HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-01-2005 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
March 1, 2005
Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:28 p.m., Tuesday, March
1, 2005, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
Present: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Mays, Williams, Beard, Cheek, Sims and
Boyles, members of Augusta-Richmond County Commission.
Absent: Hons. Grantham and Colclough, members of Augusta-Richmond County
Commission.
The invocation was given by Rev. Karl Dunker.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
RECOGNITION:
Public Safety personnel for their work during the Graniteville incident.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
1. Motion to approve a private hydrant ordinance added in the Augusta
Richmond County Code in Chapter 3-3-9 Subparagraph 6 (b). (Approved by Public
Safety Committee February 21, 2005)
2. Motion to accept 2004 Assistance to Firefighters Grant in the amount of
$76,490.00 from the Emergency Preparedness & Response Directorate and approve
the 30 percent matching funds totaling $22,947.00. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee February 21, 2005)
3. Motion to approve and sign Annual Support Agreement with SunGard Bi-
Tech, Inc. for the period covering January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005. (Approved
by Public Safety Committee February 21, 2005)
4. Motion to approve lease funding for the Information Technology
Department and leasing for the required replacement servers. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee February 21, 2005)
FINANCE:
5. Motion to approve abatement of 2004 tax balances on six parcels now owned
by DOT. (Approved by Finance Committee February 21, 2005)
6. Deleted from the consent agenda.
7. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Full Size Pickup Truck for the
Utilities Department – Water Production Division for $17,530.25 from Bobby Jones
Ford of Augusta, Georgia. (lowest bid package for Bid 04-125) (Approved by
Finance Committee February 21, 2005)
8. Deleted from the consent agenda.
1
9. Motion to approve final Federal Grant check in the amount of $13,270.00
from GEMA into an account for the Emergency Management Agency to be used in
conjunction with LEOP (Local Emergency Operation Plan) expenditures for
completion of the LEOP.
(Approved by Finance Committee February 21, 2005)
10. Motion to approve an agreement between Augusta and the Department of
Human Resources Division of Family and Children Services. (Approved by Finance
Committee February 21, 2005)
11. Motion to approve Excess Worker’s Compensation Insurance with
Employer’s Reinsurance, an A-rated insurer, for $25,000,000 limit with $600,000
SIR (Self Insured Retention; otherwise, known as the deductible). (Approved by
Finance Committee February 21, 2005)
12. Motion to approve bid contract with Genesis Testing Services (the best
responsive bid) for construction quality assurance to Genesis Testing Inc. in an
amount not to exceed $248,750 (Approved by Finance Committee February 21,
2005)
13. Motion to approve abatement of taxes on City owned property. (Approved
by Finance Committee February 21, 2005)
14. Motion to approve purchase of tickets for the Annual Chamber of
Commerce Luncheon Meeting, February 24, 2005 Radisson Riverfront Hotel.
(Approved by Finance Committee February 21, 2005)
15. Motion to approve a request for a blanket purchase order through December
2005 for the purchase of frames for the Mayor’s Office and charge to the Promotion
Account. (Approved by Finance Committee February 21, 2005)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
16. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held February 15, 2005 and the Special Called Meetings held February 17, 2005.
ATTORNEY:
17. An Ordinance to amend the Code of Augusta-Richmond County By
amendment of Section 1-2-30(b) which was amended by Ordinance No. 6754
Enacted January 4, 2005 and authorized the expedited appointment to the Office of
Administrator. To conform the number of candidates presented by the Mayor
under the Augusta-Richmond County Code to the number of candidates for whom
information must be released pursuant to O.C.G.A. 50-18-72(a)7; and to repeal all
Ordinances in conflict herewith; and to provide an effective date. (Approved by the
Commission February 15, 2005 – second reading)
18. An Ordinance to rescind the designation of Bethlehem as a Local Historic
District. (Approved by the Commission February 15, 2005 – second reading)
19. An Ordinance to amend the code of Augusta-Richmond County Section 1-2-
8(a)3 “Purchasing Policy” to provide for a re-stated §1-2- 8(a)3 Captioned
“Purchasing Policy” so as to raise the limit of the purchasing authority of the
Administrator to $20,000 and to repeal any conflicting Ordinances. (Approved by
the Commission January 18, 2005 – second reading)
2
PUBLIC SERVICES:
20. Transfer Application: A.T. 05-05: A request by Nicholas Snow to transfer the
on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Club Continuum located at 943 Ellis Street to 1147 Broad Street. District 1. Super
District 9.
22. New Application: A.N. 05-11: A request by Rigoberto Galvan for an on
premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with El
Portal located at 2906 Peach Orchard Road. District 6. Super District 10.
23. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-12: A request by Dewayne Green for
an on premise consumption Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with
Club Prestige located at 3179 Gordon Hwy. There will be dance. District 3. Super
District 10.
24. Motion to approve Augusta, Ga. being named a subgrantee to receive
funding through the CSRA Regional Development Center for wellness and
recreation programs in the operation of Senior Nutrition Program in the amount of
$62,668 for 2005.
25. Motion to approve a budget amendment in the amount of $62,668 for
expenses and grant revenues related to wellness and recreation for senior services.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
27. Approve 2005 Cost-of-Living Allowance for retirees.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
36. Accept as information the following report on utility consumption for the
Municipal Building, JLEC and Charles B. Webster Detention Center.
37. Approve request for a blanket resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute
easements conveying easements to the Augusta Utilities Department for the
installation of sanitary sewer lines across property of Augusta, Georgia and to
approve and ratify all other easements that have been granted by Augusta, Georgia
to the Augusta Utilities Department for the installation of sanitary sewer lines across
property of Augusta, Georgia.
40. Motion to authorize the acceptance by the Mayor of a Right-of-Way Deed
conveying 34,948 square feet in fee simple from Betty Wood Lovett in connection
with Paving Various Roads, Ph. III (Haucham Hill Road), Parcel 184-0-009-00-0.
41. Approve Change Order #2 for Blair Construction Company in the amount of
$28,602.70 on the Groundwater Treatment Plant #3 20- inch Water Main Project.
45. Approve Capital Project Budget Change Number Two transferring
$84,100.00 from project contingency to project engineering for the Alexander Drive
Project (CPB # 323-04-296823215). Also approve Supplemental Agreement Number
Three with Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. in the amount of $84,100.00 to
provide additional engineering services. (Referred from February 15 Commission
meeting)
47. Approve and accept the Deed of Dedication and Maintenance Agreement for
the water and sanitary sewer mains with applicable easements for The Reserves,
Phase I. (Referred from February 15 Commission meeting)
3
48. Approve the final concept for the collections contract and associated
resolution, allowing Public Works and Engineering to bid the solid waste collections
to start on the proposed January 1, 2006 date.
49. Execute the Georgia Department of Transportation’s contract for
th
acquisition of right-of-way on the St. Sebastian Way/Greene St./15 St. Project
(CPB # 327-04-296812003) where Augusta agrees to comply with the provisions for
federal requirements.
51. Approve the concept of the Public Works and Engineering Department
purchasing and owning carts to be used by citizens for solid waste collections at an
estimated cost of $7.5 million dollars to be amortized over the life of the contract.
52. Award a contract for construction quality assurance to the company who
presented the best responsive bid.
ATTORNEY:
54. Ratify letter of settlement with former Fire Chief, Al Gillespie, in the amount
of $29,500.
55. Motion (1) to approve transfer of property fronting on James Brown
Boulevard (adjacent to the new Bankruptcy Building, designated as Tracts A,B, and
C on the attached drawing), from Augusta, Georgia to Richmond County Public
Facilities, Inc., to facilitate the lease from Richmond County Public Facilities Inc. to
BAK Ninth Street Venture, LLC. (2) To recommend that the Richmond County
Public Facilities, Inc approve the Indenture of Lease between Richmond County
Public Facilities, Inc., as Lessor, and BAK Ninth Street Venture, LLC, as Lessee.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
56. Motion to authorize the Mayor to apply and accept a $50,000.00 Title 5
money from, Children and Youth Coordinating Council (CYCC) grant from the
Department of Justice to pay for two Recreation and Parks youth programs" Sports
Academy" which will teach at-risk and low income 9-16 youth to play sports and a
Counselor-in-Training leadership program for ages 11-16 youth. Mike McNally, has
been instrumental in narrative this project for the Recreation and Parks
Department, which is due March 7, 2005.
57. Motion to approve the rescheduling of the April 5, 2005 meeting to Tuesday,
March 29, 2005.
Addendum 2. Motion to authorize the Mayor to sign a consent letter from
Southwest Key Program, Inc. to be a direct recipient of grant funds from the State
of Georgia Children and Youth Coordinating Council. (Requested by
Commissioner Hankerson)
(No objection to adding this item to the agenda)
Mr. Smith: I move that we approve these items as a consent agenda.
Mr. Mays: Second.
4
Mr. Boyles abstains.
Motion carries 7-1. [Item 27]
Motion carries 8-0. [Items 1-5, 7, 9-19, 20, 22-25, 37, 40-41, 45, 47-49, 54-57,
Addendum Item 2]
21. New Application: A.N. 05-10: A request by Back Hap Ja Son for a retail
package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Corner Mini Mart
located at 635 Laney Walker Blvd. District 1. Super District 9.
26. Discussion: A request by the RCSD for a hearing to discuss the possible
probation, suspension or revocation of the alcohol beverage license held by Brenda
Palmer for Alex’s Sports Bar & Restaurant located at 3160 Wrightsboro Road for
the following violation: numerous infractions and a threat to Public Safety. District
5. Super District 9.
Mr. Cheek: I move that we refer these two items back to the Public Services
Committee.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Motion carries 8-0.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
28. Discuss City of Augusta Reduction in Force Policy. (Referred from February
14 Administrative Services)
29. Discuss City of Augusta Career Ladder Implementation. (Referred from
February 14 Administrative Services)
30. Discuss status of Augusta’s Comprehensive Personnel Policy Manual.
(Referred from February 14 Administrative Services)
31. Discuss early retirement request of Ms. Maxine Powell under the 1977
Pension Plan.
32. An Ordinance to amend the Code of Augusta Richmond County Section 1-4-
110, et seq. “To provide for a restated Section 1-4-110 through Section 1-4-139
captioned “Human Relations Commission” and to repeal any conflicting
ordinances.
33. Receive revised list from staff for Land Bank Authority properties.
(Requested by Commissioner Williams) (Referred from February 15 Commission
meeting)
34. Discuss the audit of the Laney Walker Development Corporation. (Referred
from February 14 Administrative Services)
Mr. Hankerson: I move that we refer these items back to the Administrative
Services Committee.
Mr. Smith: Second.
5
Motion carries 8-0.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
35. Status report regarding the request from Mr. David Brown for an exemption
from the solid waste collection service.
38. Communication from Rex Properties regarding the problem of dilapidated
property along the Canal at 1238 Fenwick Street.
42. Update from staff regarding the renovations at the Joint Law Enforcement
Center. (Referred from January 21 Engineering Services and February 15
Commission meetings)
44. Report from Planning/Public Works regarding the number of projects for
site plans that are currently in the system for approval. (Referred from January 21
Engineering Services and February 15 Commission meetings)
50. Approve the proposed organization chart for the Public Works and
Engineering Departments Solid Waste Division for all positions supporting the Solid
Waste Collections Contract to include job title, working title, salary grade, concept
or career ladder, as well as number of positions.
53. Discuss Public Works Department. (Requested by Commissioner Williams)
Mr. Cheek: I move that we refer these items back to the Engineering
Services Committee.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Cheek: I move that we reconsider Item 48.
48. Approve the final concept for the collections contract and associated
resolution, allowing Public Works and Engineering to bid the solid waste collections
to start on the proposed January 1, 2006 date.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Motion carries 8-0.
48. Approve the final concept for the collections contract and associated
resolution, allowing Public Works and Engineering to bid the solid waste collections
to start on the proposed January 1, 2006 date.
Ms. Sims: I move that we refer this back to the Engineering Services
Committee.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Motion carries 8-0.
6
6. Motion to approve of a Comprehensive Parking Survey for the Central
Business District funded from SPLOST IV funding subject to the ruling opinion of
the attorney. (Approved by Finance Committee February 21, 2005)
(Tape begins here)
Mr. Williams: - if it related to a project, maybe Mr. Naylor or somebody like - I
mean I just need to know where it ties in at.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, if I could just inject. Based on the presentation of the
DDA at the committee meeting, I would draw the conclusion that projects may be
recommended as a result of this parking study. It would need to be funded, need to be
accomplished, and they would be paid for out of SPLOST funds. This would be that step
to identify and to accomplish specific projects related to parking and other issues
downtown. Maybe Mr. Loyd or Mr. Naylor could amplify it.
Mr. Loyd: Well, from the DDA’s perspective, we cannot tell you that this
parking survey is directly tied to any capital expenditures. We can tell you what we think
will happen with the survey. We can’t say it’s tied directly to any capital expenditures.
Mr. Williams: But Mr. Loyd, can you help me out with this? Didn’t we not do a
study, though? Me and you talked and I’m support, but I mean I’ve got, I’ve just got to
be clear in my own mind. If this, if this is not the funding source maybe we need to find
that somewhere else. I’m not against the project now, I want to clear that up. But I want
to make sure that I don’t sit here and vote for something that’s –
Mr. Loyd: I understand your concern.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Loyd: And if I were in your shoes I’d have the same concerns.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Loyd: Because in my shoes, I cannot tell you based on what everybody has
told me about SPLOST spending, that this is a project that qualifies for SPLOST money.
Mr. Williams: So then you understand, like you said, if you was in my shoes
you’d understand why I’m not clear in my thinking.
Mr. Loyd: I don’t understand that. I don’t have a problem with it.
Mr. Williams: So who, who can clear that up for me? I guess – now the attorney
gave his presentation as to what he [inaudible].
7
Mr. Loyd: DDA, because of what our understanding was, we did not request
SPLOST funding because we were under the impression initially that it would not qualify
for SPLOST funding.
Mr. Williams: And I been told that the five years I been here. So that’s why it
brings, the light came on, that’s why I had it pulled. I told you I support it and I know
you understand that. But somebody out of all these smart people we pay up here, Mr.
Boyles, out to be able to share with us whether or not it is, it is in there or is not in there.
Simple as that. It could be. Mr. Mayor, the attorney got hands up. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: You’re my legal counsel.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A more appropriate funding source for this
would be the urban services funds. This study is necessary because a fully
comprehensive study of the downtown area has never been completely conducted. Any
other studies are dated. This study is needed in order to forward plans for the
development of parking decks and traffic flow patterns and other things associated with
which would then be capital projects and is therefore I think appropriate. Although it
should come from the urban services fund, which it will in fact improve and service, it
also qualifies for SPLOST and is the same method that we used for site selection for the
gym or whatever. Its funding is expended for the location of a library or studies of sites
and so forth. This would be the same line of inquiry associated with that. We will be
looking at where we need parking decks, where traffic flow patterns and parking
problems occur and then a suggested remedy based on the study. I would think the most
appropriate funding source would be the urban services fund, one, but two, certainly a
fallback would be the SPLOST IV funding, but in any event it needs to get funded either
way.
Mr. Mayor: Let me just say in response to that, as long as we continue to look at
an urban services fund, we’re perpetuating the myth of two Augustas.
Mr. Cheek: I agree.
Mr. Mayor: The entire city benefits from what happens downtown, just like
downtown benefits from what happens out in south Augusta, and if we’re going to pay it
from a fund it ought to come out of the general fund contingency, not out of an urban
services fund. There shouldn’t be one group of citizens in this community who are called
upon to pay for this with their tax money. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I fully agree, and therefore I think it would be consistent
for us to approach, to follow along with that comment, to approach the dissolution of the
urban services district and the suburban district and approach the consolidation of those
8
two plans into one service, which should be the next logical steps. While we are one
Augusta, there never seems to be any movement towards doing away with those two
particular funding mechanisms. So I agree with everything you’re saying, but I guess the
next steps is if we’re going to fund it from the general greater pot of Augusta, then let’s
do away with two and create one.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I have a question on the streetscape. Has the study been
done on that? My question is if we talked about the streetscape, if we are going to do
that, are we going to pay for a study on the parking, then come back and pay for a study
on the streetscape? To me, all of it should be done at the same time. And we pay one
time for the study and do a complete study of what we are going to do as a whole on
Broad, in the downtown area, in that whole entire area. I know we talked about the
streetscape and this is not the first time the parking issue came up. I heard the
conversation before, was to do away with the median parking and so forth before, wasn’t
that a study? Or that was some thoughts? Or what? If we going to pay the money for a
study of the whole area, then we ought to pay one time, not piecemeal and pay for the
study of parking and then come back and pay for a study of streetscape and other things.
I think it all should be done at one time, a complete study. We have the 2020 plan, or
2010.
Mr. Speaker: 2020.
Mr. Hankerson: 2020. 2020. And all these things are included in there. I think
we ought to know where we’re going and do one study, and then if it has to come out of
SPLOST then we bring it out of SPLOST because we got projects that we are going to
begin working on. That’s, you know, that’s what I say. I think we putting the cart before
the horse to just doing this study on parking and then doing another study after we find
out what are we doing to do downtown besides park? I mean there should be some other
things that I think we are going to be doing before we pay this kind of money.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles and then Mr. Mays?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think that Ms. Smith, I thought I saw her
standing behind Chris. Ms. Smith, didn’t we have the, didn’t we do the streetscape on
television one night? Didn’t you and I and Ms. Beard go over and do something? When
that plan was put together, all we were waiting for was the eventual funding for it?
Ms. Smith: Yes, sir. What we did, though, is we did a conceptual study or a
general master plan for what could be put in place in the downtown area. That concept
identified that parking is an issue. It made some very preliminary recommendations for
where parking or parking decks could be addressed in the downtown area. However, that
project does not include a parking study.
Mr. Boyles: Study, right.
9
Ms. Smith: We had spoken with Housing & Neighborhood Development – I
don’t know what the new name is, I apologize – and had briefly spoken with the DDA
and were aware that there were other activities underway for a parking study to be done.
So that is not included in the scope of work for that project.
Mr. Boyles: The study is not, but the streetscape design and the conceptual
design and all that’s been though; right? That Rev. Hankerson was talking about?
Ms. Smith: Yes, sir. Conceptually. And that does include some ideas and some
concepts with respect to where additional parking could potentially be done. But nothing
with respect to how much is needed or what it is that would need to be addressed with
respect to future development for the downtown area as you work toward revitalization.
Mr. Boyles: All right. And could I ask, too, Mr. Mayor, that the, in the urban
services district, don’t the property owners and the business owners in that district pay an
additional mill of tax for items such as this? So it’s not really a countywide thing
because the residents and business owners in that district –
Mr. Mayor: I would disagree with that.
Mr. Boyles: That’s what I’m asking, for clarification.
Mr. Mayor: The urban services, the urban services tax is for municipal services.
Mr. Boyles: But there’s something that’s tied in with the –
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible], street lights – go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: A special tax district, Mr. Boyles, expired for the downtown Broad
Street improvements, which included the sunken bays and the revamp of the parking
down on that part of Broad Street. I think it was a tax, a special tax district from
probably the early 70’s, middle 70’s, that’s one tax that has been imposed, it did its job
and it’s disappeared. It sunsetted itself, is the vernacular.
Mr. Boyles: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: All I’m asking the DDA to do here is to bring forward a capital
project on their own minutes which would be a way to link that with a parking study. I
tried to make it clear. Apparently I didn’t make it clear to anybody. I said in the second-
to-the last sentence it is incumbent upon the DDA to bring forward a project of a capital
outlay nature to qualify for the funds. And if they couldn’t do that, I suggested other
funding sources such as AHED or the general fund be consulted for this expenditure. So
you can have it either way. If you have a general fund funding source, then you don’t
have to have a capital project. If you want to go into SPLOST, I think you ought to tie it
to a capital project.
10
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, due to the fact that Mr. Loyd might answer what I’m
fixing to ask – he wanted to kind of jump in a second ago, and I can let Sanford go if he
needs to get in on something we’ve done so far in reference to I guess particularly time
frames and what they are looking at. I can yield to him if he needs to jump in for a
second and deal with that.
Mr. Loyd: Well, I would like to say a couple of things. I was first going to
address some of Commissioner Hankerson’s concerns regarding waiting to do all of it at
one time. Of course, Teresa answered some of those things. I wanted to say, though, that
our request is to f und the parking survey and the request comes, one, because more than
just Downtown Development Authority actually saw the need for a parking survey. And
initially there were three entities involved in trying to get this survey done – Housing &
Economic Development was trying to get one done, DDA had initiated the parking study
piece, Public Works was called in to have some discussion about how can we get these
pieces put together. We approached Housing & Economic Development regarding funds
or some help in funding the particular project, whether those funds were going to come
from HUD or any other pot of money that they had available to them. Warren Smith
explained that Housing had no money to contribute to the parking survey of any kind.
We actually went, came to the Commission regarding this, and because – I hear what Mr.
Shepard is saying, but this particular parking survey is not tied as of this day to any
capital improvement piece. It actually says we can do some parking management, there
is a possibility of what the parking situation is and it may call for a capital project, but it’s
not tied to that. And I understand that the Mayor says we shouldn’t make the request
from the urban services fund. But according to the present law, that fund is there. If it’s
abolished and that is no longer present, then we would not have come making the request
from that particular pot of money. But as it stands today, there is a separate urban
services district fund. And we made that request because we felt it was the proper fund to
request the money from. It was our understanding that the general fund does not have
surplus money to fund anything. It was our impression that there may be some
[inaudible] when asking for SPLOST money to fund the piece, so all of those [inaudible]
and understanding that we felt – and not just DDA, but the other entities – we need to do
a parking survey. We have actually contracted to have the parking survey done. That
was the part I wanted to address with Rev. Hankerson. We have contracted to have the
parking survey done. We are asking the Commission to help us pay for the survey.
That’s our request. If the Commission feels that the Commission doesn’t have the funds
or alter our request for the source of funds, where they should come, the Commission
feels no, that’s no appropriate, or no, we don’t want to fund it, we just need to hear that.
We just need to hear yes, we will fund it from whatever pot of money or no, y’all take
that back cause we’re not going to fund it and y’all deal with it the best you can. That’s
all we’re asking.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
11
Mr. Mays: Yeah. Mr. Loyd answered part of what I was going to ask before I
could frame a question to you all, Sanford, and then make a comment. One, I think in
terms of future planning, obviously a survey has to be done comprehensively for the
future of the downtown. Period. I think that has to be done. My reason for wanting to
know the time frame that you all were looking at is for two specific reasons. One is
following up on where Rev. Hankerson was going in reference to what’s obviously –
you’re dealing with what’s there now with a concern for what may be coming. What I’m
looking at is the fact that unless there is an absolutely drop dead date to move, say
tomorrow, next month, I think if you’re going to – and we don’t know what’s going to
come out on the final vote yet – but there is a potential for the landscape downtown and
the central business district to change from what it is now, possibly may change
drastically from what it is now, depending on give or take, what level of investments that
may come in, what may happen on a SPLOST ballot, whether some things take place or
not. And I think if you’re going to do it – and I’m not putting words in the Commission’s
mouth – but I think in terms of looking at the overall aspects of downtown, I think it
makes an easier sell to be able to do out of SPLOST money if, particularly there are
projects that may not be on the table right now, that may have a potential to be there. For
instance, I’m just throwing hypotheticals because all of these may disappear because they
may not even be around. But if you’re talking about plans to deal with the possibilities of
a convention center, if you’re talking about upgrades on major things that may happen
that were there in SPLOST projects before, we’ve just conveyed a piece of property
[inaudible] to the City of Augusta. Some of these things may have self-contained parking
that may have to be – whether it be underground or whether it be decks – I don’t know,
somehow or another we might be the only city in the world with a mindset that we can’t
dig down and get, you know, parking in some places. But I’m just saying to a point I
think that if it’s measured by what it is now, and that’s why I was looking at the time
frame, that would it hurt to go through the process of putting the list of some of the things
that Mr. Boyles and Mr. Hankerson was talking about, putting it together and see where
SPLOST was going, then being able to do a more broad version of what’s needed to be
dealt with with parking downtown, because obviously you’ve got to deal with what’s
there right now, but then if you’re going to put other things into this mix, be it public
library that’s there and where it goes, all these things figure into the downtown concept of
where we’re going to need to park. And I’m thoroughly for wanting to help you to get a
survey done and funded, but I’m just wondering is the drop dead date as such that we
could not more realistically look at where we’re moving if we know, quite frankly, where
we are going, what projects we want to put for a future of downtown, and for a SPLOST
per se that’s going to have to be passed, whether some things are there, whether we like it
or not. You got a drop dead date of November, can’t wait till November to do it. You
got to have stuff done. I think this is the reason why Tommy, Bobby, others that were
talking about putting these on, but I think that if we do want – I think one of the worst
mistakes government can make, whether it’s direct or indirectly, is that when we have
surveys, when we have projects done, and they get shelved and then they become
obsolete because they sit there, and then by the time we get ready to activate them, they
are too old to put into what’s really going on. And that’s why I was asking more about
that time frame. I’m with you on getting it done but I think to a point to do it based on
only what we’ve got, without knowing what else is going to be done, am I unreasonable
12
in throwing that on the table to say should we maybe look at this jointly in terms of where
some of the projects are going to go? Because if you’re building some of these other
things, they may go, they may not, they may not even get on the list, but just judging
from what some of us are being asked to support, if it happens downtown then I wouldn’t
want to see a survey come back based on what’s down there right now and what if may
happen. I’d rather see it done on what’s going to happen and where the potential to build
those things are and be able to do it more comprehensively and to be able to get it done
once and for all. That’s my only comments on it and it’s just an observance. I want to
help you with it, but I just wondered where those dates would fall in. I’d hate to see us
do that and then come back and vote for five new things to go into the downtown corridor
that we’ve not planned for to deal with parking and for the potential overload of being
able to take that traffic and adequately park it in the downtown business district.
Mr. Loyd: I think we do have some answers to those things. I think I’m going to
try and let Chris deal with that. Let him answer. [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: I’m not against it, but I guess to a point [inaudible] not knowing
where it’s going [inaudible].
Mr. Loyd: [inaudible] what’s supposed to happen in the survey [inaudible] period
it’s supposed to cover, because it is a flexible plan. Just let Chris kind of [inaudible].
Mr. Naylor: Mr. Mayor, if I might. I spent time with the consultants that are
doing the study. This study is, as we said, the most comprehensive study. We are
looking at each building downtown, what’s currently in that building, what in the next ten
years, five years, can be in that building. We’re also looking at the potential for new
facilities, such as a 50,000 square foot exhibition and trade center, a performing arts
center, so all of these particular plans that people have their visions on downtown, are
being included in this. We need to know the buildings. We need to know what could the
potential be. We need to know if the Marion building is going to have 30 condominiums
in it. And what type of parking needs, if there were 30 condominiums in it, those people
who are living there are going to need. We need to know if the only Penney’s building, is
there going to be professional office space possibly put in there, how many professionals
will be working in there. And that’s this whole plan, it’s based out on a ten year – a two
year, a five year, and a ten year basis, so we know best estimate, with other plans of other
groups, what we’re going to be doing in downtown as far parking. Right now,
preliminary results from the consultant, we are not in a crisis of parking but we need a
parking system downtown. That’s something they will give us a recommendation for.
They will give us recommendations in the future as to what potential facilities go,
whether that be a parking deck or a surface parking lot. It’s not necessary to have to
build a deck in order to give enough space for people to be able to use to come in and out
of downtown. They will suggest what those will be. In the streetscape project that was
mentioned – this is all part of that. That is included in this. I’ve spent days sitting down
actually going building by building with the parking consultant and saying this is a four
story building, it has X amount of square feet, this is what it could be used for. And I still
haven’t finished. I still have got about 20 more blocks to do. But this is going to be the
13
most comprehensive study that has been done. This will not sit on the shelf. We promise
you if the study is done we will be back with the study to you, with a recommendation for
parking system, parking management, and future needs, and say this is what we’re
recommending to do, this is what we want to do. And so that’s where we stand on that.
Mr. Mays: If I could [inaudible] with this, and please do not think I’m against
what you want to do. But I have seen our inadequacies come back to bite us. [inaudible]
usually built too small and we’re out of the market of what we have to do for the future. I
want to see it done, want to see that in there. I just was wondering in the time frame that
we are looking at, will this put a shotgun to the head of what you’re trying to do, if to a
point would you not know [inaudible]? I mean I hear you say you’re talking to these
consultants right now. You’ve got time, you’re going to have to go through the current
buildings that you’ve got and you’re talking about some of them been there, that may
even [inaudible] may need it to get some of them going. But would you not be better off
if you were, if you knew a little bit more about what you’re going to have and then even
have a guaranteed source of funding that would be clear through sales tax at that point,
particularly if you were going to able to do some downtown projects? And I’m just
saying does it – I’m just saying if November wrecks what you’re trying to do [inaudible]
fast track it, I want to help you fast track it. But to a point if you wait and then you’ve
got these others coming in, and I just think to a point of how this has been so confusing
about who may need to share [inaudible] about downtown and everybody wanting their
own project, their own thing, and to expand on some of this, and I was there in Rome just
this past week and of how we parked for a basketball game at the law enforcement center,
you know, where their employees normally would park and police cars in there. It was
done with people coming for basketball. There are a lot of shared things that are there
that are on those decks in a city much smaller than ours to a point where there is less
street parking but [inaudible] place. But they know what’s there and what’s going to be
there and I’m just saying in there, from a speculative point of what may be there, may be
there or not, the addition of the Reynolds Street/Sixth Street property, the potential for
may come from that growth and considering – and I know you all have to be – at least I
hope you considered it [inaudible].
Mr. Naylor: Absolutely.
Mr. Mays: But I’m just wondering does that put you bad or good if you waited
for that time period to do. If it makes you bad, then we need to try and help you before
then. And we have to trust you on some of these things to do. But I was trying to find a
way to a point that if you knew better what actually was going to take place at least over
a five year period, because if it’s not there in SPLOST right now, to a certain extent some
of those entities you may kiss goodbye for five years unless there’s going to be 100%
private sector funding to get them done, or some type of bonding mechanism to be able to
get them done. And that’s why, that’s the only reason I’m throwing that out to a point
that is it, is it to a rush to get it done, and I know how hard y’all have worked, but would
it be better to know, better to a point [inaudible] say $31 million, $32 million annually
coming in that will be guaranteed out of sales tax, to create some more things downtown,
14
would it be better knowing that and then you automatically have a funding source?
Where it’s at right now, you don’t have a price tied to it.
Mr. Loyd: The only difference that makes is the funding source. Because once
the project, once the parking survey is done, if anything changes, if the sales tax brings
other things down, and right now we say we don’t know what’s going to be there, but the
parking survey would be updated and adjusted because all the other pieces are in there.
It’s a matter of saying this is a change, we need to make a change in the parking survey.
That’s the only difference it would make.
Mr. Mays: Whatever way y’all want to do it [inaudible].
Mr. Loyd: In all honesty, Mr. Mays, we will do it. And we need the help. But
we will do it.
Mr. Mays: Well, I’m just saying to a point if y’all are determined to do it
[inaudible] I may be missing something, Sanford, but I just, to a point, that if you’re
going to do things and you don’t know what’s going to be done, that’s been typical of
what has happened and been a problem with downtown from the beginning. I’ve seen us
walk away – I’ve been here long enough, I sat in on the riverfront project and seen us go
through things in a backwards way of doing it, and to a point that that’s why Port Royal
is what it is now, is because we deviated from original plans that were supposed to be
there and to depend upon commercial tax dollars and tourists and do a first class hotel
first – instead, we built a complex down there which this city could not support
[inaudible]. I think sometimes surveys are on time and you know what you’re going to
do. They are great. But if they are premature and you’re not planning for what you know
is going to be there, then you have got something there to a point that if it’s going to be
that flexible, if it’s [inaudible] you can kind of adjust it and have enough ways to say
okay, fine, this didn’t occur, we can place this in there – I’m still with you, will help you
to get that done. But I only threw that out there for I won’t say devil’s advocate sake
today, but just for a point of throwing something else on the table so that it would not be
in typical Augusta fashion, to be obsolete before we got something done. That’s the only
reason I brought it up.
Mr. Loyd: I really understand your concerns, Mr. Mays. That’s it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson and then Mr. Williams?
Mr. Hankerson: Well, it seem they going to do it anyway, is what I’m hearing, so
it kind of put some icing on what I was going to say or suggest. I’d like to see one study,
one concept, if we have one city. Collaboration with the various departments or agencies
that’s working, been working with downtown development, Augusta Tomorrow, DDA,
then mentioned Public Works, they mentioned HED, that everybody be on the same sheet
of paper, knowing what we going to do. Seem like it ought to be some coming together
saying okay, this is what we are going to do. Am I hearing DDA is saying we are going
to do this regardless of – and I was asking how did that fit in with the concept? If all of
15
these, if you all are working together and everybody knows what everybody is doing, you
come back and say well, this is the whole plan. That’s fine. Everybody is working
together. That’s the only problem I have with it. It’s more than just a funding, but it’s
some other issues that you said that something else may occur. Are you prepared for
that? Everybody is on board? Augusta Tomorrow, that 2020 plan? I know we just had a
summit, all of that is in – all [inaudible] working together – they endorse what you’re
asking for today?
Mr. Loyd: All of the entities that I have mentioned previously that have sat down
with us have actually indicated the Downtown Development Authority would be the lead
part in this parking survey and that they were supportive of this parking survey. But that
we would take the lead in actually getting it done.
Mr. Hankerson: What are those groups?
Mr. Loyd: Those groups are Public Works, Housing & Economic Development,
and of course Downtown Development Authority. The economic forum or summit that
was held previously, they are very aware of what we’re doing with that, whether it’s
Destination 2020, whether it’s Main Street, which is actually a part of us, whether it’s
Augusta Tomorrow. Everybody has been informed of the parking survey. And nobody
has said we are opposed to it, fought it, you shouldn’t do it. Everybody has been
supportive of the parking survey. If we had run into opposition from the other groups, we
would not proceed. But it was actually requested that we take the lead in getting a
parking survey done. That’s actually why we are here. Not that we decided we’re going
to do it. My comment was the groups have basically commissioned a study. We’re the
ones to get it done. We’re trying to request some funds. [inaudible] in our meeting said
given what we know this needs to be done, and we need to go forward in getting it done,
we’ll request the money from the Commission. If the Commission says today we will
only give you money if this survey is postponed until after the sales tax piece and we can
tie it SPLOST, then we’ll give you the money, we’d have to take that into consideration
and decide how we’d move forward. If the Commission today decides we’re not going to
give you any money, it doesn’t matter whether it’s tied to something else and sales tax
passes, it doesn’t matter, we still don’t think the timing’s right, and when we think the
timing’s right we will be – at least consider funding it. We’d have to consider that in
terms of what our next step would be and how we’d proceed from that point. It’s just that
most of the questions that you all are asking have been asked and we have tried to
incorporate them into this whole parking survey. So we don’t feel like we are generating
a study that [inaudible] we don’t feel like we’re generating a study that would be obsolete
by the time it’s complete. We don’t feel as if we are doing something that one month,
two months, or even seven years down the road that comment would be appropriate.
That’s why we feel so certain about what we are trying to do, because of the flexibility in
it. And because of the sharing of the concept with the people that’s going to be affected
by it. We feel very confident about that part of it. That’s the only point I’m trying to
make, is that we’ve done these things and we have actually approached the Commission
probably on four different occasions regarding some help in the funding source. My
frustration is all I’m asking for is the Commission to tell us what the Commission wants
16
to do. That’s it. Whatever those stipulations are, and then we can go and decide what we
think will have to happen based on what you tell us. That’s all we’re asking for.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mays brought out several points and I
heard about the different entities that DDA, and the 2020 plan, and heard Mr. Loyd say
they going to proceed. But after all the things have been said and all the things that we
are trying to do with the next sales tax and coming aboard, I thought about everything
happens, [inaudible] downtown, it’s good or bad, the Mayor and these Commissioners
take all of the blunt [sic] of whatever y’all do. They don’t call your home at 12 or 1
o’clock at night. But when Augusta is known outside, say, you know what, they ain’t got
no parking or Augusta got too much parking or Augusta don’t have any parking, they call
us. I mean, I got a serious problem with that, when you talk about HED and Chris and
Public Works done come together. This is where, like it or not, this is where the buck
stop at. Up here at these chairs. We may make a bad decision. When we get accused –
where is Sylvia at? I need to, I need to talk to her a little bit. Well, we get written up for
all of the bad things that happen in Augusta about the Commission and the Mayor don’t
know what they doing, but we got all of these entities doing things among themselves and
coming back. There’s four or five groups, Mr. Loyd, that trying to make decisions for us,
and want to run this city of Augusta the way they think it ought to run.
Mr. Loyd: We don’t want to –
Mr. Williams: No, no, no, [inaudible] you heard it before. I didn’t say you was.
I said four or five groups out there. That trying to –
Mr. Loyd: I understand that.
Mr. Williams: And you understand that. And all I’m saying is that we’re not
saying, and Commissioner Mays and I said it earlier, I’m in support. But what we got
facing us right now, with all of the different things that we trying to deal with, the Mayor
and I and the Administrator and the Attorney met on yesterday morning, [inaudible] all
these things that we got facing this government. We need for you, for your group, along
with the other groups to at least try to work with us as we try to work with you. Now we
didn’t say we wasn’t going to fund it. We didn’t say that we was opposed to it. But
when you go off and make decisions and do some things and we get the repercussions
from it, it really makes us leery [inaudible] I was in support of a little while ago, but I
done, I done changed a little bit from what I just heard from the conversation that was out
here. We have got to know that the leadership was voted on. I hear some folks say you
doing a good job [inaudible] come on up here and do a better job than we’re doing. I
hear the Mayor get criticized about the decisions he makes and don’t make. Come up
here and do a better job. And that ain’t directed to you. That’s not directed to you.
Please don’t misunderstand me. But I’m saying we are trying, we are trying to work with
the Downtown Development, along with other different groups that trying to pull things
together, but when you go outside and, and, and, and come in your group and come up
17
with something, a study or anything else, and then we got plans – we talked about the
piece of property on the lower end of town there, and we talk about a convention center,
and I hear people say we ought to build that convention center. But if we don’t have the
hotel space, if we don’t have the parking space for that hotel – Commissioner Mays
brought a good point, never thought about it – everywhere else you go, when you check
into a hotel your car is underground. We the only city that I been in in a long time that
everything on the same level. We got a deck, maybe two decks. The Greene Street
parking, they had junk cars parked on that for many months. I went down and took
photographs of them. Had a storage company parking cars over there. Homeless people
were sleeping in them down there. That’s when that other study was going on. But all
I’m saying is that we, we, we trying to make the best decision that we’ve got to make
with what we got facing in front of us, and that’s to kind of work with you, but we need
y’all to understand that we’re not working against you, we’re trying to work with you.
But y’all as the groups out there that’s doing development and doing study need to work
with the Commission as well. That’s all the comments I wanted to make, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
Mr. Mayor, let me submit this to the body for reconsideration. In
Savannah, the Downtown Development Authority manages parking. They manage six
decks and they’re looking at building another one. They did a traffic study, a parking
study that allowed them to go out and do bonding on revenue anticipation bonds and so
forth, but the basis of that was a study that indicated there would be a positive revenue
source to do that. And we sit up here and DDA was one of the groups that came to the
summit, in a spirit of cooperation to work with the governmental entities, Public Works
and so forth, as well as the other private entities, Main Street Augusta, Augusta
Tomorrow and all the other groups. In every city that you go to, DDA is the lead dog in
parking and managing parking. It is their area of responsibility in this city as well,
whether we choose to delegate that responsibility to them, or try to make the decisions for
them. This is an agency that is responsible for conducting parking, the survey, which has
never been done, which certainly if we build a new courthouse or anything else that we
will deal with parking on an on-site basis as is required with every other construction in
this city and so forth. The bottom line is we hear, and if DDA succeeds at this, it will be
in spite of us if we vote this down rather than with us. Mr. Mayor, we need to support
DDA. They are the entity that has jurisdiction in this area in every other city. We need
to make it so here. We need to fund this and move forward with this in that they will
reporting to the other agencies in partnership, as they promised at the economic summit,
which we will have an action plan to implement a lot of these things in the coming
weeks, but we need to move forward with this. We can if, and, and but it to death.
We’re on item six. We’ve spent over an hour talking about this. The bottom line is
they’re the responsible agency. They’re asking us for funding to do something that is
essential to the next step items required to developing parking decks and parking plans
and other things essential to remedying the problem we’ve always talked about but never
done anything about. They’ve come to us on numbers of occasions, we talk about
helping and working with them, we always find reasons not to fund them. It’s time out
I’m going to make a motion that we approve this and move forward with it.
for that.
18
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve and a second. Further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Mays: Which one of the funding sources are you identifying, Andy?
Mr. Cheek: As listed in the request.
Mr. Mays: I mean they’ve got a request and the Attorney has got a ruling and
I’m, I’m, I’m really searching for a way cause I want to support it and vote yes, but I
have a real problem representing the majority of the urban services district if it’s going to
come out of there when the improvements for the central business district concern us all.
Population of 200,000. That’s why I asked for clarification.
Mr. Cheek: But I agree with –
Mr. Mays: Of where it’s coming from.
Mr. Cheek: The central business district is in the urban area.
Mr. Mays: It is there but I think people [inaudible] Jefferson County, Burke
County and Columbia County lines to come to downtown entities, be it with the judicial
center, central library, whether they’ll come to a convention center or anywhere else
[inaudible]. I’m just asking a question. I’m not looking for World War III. I just want to
know which one y’all want to go for, that’s all. I want to vote for it. I want to support it.
But I’m just saying I think you have enough that if you, if the survey is going to be
flexible, enough to adjust that we have done in sales tax that has never taken place – now
I can, I can stand to be corrected, and the Mayor probably better up on this than me.
When we, when we did the survey for the performing arts theater and the money that the
city put forth, did we not use – what was our source of funding that we dealt with on, on,
on that project?
Mr. Mayor: That was SPLOST.
Mr. Mays: It was SPLOST. Performing arts theater has not been built, may not
get built. Hope that something does happen. But I think to a point of the survey in doing
it, [inaudible] legal justification in terms of dealing with that. I will trust [inaudible] to
where you all are going with that group to be flexible enough to do it. However, I do not
apologize for the long debate, Mr. Cheek, because I’ve been here long enough to see us
screw up enough things to a point without asking certain questions. So I’m going to vote
for your motion but I’ll vote for it if it’s going to come out of the Attorney’s
19
recommendation to stand on sales tax. I cannot see it come out of one taxing district to
do it when you’re talking about something that helps this entire city. And I can do it out
of sales tax cause I think we have done it before, set a legal precedent to do it, but I
would not as the, as the largest shareholder [inaudible] representative of the urban service
district, vote for it to come out of that fund.
Mr. Mayor: I think my share is larger.
Mr. Cheek: Point well taken, Commissioner Mays.
Mr. Mays: But I’ll be voting.
(Laughter)
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, point of clarification. It does say SPLOST. Mr. Mayor,
as a point of clarification it does say SPLOST IV, right?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, the existing –
Mr. Boyles: And the caption, as Mr. Cheek mentioned the caption as it is, is
SPLOST IV. In the caption.
Mr. Mays: I just, Mr. Boyles, if I might again, without my glasses, I simply asked
for clarification. Because if you discussing some [inaudible] I just wanted it to be clear,
Tommy. That’s all. We talked about SPLOST IV, what may have been V, and out of
urban services district. I didn’t want us to be like we were on [inaudible] approving
something and didn’t even have a funding source to deal with it, and we dealing with it
now. That’s the only reason I’m doing it. And like I say, I’ll [inaudible] ask the same
questions I asked Sanford, you know, and Chris, and we going still be friends. And I’m
going to vote for your thing today. Because I think it’s beneficial. But I think some
times you’ve got to ask questions to a point of knowing where you’re going to go with it.
And I’m depending on you all in that group to a point of what’s going to be flexible, to be
creative enough that the authors of that survey will take into effect that we’ve got things
that may happen, may not happen, and that it’s adjustable enough to do it. And I’m not
going to apologize for that and I know 4A will write about me, will write about that
tomorrow, and I’ve got about as much respect for them over there as I do a cockroach at a
family dinner. So I’m through discussing that on what I’m going to deal with it and I’m
going to vote for your motion, Mr. Cheek. But I’m going to have the questions about
[inaudible] money.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion on the motion?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just want to say that I started this with the
clarification of SPLOST, I’m still not clear, I can’t support it. You may have enough
votes to get it done. I’m not going to support it. I can’t.
20
Mr. Mayor: We’ll go ahead and vote and see where the votes fall. All in favor,
please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Mr. Hankerson votes No.
Motion carries 6-1.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Loyd: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, if I could ask staff to do something, I think it would be
helpful to this Commission. And that is if Mr. Persaud’s department could prepare a
briefing paper for this Commission with respect to the urban services district – there is a
fund balance for that district but it’s not a contingency, it’s not a slush fund, that there is
money in the urban services district that pays $1 million a year for unfunded pensions for
the former city, there’s money that pays off bonds for marina and parking decks, it pays
for municipal services, for street lights and fire and law enforcement and so forth, and I
think it would be useful for the Commission to understand what is in there and what that
money is for. This is – I’m not picking on the DDA, but this is the second time they’ve
come to this body to get money out of this urban fund, and it’s not, it’s not a slush fund of
unattended money. It’s there for a purpose, just as the suburban fund is there.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Persaud and I talked about that late last week and
again earlier this week and we’ve already started working on it.
Mr. Mayor: And I agree with Mr. Cheek, we ought to have one tax district for the
whole city. You pay for the services that you get. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I wanted to follow up and say while we do have
some bonded indebtedness and some things that we have to pay, we need to identify
those funds and then move towards eliminating the two service districts and bringing
them into one, with the knowledge that we have some amount that we need to pay off.
But it just amazes me in my five years here we have not moved any closer toward really
unifying this city in this regard, and we’ve always said we need to, but we never followed
through on it. So I just hope that that’s part of that instruction, that we would ask staff to
investigate that and come back with something [inaudible] we can.
Mr. Russell: That was part of the comments that Mr. Persaud and I have had and
we are working in that direction.
Mr. Cheek: Thank God for new blood.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Boyles?
21
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, also, at our last Finance Committee meeting, we had
asked this item concerning an explanation of the urban services district to be brought to
us at the next committee meeting anyway. We had done that at our last Finance
Committee meeting.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll move on now to item number 8.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Could I just make one comment? We’ve got a lot of concentration on
urban services tax district, and Andy and I had talked about this earlier today and I’m in
full agreement with him. But while they are going back, I think they may need to look
into both [inaudible] and before unifying. I think what they are going to find, and this is
what some of us tried to bring up ten years ago and we were called progress blockers and
everything else. But I think as you try particularly, particularly to straighten out the
funding source of the Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department and how we funded
that you are going to find you probably have to make certain adjustments in the suburban
tax district and its formula of how it’s done. Because there are a lot of antiquated,
outdated things that have happened there. And I think in looking at it, not only do you
need to look at urban, but you need to look at suburban, the suburban side of it, and then
take a blend to see in terms of that combination of it. Because there are some glaring
things in there that that fire tax district is not going to support for a modern day fire
department and I think it’s something that since consolidation every chief we’ve had,
there has been a concern of it, they’ve expressed it, and to a point this Commission, to a
certain extent, has had a deaf ear. So I agree, it’s been long overdue to get there, but I
don’t think all of your problems you’re going to find are in the structure of just the urban
taxing district. I think you are going to have to go into the suburban side and to decide
whether or not how those services are going to be paid for and then brought together in a
different way than they are brought now.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Commissioner Mays is absolutely right. As we began looking at
that, we [inaudible] discovery, find that it’s a lot more complex than what it might look
like on first blush. We can prepare some preliminary information on the urban services
district as we were directed from Finance, and we’ve been working on that. To equalize
or begin that process across the board is going to require more research than will be done
between now and Monday, obviously. Both the Finance Director and myself think that’s
a worthwhile project to attempt. But it’s going to be something that’s probably going to
be as complex as [inaudible]. And it’s something we need to work on, but it’s going to
be a complex issue that we deal with and y’all need to understand, be very cognizant of
the fact that it’s not going to be an easy fix there, either.
22
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Russell. Let’s move along then with item number 8,
Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
8. Motion to approve a request from J. Clay Coleman for funding in the
amount of $870.00 for reproduction services to cover the cost of printing 500
additional copies of the brochure entitled Cedar Grove Cemetery A Historic Augusta
Cemetery founded 1820 and charge to the Promotion Account. (Approved by
Finance Committee February 21, 2005)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t spend too much time talking
about cemeteries, but I had a couple of questions to ask. I notice this is supposed to, this
is a request that it come out of the promotional account, and I know we just did frames
out of the promotional account. You did that with a bid process. [inaudible] bid process
in here. And my first question is that, does Historic Augusta have a funding source?
And if so –
Mr. Mayor: No, I think they typically come to us asking for money.
Mr. Hankerson: They do not have a source to get those funds?
Mr. Mayor: I think the first publication of these booklets was by the cemetery
[inaudible] but they don’t have the money to do these publications, and it was brought to
my attention that we needed some money, and that’s why I brought, asked to put it in
writing and brought it forward to the committee.
Mr. Hankerson: Should there be a bidding process on this?
Mr. Mayor: I don’t know. At that amount, I don’t know what the procurement
rule is. Mr. Russell or Ms. Sams? I think you might have to get three quotes, but I don’t
think you actually have to –
Mr. Russell: I think it’s that we get written quotes.
Mr. Mayor: Three written quotes.
Mr. Hankerson: I just [inaudible] figure, this a little small business opportunity, I
just wondering whether it was some kind of process. I didn’t see that in the backup,
that’s why I was asking.
Mr. Mayor: It would, I think what you would be doing is authorizing up to the
$870 to pay for 500 copies [inaudible] go through Procurement to get the vendor to do it.
Is that your interpretation, Mr. Russell?
23
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: I think that $870 is an estimate. So you’d approve the specific figure
today and not just say 500 and have it open ended.
Mr. Hankerson: Is it not a company already quoting?
Ms. Beard: I believe it is through Augusta State University. And all of the
copies.
Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible]
Ms. Beard: They actually only requested 100. But actually, I attended [inaudible]
Magnolia Cemetery. I think the Colonial Dames did it. And during that time I had a tour
of the building at Magnolia Cemetery and I simply asked if there was anything in Cedar
Grove. And she said no. And so I was very happy to see that there’s at least a brochure
out there, and I know I myself would like one, and I have friends who would like them,
and I just think, I just don’t think it would hurt us to produce a few more copies. And
Mr. Mays may know more about that. Do you know anything out there?
Mr. Hankerson: If I could follow up.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: It’s not that I’m opposing the brochures. I think we need them.
But I was just asking whether – who would print them? You said Augusta State is
printing them?
Ms. Beard: They came up with the brochure.
Mr. Mayor: The first, the initial [inaudible] for the brochures, according to the
footnote, was made possible by a grant from the Pamplin College of Arts and Sciences.
Mr. Hankerson: I don’t want to spend a lot of time on it. I just didn’t see no –
Mr. Mayor: Well, the printing cost, Mr. Hankerson, identified on the letter,
handwritten on here, and I don’t know whose initials those are next to the date.
Mr. Hankerson: Right. I saw the cost. I didn’t see a company, I didn’t see
whether it was bid. I saw on the other one, the frames, it has – that was a small amount,
it was [inaudible], had three quotes on that.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, three quotes.
24
Mr. Hankerson: Had three quotes. And I just didn’t want to set precedence
without getting quotes if we’re supposed to get them. If we don’t have to get a quote on
$870, then I’m okay with it.
Mr. Mayor: I can assure that Mr. Russell will see that all the Procurement
guidelines of this government are followed in the publication of these documents.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, what happened was they had, from our understanding,
they had initially asked for 100 copies. We were asked to get a quote for 500, I think in
the Finance Committee. This was an estimate we got from ASU on that. If it’s approved,
we’ll go ahead and do the proper procurement procedures to make sure we get the best
deal for the copies that we do. We may look at doing an in-house deal on this. We will
do all the proper procurement procedures.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I understand $1,500, up to $1,500. So we can move
on.
Mr. Mayor: We need a motion.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, as Finance chairman, and this came through the
Finance Committee, I make a motion that it be approved.
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Further discussion? All in favor then please
vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: If I might have a moment to [inaudible] personal privilege while
you’re there on Cedar Grove Cemetery. One of the people I think probably that was most
instrumental, Ms. Beard mentioned me. I’m not the oldest person, Ms. Beard, in this city.
I remember a lot, but one who probably remembers more out of Cedar Grove Cemetery
was the long-term custodian that’s there who was a loyal city employee for many years,
that’s retired, Mr. Willie Washington, and he’s standing back there. I think Willie
probably gave that group probably as much information as any one person could give
them in reference to Cedar Grove and to its history. And I hope we’ll continue to use
people in terms of their information. While he’s still a very young man and vibrant with
[inaudible] in the King parade every year, but he provided a lot of that history that goes
into just, Mr. Mayor, as we had to use Rev. Roundtree probably a quarter of century
before him, of putting information together, about Cedar Grove cemetery. So it’s good to
see him here and provided a great service for this city and continues to be a great
supporter of east Augusta and with other projects that we’re doing.
25
Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: At this time, the Chair will declare a five minute recess. Then we’ll
come back and finish up the few items we have remaining.
[RECESS]
Mr. Hankerson:
Through oversight, I didn’t intend to send item 32 back
[inaudible] Administrative Services. We have Human Relations Commission members
I move that we
here and the Chair of that subcommittee is here to respond to this, and
reconsider item 32.
32. An Ordinance to amend the Code of Augusta Richmond County Section 1-4-
110, et seq. “To provide for a restated Section 1-4-110 through Section 1-4-139
captioned “Human Relations Commission” and to repeal any conflicting
ordinances.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to reconsider, it’s been seconded. Any discussion? All in
favor please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right, item 32 is back on the floor.
32. An Ordinance to amend the Code of Augusta Richmond County Section 1-4-
110, et seq. “To provide for a restated Section 1-4-110 through Section 1-4-139
captioned “Human Relations Commission” and to repeal any conflicting
ordinances.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Well, yes, sir, I think we have someone here. We have members
of the Commission, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, if y’all would just identify yourselves to the Commission,
please.
Ms. Castleberry: Yes, I’m Rose Castleberry. I was the chairperson of the
committee to rewrite Article 9 of the Human Relations Commission and I have other
members with me. And I want to thank you for reconsidering this. This has been
something we’ve been actively working at for many, many months. It took us several
months to get through legal to make sure the wording was correct. We tried to clean it
th
up, tried to get it into the 20 Century, a lot of things were redundant, and we tried to
26
make it something that we can be very proud of here in Augusta and ready for publication
for people to be handed out to them. And we wanted something that is easy to read and
easy to understand by the average person, not need a lawyer to explain it to them. And
we’ve accomplished that and we’re very proud of the work that we’ve done, and I thank
you for approving this and we’ve very anxious to get it out.
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I’m in favor, Ms. Castleberry, no doubt, but while we got this item
here, I’ve got an issue that I think we need to bring probably either to committee to come
up with a strategy or a format for asking for ordinances to be drawn up. Not just your
department. The Fire Department came with one recently and other agencies in this
government. But it called the Attorney and the Attorney goes to work on them. Well, we
paying the Attorney and we don’t know whether it’s good, bad or indifferent. And what
we, the procedure, I would think would be able to have it come through committee to
request something, that we would give the Attorney the authorization to go ahead and do,
rather than having department heads or different departments call the law office. And I
know it take some time to do this. And believe it or not, we spend a lot of money in that
respect. While I’m speaking, Mr. Mayor, we got a subcommittee. I think Mr. Boyles is
chairman of as well, to look at our legal structure with our city attorney. We have not
met but I’m waiting to hopefully hear something pretty soon, that we get our
subcommittee together to kind of meet and discuss some things and this be one of them.
Mr. Boyles: The last two weeks have been kind of tough for [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Anything further on the HRC ordinance? Let me ask this, cause I
must confess that I have not read it. But this change does not grant subpoena power to
the HRC, does it?
Ms. Castleberry: No, it did not. It did not.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Anything further? All in favor of the –
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
27
Mr. Mays: Let me ask this. On the, on the – and I agree that the, that you all put
in a lot of time that should deal with the [inaudible]. Is that to be dealt with, Ms.
Castleberry, within the budget confines of the Commission or is that to be in a
supplemental matter?
Ms. Castleberry: You mean the publishing of it?
Mr. Mays: No. In terms of compensation in terms of the members in terms of
what’s reasonable expenses [inaudible] existing budget that you all are granted as an
overall Commission to do or would that be something you all [inaudible] in addition to
where the existing budget might be?
Ms. Castleberry: We have that in our existing budget. When and if that occurs.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor, then please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, point of clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: And that’s exactly why I think it should come through our
committee process, so we’ll have an understanding as to what our Attorney going to be
putting together and we, you know, not that they did or even think about doing anything
wrong, but I just think there is so much leeway in there that we need to be sure in every
possible way that we can that we approve of what’s going to be drawn up and how
[inaudible] be drawn up.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much.
Ms. Castleberry: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you for the work you did.
Ms. Castleberry: Thank you.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: We have a delegation here for addendum item 1, and I was just
wondering if we could bump that into our –
Mr. Mayor: That’s fine. Addendum item number 1, I didn’t realize we had
anybody here for it. Madame Clerk, we need to – it takes unanimous consent to add this.
28
Addendum Item 1. Motion to approve an ordinance for the demolition of certain
properties on Lyman, Dover and Miles Streets as recommended by the
subcommittee.
Mr. Mayor:
Let me ask if there is any objection to adding item number 1 from
Okay, no objection.
the addendum agenda. That’s the Dover Street issue. Mr. Cheek,
I’ll go ahead and recognize you.
Mr. Cheek:
On addendum item 1, I appreciate the patience of the body in us not
The subcommittee under
bringing this and actually delaying it one meeting.
Administrative Services would like to request at this point in time that the seven
properties listed for demolition, that an ordinance be written for the demolition of
those properties, and that the second reading be waived and that negotiations
continue between our attorneys and the property owners’ attorneys to discuss other
aspects of these properties and their future.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: The motion has been seconded. Discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Where is our Attorney?
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got Mr. James here.
Mr. Williams: Mr. James is here.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. James is here. He can –
Mr. Williams: I saw Mr. James and [inaudible] they don’t pay me, Mr. James,
when I comment on the legal side. I just wanted to make sure somebody was here getting
paid. But exactly what, what – and I’m not opposed, but I’d like to know the ordinance is
going read that we going do with this Dover Street and this been a problem for quite
some time. We understand that. But exactly what are we asking the Attorney to do, Mr.
Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if I may.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: The committee will be bringing back a full report to the chairman of
Administrative Services concerning these properties. Preliminarily, our findings are that
we would like to approach this on a clean slate type approach, that we work towards the
demolition and acquisition of these, this three street area where appropriate, and that we
29
engage either in-house or out-of-house contractors to redevelop this area in a manner
befitting the Rocky Creek enterprise zone.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, with respect to your motion today and that ordinance,
that’s essentially, Mr. Sherman, a template, is it not? You just had to fill in the address
under demolitions of derelict property? Is that –
Mr. Sherman: That’s correct. We’re going proceed with the demolition of the
subject properties and have the ordinance, have it to Ms. Bonner for your signature.
Mr. Mayor: I think that was what Mr. Williams was asking. What was in the
ordinance? And it’s just a standard fill-in-the-blanks ordinance.
Mr. Sherman: Right.
Mr. Mayor: With the address; correct?
Mr. Sherman: It’s the ordinance that you generally seek for the demolition of
properties. Just asking you to approve this ordinance for the demolition of the [inaudible]
properties.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: Additional information, Commissioner Williams, if I may. There has
been some discussion between the attorneys of the property owner and city staff and there
may be some latitude in the acquisition without going through the condemnation process
through some agreement on values of these properties and so forth, which may actually
save some time and money in this process. But that’s ongoing. The committee
recommends, though, based on our meetings and staff input and input from other private
sector folks that we proceed with these seven, both as a demonstration to the public, this
and other property owners, that we are indeed serious about redevelopment of this area.
Mr. Williams: And the reason I asked, Mr. Mayor and Commissioner Cheek, is
that I had someone to approach me about some older areas that’s blighted as well. We
know at Dover Street, and this is a bad situation, but I’ve got some situations, and we all
have, but that’s in deplorable shape, that someone came to me just last week and asked
about how can we get something done since the ordinance has been lifted up in the
Bethlehem community. When you thinking about Chestnut Street, I mean you wouldn’t
even drive down it, much less walk down that street at midnight. So I just wanted to
know because when you open this door, I think we have other developers and other
entities coming that want to do similar work in those areas. So I’m in support. Ready to
vote, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
30
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It is the intention of the subcommittee to
bring back to Administrative Services and the chairman a template that will be useful in
every area of this city, and we ask the – both commitment and participation by all
Commission members in that our goal is to produce a product that can be used in every
blighted area of this city, clean them up, and redevelop them.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor of the motion, please –
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, and I’m going to vote Mr. Cheek’s motion, and we had
discussion. Just one clarification. I wanted to get because I noticed in the motion we
dealt with both – you were moving kind of fast – we dealt with both in-house,
Commissioner Cheek, and outside. But I’m hoping, though, am I hearing the part that,
that in-house staff will be bringing is that in working with private development and in
terms of providing the technical assistance and if there is grant proceedings to come
through, that that is the part that in-house will be playing, or is in-house unlimited to go
into the building business and to do with this?
Mr. Cheek: The intention at this point in time is to collect all the information on,
one, what the best fit for redevelopment of this area is upon acquisition of the properties,
two, to look at resources available for redevelopment of that property, and three, identify
bodies, be they ANIC or some private corporation, or at that point even the City, to kick
to ball off, to begin the process of redevelopment. It’s not the intention to involve the
City in the construction business but to utilize all resources available, but at this point in
the Committee’s deliberations we are not ruling out anything. We’re getting all the cards
on the table to come up with the best available plan to submit to the full Commission. To
answer your question, no, sir, we’re not going to put the city in the construction business.
Mr. Mays: Cause I’ve seen some of our construction – well, anyway. You and I
had the discussion earlier. I just wanted to get the motion clear. We are all right. This is
a good day today. [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] and I know [inaudible] came with a [inaudible]
situation, this is nothing to do that with situation; is that right, Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I think HED has developed a plan, basically a strong plan to put
before us on what could happen within the areas. That gives us something to work
towards. The [inaudible] is going to occur when we look at what is appropriate for the
Highway 1 corridor and the Rocky Creek enterprise [inaudible] as far as developing that
neighborhood. At this point in time, staff has been very useful in providing information
on what could happen, based on single-family homes. We haven’t even ventured into the
31
international market and other items that have been mentioned in Destination 2020 and
some of the other publications.
Mr. Williams: I say again I’m in support, I know how blighted, how bad it’s
been, but I’m, I’m, I’m, I’m, I want to be clear now, that we are not reorganizing, we’re
not redeveloping, [inaudible] so I don’t want to get those two things confused. But there
has been several attempts to come in and, and, and we oppose each time. We got
different [inaudible] and different groups out there working to try to revive and bring
back areas. I want to make sure that we are not getting in the same business that
[inaudible] we can’t –
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, the only item on the table today is demolition of seven
derelict structures.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: That’s the only issue that’s in this motion and that’s being dealt with
today.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Demolition.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Mayor, I’m ready to vote then.
Mr. Mayor: Don’t want anybody to have misunderstanding about what y’all are
voting on.
Mr. Williams: I understand. Thank you, sir. Clarified it up.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d just like – I thought I heard that there
may be some action in Magistrate Court. Does this take care of – does that end the action
in Magistrate Court?
Mr. James: Those separate homes in the Dover area that are scheduled for
demolition, that are through Court orders signed by Judge Jennings of Magistrate Court
as a result, and as a result of being part of the group of cases dealing with use and
abatements, those seven are a part of I believe a batch of approximately 41 homes that
were presented in a hearing in reference to the use and abatement cases. And we have
orders on those seven from the Magistrate Judge.
Mr. Boyles: But this satisfies [inaudible] Magistrate Court?
Mr. James: On those seven, yes. We have others coming up.
32
Mr. Boyles: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I hear demolition and I hear what – something else – fair market
value. What are the steps that you use for the acquisition of property?
Mr. James: There are – basic, one governmental step. The government can
acquire property, be it federal government, state government, or local government,
through the process of eminent domain. Now you mentioned fair market value. Under
eminent domain, fair market value is not a term that is used. The government must
acquire the property through what is called just compensation. There is a difference.
However, in this case, for most properties in the Dover, Lyman, Miles Street area,
basically and essentially just compensation will equal fair market value. Just
compensation takes into play other loss of income, the uniqueness of a particular
location, if it was a business. Take, for instance, if it’s an ice cream parlor on a set
corner, then the fair market value of the building might be $50,000 but in business,
location-location-location is the key. So if the government was to take that property, then
you’ll be looking at just compensation, because not only would you be responsible for
paying fair market value, but you would be responsible for paying for the uniqueness, the
loss of uniqueness of that location. But in the areas that we are talking about, basically
just compensation will be no more than the fair market value. Other things that can come
into play will be moving costs for families that actually live in there, that under most
cases under just compensation the governments will be required to pay relocation costs.
In any event, the procedures – you file a petition, the quickest way to do it is file petition
through the Superior Court. Once a petition is filed you can ask for the Judge to appoint
a Special Master who must be an attorney, who has been practicing at least five years.
That Special Master then will have a hearing. Now the hearing will concern itself with
just compensation. To determine just compensation the government first must appraise
all of the properties they seek to acquire. Of course, the condemnee has the right to have
the property appraised on his or her own. If they dispute the value of that as given and
the government’s appraisal, and then the Special Master then, after hearing evidence on
both sides, taking testimony, will make the determination as to the amount of just
compensation to be paid. But in any event, the government will get the property. That is
a certainty. The only issue would be the amount that would be paid for the individual lot.
Ms. Beard: What is the average of just compensation for that area?
Mr. James: There is no average. It depends on –
Ms. Beard: I’m saying when you look over –
Mr. James: You’re talking about in the Dover area?
Ms. Beard: Yes.
33
Mr. James: From what we have determined so far, [inaudible] worth about
$5,000 to $7,000. Some much less. Some of those properties are no more than burned
out shells where the values are worth $2,000.
Ms. Beard: And now I’m going to assume that they’re going to pay for
demolition, so you would subtract that from the just compensation?
Mr. James: No, you don’t subtract the demolition. The government will be
responsible for the demolition costs. However, keep in mind, as I said before, but please
keep in mind those properties of concern, most of those properties owe a considerable
amount of back taxes to the city. And of course that’s a lien on properties on money
that’s owed in back taxes will be subtracted out of any monies to be received by the
owner, as a part of just compensation. We have determined on the original 15 units there
is over $102,000 in back taxes owed.
Ms. Beard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? I would just remind the Commission that our
ability to acquire property through eminent domain for economic development is being
tested on two fronts right now. The arguments were heard in the U.S. Supreme Court last
week that would block governments from acquiring property through condemnation for
economic development. Likewise, there is a bill pending in the Georgia Legislature that
would stop us from doing that, too. I think that’s House Bill 218, if I remember the
number. I trust that our people are working on this and looking at other alternatives to
acquisition because we may be disappointed if this is the road it will take. Anything
further? All in favor then of the ordinance to condemn, to demolish those seven
properties, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: I believe the next item is 39, Madame Clerk. Does that jibe with
your count?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: We may have a recommendation, Mr. Mayor, from Engineering
Services.
The Clerk:
39. Discuss the State-Aid County Contract Priority List. (Requested by Mayor
Young)
34
Mr. Mayor: Okay, this was put on the agenda from the highway commissioner,
Mr. Linnenkohl, from our meeting in Atlanta last month. And Mr. Cheek, I’ll recognize
you.
Mr. Cheek: A recommendation from Engineering Services by unanimous
vote was that the state aid money discussed in Atlanta remain on and be dedicated
to the East Augusta Drainage project.
Mr. Mayor: That’s a motion?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote with
the usual sign.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: He said we need to get the project going by the end of the fiscal year;
is that right, Ms. Smith?
Ms. Smith: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: And this is ready to go?
Ms. Smith: Will be.
Mr. Mayor: Good. The next item is 43; is that correct?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Help me with this now, Ms. Bonner. We’re getting toward the end
here.
The Clerk: 43. 43.
43. Update from state regarding the status of the St. Sebastian project.
(Referred from January 21 Engineering Services and February 15 Commission
meeting.)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, Ms. Smith, who is going to do that?
Ms. Smith: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, that actually is an item,
based on information in the backup, where the Attorney was going to bring back an
update on the status of the activities that will be performed by the Attorney’s office to
35
support the St. Sebastian Project. I do not have that information. He does have the
information. I just don’t have it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Why don’t we just defer that until Mr. Russell can locate
the Attorney and we’ll come back to it. Let’s see, the next item is number 46.
The Clerk:
46. Motion for final approval of the abandonment of Leon Alley. (Referred from
February 15 Commission meeting)
The Clerk: The Attorney, that’s his item as well.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you had asked for this one to be discussed today.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I was wondering about the bricks and the
stuff. We back in August, I think, we did something with this Leon Alley deal, but had
thought that the Historic Board would come in and tell us something about the
significance of the [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I can report to you from visual observation that the
will of the Commission with restoring a certain footage of the stones has been completed.
There is a bronze interpretative marker that’s been mounted on the façade of the building
next to it explaining to people what the alley was and what the significance of the stones
is. That has been accomplished, at the direction of the Commission.
Mr. Williams:
Okay, I just wanted some clarification, Mr. Mayor. I mean this is
something that got out there in unprofessional way, but as long as it wind up right, I got
I make a motion we go ahead and approve it.
no problem.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: They did exactly what we asked them to do. I’ve seen it for myself.
Mr. Cheek: I’ve seen people reading it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. All in favor, please vote with the
usual sign.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll go back to item 23. Mr. Shepard, the Clerk has already the
caption, dealing with St. Sebastian. If you want to address that.
43. Update from staff regarding the status of the St. Sebastian Project. (Referred
from January 21 Engineering Services and February 15 Commission meetings)
36
Mr. Shepard: This is to update you, Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, and members of
the Commission, on the status of the highway examinations. The last time we reported to
the Commission there were 40 title examinations requested. That was increased
subsequently to 45 titles. At the time we last reported, 18 had been completed. Now 22
have been completely completed. There has been 19 further examined and they are
pending a written opinion, which means the majority of that work has been done. There
are four pending examination, and in addition to those four, seven have been added to the
order of 45, so now there is a total order of 52. So I see that most of the work, most of
the examinations having been done, has been done, and that would account for 41 of the
orders. And then there would be approximately 11, there would be 11 which need to be
done.
Mr. Mayor: Any of the Commissioners have any questions? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Status on the project, though – are we on track or off track or we
have full funding, I mean pending the acquisition, are we ready to go?
Ms. Smith: We received approval to move forward with right of way about two
months behind schedule. We are, with respect to those activities that we are performing
within the Public Works Department, are on schedule. Right of way acquisition would
not be able to be completed or there are certain phases of it that we can’t move into until
the title opinions have been closed or completed. We do have the issue of the additional
funding that was to approved by the Georgia Department of Transportation. I don’t have
any additional information on that beyond the letter that was sent up and the fact that
there was some additional activities that would need to be performed by Mr. Patty’s
office, as I understood it, and I don’t know what the status of those activities are because
it has to be taken on to the temporary state route system. So we’ve got about $2 million
to initiate right of way activities on and if we start with those projects where, those
properties where there is potential archeological issues associated with it, we should be
able to purchase three to four of the 54 acquisitions that we would need to complete. And
then we – unless we borrow money, if you will, from somewhere else in the SPLOST
program or the general fund, until we get the money from GDOT, we would not be able
to move forward on the project.
Mr. Cheek: And the hold up on that is that there is still some pending stuff from
Mr. Patty’s office that needs to be –
Ms. Smith: I, I can’t tell you specifically what it is that needs to be done because
the activities on that were being handled outside the parameters of Public Works. So I
don’t know.
Mr. Cheek: That’s GDOT in Atlanta, I think.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
37
Mr. Williams: Ms. Smith, now, if they’re not in your department, you don’t know
what department they’re in? I mean I need to know something. I mean if you not
handling them and you don’t know who handling them, who is supposed to be handling
them then? I guess that’s my question. And how we going to get it on track if we don’t
know where it is? I need to know where it is.
Ms. Smith: The latest information that I received was that there would be some
additional activities that needed to be undertaken by Planning & Zoning with respect to
what else needed to happen with the funds being moved from one project to the other.
Because Public Works wasn’t directly involved in the initial conversations associated
with the fund transfers, I hesitate to identify who was supposed to do what or what the
process is that was going to be used for that. So.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, can we defer this and ask Mr. Patty or someone
from his office to come over here and let’s get all of our go do’s in a line where we
can make sure.
Mr. Williams: I agree. I agree, Commissioner.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, just put this on the agenda for Monday, the
Engineering Services meeting.
Mr. Cheek: I don’t have a problem with that, but –
Mr. Mayor: That would also give Ms. Smith an opportunity to check with GDOT
on that other funding.
Mr. Cheek: That will work.
Mr. Mayor: To see if they’ve got an answer for us for Monday.
Mr. Cheek: That will work.
Ms. Smith: The other funding for?
Mr. Mayor: Apparently there was a shortfall in there that the Commissioner is
going to find it somewhere else for us? He indicated in that meeting – is that –
Ms. Smith: I wasn’t in that meeting. Oh, you mean the meeting in Atlanta?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, yes.
Ms. Smith: Yes. Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Just check with them and see if there is an update on that.
38
Ms. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: For Monday, too.
Ms. Smith: I can do that.
Mr. Cheek: With federal – the amount of federal money associated with this and
all the work that’s gone in it, we just want to make sure that we identify where your
needs are and who has the go to’s and make sure we stay on track with this one, cause
this has got a lot of attention, all the way to Capitol Hill.
Mr. Mayor: The real issue, too, is the longer you delay doing this, the more
expensive the material is getting, so the less money you actually have. You have the
same dollars but it has less values. It’s important that we just keep this moving straight
ahead without delay.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, should we task it to our Administrator to
come back and give us that final report? The where to’s and what to do – I mean this
ought to be a process ought to be holding each other’s hand, ought to be walking
together. And when it’s separate like it is now and nobody can say now where it is, give
the impression that something, that somebody ain’t doing something. And I don’t want
to give that impression. If there ain’t nobody doing nothing, we need to say that, we need
to know. So I would think the Administrator would maybe get with those different
departments and bring it out so we know what we need to do and get it on target and get
it started. We been dancing too long, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Russell said he was going to have all that for us Monday
at Engineering Services. Have an update then.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I wait till Monday.
Mr. Mayor: Is that right, Mr. Russell? I don’t want to speak for –
Mr. Russell: [inaudible] that’s the direction [inaudible].
58. OTHER BUSINESS.
Mr. Mayor: Any other questions for Ms. Smith or Mr. Russell or anyone? I don’t
think that’s an action item. Ms. Bonner, I’ve run out of numbers, unless there is
something that you’ve got that I overlooked, and then we’ll get down to –
The Clerk: Just for, just for clarification, item 52 and item 12 are companion
items. They’re the same thing. They were just placed on different committees and we
failed to put the appropriate wording on 52 that was placed on item 12. So they’re the
same item. Outside of that, I think we’re down to legal.
39
Mr. Mayor: Think that’s it, okay. The Chair will recognize the Attorney.
Mr. Shepard: I just need a legal meeting for pending and potential litigation
and real estate, Mr. Mayor.
59. LEGAL MEETING:
A. Pending and potential litigation.
B. Real Estate.
C. Personnel.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion to that effect?
Mr. Williams: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’re at your disposal, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: It’s 5:00 o’clock. I don’t think they want to be back there long.
[LEGAL MEETING]
60. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with the Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Ms. Sims and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 6-0.
Mr. Shepard: We have a minor matter in the matter of the T. Davis
family partnership claim regarding the alleged trespass onto the land of T. Davis
family properties. I’d ask for a motion to add and approve settling the attorneys’
fees claim for $1,500.00.
Mr. Mays: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
40
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? Any objections? None heard. Approved
unanimously.
Ms. Sims and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 6-0.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any other business to come before this body? Motion to
adjourn? We’re adjourned without objection.
[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 March 1, 2005.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
41