
these go back to committee for a little further study.
I just have a series of questions,
and if it please the body I would appreciate having the opportunity to have some more
information.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to make that in the form of a motion?
Ms. Sims: Yes, I would.
Mr. Mayor: That’s items 5 and 6?
Ms. Sims: Yes.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: That’s been seconded. We have a motion and second to send items 5
and 6 back to committee for additional research I guess. Mr. Grantham, you had a
comment?
Mr. Grantham: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One of the things I would like
noted is that where this is to develop the RFPs as well as to accept bids, and then once
those are developed and accepted that they come back to the Commission for final
approval, that there is not an approval on these requests today to go forward. So this is
just to approve the investigation of the RPF and as far as the accepting the bids. That’s
the only thing I do want to point out. And the other is that the Board of Education, as I
said earlier, did approve the joint, the expenses as well as what they would be receiving
from this reevaluation.
Mr. Mayor: Any other comments? We have a motion to defer this back to
committee, items 5 and 6. All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Beard votes No.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 7.
The Clerk:
41
7. Motion to approve the contract and payment of $2,000,000 to Augusta
Neighborhood Improvement Corporation for the completion of the Phase IV
SPLOST ANIC Hopkins Street Improvement Project. (Approved by Finance
Committee January 21, 2005)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you asked this be pulled?
Mr. Mays: I think the Attorney wanted to address it.
Mr. Shepard: I did. I had [inaudible] language in the contract which is all the
same except for the paragraph which I identified as 9A and bolded for you, and I wanted
to walk you through that small change.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Do you have a new document that shows that?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, my change was in what
we call paragraph 9A in relation to the administration of the contracts. And I conferred
with Mr. Cooks and he decided that it would include language that the contracts to
complete the project be submitted through the committee of appropriate jurisdiction and
then when those contracts were approved that the, that ANIC, which is the organization
referred to throughout this contract, be authorized to administer what they call field
verification of a percentage of the completion of the project and then these field
verifications would be turned in to Augusta and the progress payments would be remitted
by the Augusta Finance Department to the contractor on the basis of percentage
completion of the work of the contract, less a 10% retainage. And they could use a
formula such as that in the AIA standard contract or one substantially similar for the
administration of the contract. That’s the – the language had been a little bit different in
that we could, if we’re not satisfied with the contract we could have taken it over, but that
was not acceptable to ANIC so I reworked some language that seemed to be agreeable to
ANIC as well as my office and just suggest that that change be incorporated in the
revised contract which you have there. That’s the only, that’s the only change from the
time the document was created. I made it bolded so that it would be easy to identify the
change in the, in the contract. I commend it to you as revised.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, let me ask the Attorney. When did you talk to Mr.
Cooks?
Mr. Shepard: Yesterday and today, Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: Both days?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
42
Mr. Boyles: Because I talked with his yesterday and he was concerned that – I
guess it is, because I didn’t see the other one, but the [inaudible] Springfield Village
contract and if you talked with him today and he’s in agreement with you it must be.
Mr. Shepard: I got an approval through his assistant, Shonda, this afternoon
before I came over here.
Mr. Boyles: I know his mother’s sick and he was out of town today. But I did
talk with him yesterday morning.
Mr. Shepard: He didn’t bring that up. We were just trying to write something
that would improve the administration of the contract. I had perhaps put too much teeth
in it when I tried to revise it, and so I’ve been told to look after the city’s interests, to be
more aggressive in certain areas, and so I had no vested interest in that other than trying
to improve the contract administration.
Mr. Boyles: And Shonda was in agreement with –
Mr. Shepard: She called back and said that the revised language that she had
before her was, before you today was acceptable to ANIC.
Mr. Boyles: Okay. Mr. Mayor, do we have a motion on the floor?
Mr. Mayor: No, we do not.
Mr. Boyles: I move we approve.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Mays, you said you had a question?
Mr. Mays: No, I think the Attorney and I are on the same wave length to explain
where that was and don’t need to be redundant to ask that. It’s been covered. I think Mr.
Boyles asked the same question.
Mr. Mayor: Any further comments? All in favor of the motion then please vote
with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item should be item number 26.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
43
26. Z-05-04 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) the Special
Exception shall be granted only on rear of property behind existing solid board fence;
2) solid board fence must remain in its present location shielding rear yard from Dan
Bowles Road; 3) only operable vehicles for sale may be parked in front of solid board
fence, not to exceed 50 vehicles; 4) no vertical stacking of vehicles in area behind solid
board fence; 5) any zoning or code violations will void the Special Exception; a
petition by James Jones, on behalf of McArthur Godley, requesting a Special
Exception in an HI (Heavy Industry) Zone per Section 24-2 (16) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County for an auto
wrecking use associated with an auto sales operation affecting property located at
2005 Dan Bowles Road and containing 3.50 acres. (Tax map 87-4 Parcel 171)
DISTRICT 2 (Deferred from the January 18, 2005 meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Austin?
Mr. Austin: Yes, I’m standing in for George. I think y’all have looked at this a
couple of time and y’all are trying to come up with a number of vehicles behind that
fence, I think is what the deal was. And George said he looked at the property and the
aerial and he came up with a number of – it was 200, so he came up with a number like
400 and he checked with Mr. Utley on the suitability of that all behind the fence, you
couldn’t see, and he had no objection to that. And that’s really all the information I have
on this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Utley came to see me yesterday and I believe the correct
number, Mr. Hankerson, for vehicles behind the fence is 300; is that correct? They
agreed to 300, the person who runs the business and Mr. Utley.
Mr. Austin: I stand corrected.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. So I just want to make sure it’s correct in the record. And
then we have these other stipulations. Are you the petitioner?
Mr. Jones: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Maybe you could shed some light on this, then.
Mr. Jones: Okay. Well, the only clarification I needed was that the 300 that they
were asking for was for the salvage vehicles.
Mr. Mayor: Behind the fence.
Mr. Jones: Yes, sir. Well, we also do paint and body and repairs other than like
the salvage cars, so I was wondering if the 300 included the other vehicles or –
44
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, it’s a total of 300 vehicles behind the fence and I think as
many as 50 that are ready for sale.
Mr. Jones: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: On the street side of the fence.
Mr. Jones: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Did you have any other questions?
Mr. Jones: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams
: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m glad that somebody give me a hand
on working on this thing. I talked to the property owner as well as Rev. Utley and even
my friend at the body shop. We did come up with an amount of 300 cars behind the
fence and 50 cars on the front side of the fence. And talked with George Patty this
morning on the way up as well [inaudible] but I think everybody is in agreement that
regardless of whether it be repairs or whatever it’s only supposed to be 300, and the
reason for that is because of problems we been having in that area so much. Wasn’t to
hold that business down or to stop them from doing anything, it’s just that we got so
much negative growth in that area and we trying to curtail it as much as we can and kind
of bring it into conformance. These special, this special exception, though, you need to
be very mindful of other things that’s in here and we ask that Rob Sherman’s office,
Code Enforcement, keep a watch on what’s going on, not to ride you or anything like that
and I want to
but to try to help you keep your business going. It is 300, Mr. Mayor,
make a motion that we approve this with the special exception of 300 behind the
fence and 50 on the front.
Mr. Mayor: And the other stipulations?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. And the other stipulations.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there a second to that?
Mr. Grantham: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? Do you have any questions about what’s
happening?
Mr. Jones: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Do you understand it?
45
Mr. Jones: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion then please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, may I have about one minute of personal privilege,
please?
Mr. Mayor: Let her publish the vote and then okay.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: This is [inaudible] and George has left, but I want to take care of this
personally. A few days back I questioned the accuracy of a document and the intent of
the author, which was from your department. I was wrong. I owe Mr. Patty an apology.
I will take it to him personally but I wanted to get it on the record that my assertion of the
accuracy of the document being, the document being inaccurate was wrong and I
wholeheartedly apologize to Mr. Patty for that assertion and I will take that message to
him personally.
Mr. Sherman: I’ll pass that on to him. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: The next item, Madame Clerk, I think is 28.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENT:
28.Consider appointment to the CSRA Unified Development Authority.
Mr. Mayor: We have a vacancy on the board. Mr. Mays’ term has expired and
we’ve been asked by the Development Authority to fill that position today. Mr. Mayor
Pro Tem?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor,I’d like to make a motion that we
reappoint Mr. Mays back on that CSRA Unified Development Authority.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any other nominations?
Mr. Grantham: I make a motion that the nominations be closed.
Mr. Mayor: And Mr. Mays be elected by acclamation?
Mr. Grantham: By acclamation.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
46
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you have nothing to say about it.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: That’s what they call railroading.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 30.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
30. Consider Zoning Appeal of Joe Norris. (Requested by the Attorney)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney, you asked for this?
Mr. Shepard:I would ask that
I did. I asked for it only as a placeholder and
this be deleted this afternoon.
I’ll discuss – this is a pending claim – in legal.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion to delete this item?
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor then please vote with the usual sign. With unanimous
consent we’ll delete this item.
Motion carries 9-0.
31. OTHER BUSINESS.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is our legal meeting and we’ll go ahead and assemble
the agenda for that and then we’ll take a five minute recess and go into legal. Mr.
Shepard, you have some items?
Mr. Shepard: I would ask for a legal meeting for the purposes stated in the
agenda book.
47
32. LEGAL MEETING:
A. Pending and potential litigation.
B. Real Estate.
C. Personnel.
Mr. Mayor: That’s pending and potential litigation, real estate and personnel?
Mr. Shepard: Correct.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Motion, is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: We will convene in legal in five minutes. Five minute recess.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Call the meeting back to order. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayo Pro Tem, I’d ask that you pass a motion approving
your signing of the closed meeting affidavit for the purposes stated in the agenda
book, which were personnel, potential and pending litigation, and real estate.
33. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with the Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can we get a motion? Need a motion.
Mr. Mays: So move.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. All those in favor, let it be known by
the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Grantham and Mr. Boyles out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
48
Mr. Shepard: One item to add and approve. I’d ask that Risk Management
and my office be given the authority to settle the Anthony Palumbo Workers
Compensation claim in the amount of $35,000 and three months open medical and
that we put it in the appropriate form for submission to the Workers Compensation
Board.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get a motion?
Ms. Beard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and proper second. All those in favor, let it be
known by the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Grantham and Mr. Boyles out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There being no further business. Motion to adjourn?
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Ms. Beard: Second.
[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 February 1, 2005.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
49