HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 2, 2005 Augusta-Richmond County Commiss
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
August 2, 2005
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday, August
2, 2005, the Honorable Willie Mays, III, Interim Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Williams, Beard,
Cheek, Sims and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by Rev. Max Hicks.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, members of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen,
while the Commissioners are looking through the items that are on the consent agenda
that they may wish to have an item pulled when we get to that point, or if there are items
that are on the regular agenda that we can shift over to the consent agenda, if they would
continue to utilize that time that we’re going through this period to do this—one change,
particularly for the media, as well as the general public, that I think we had a very short
Commission meeting a few weeks ago and we might have actually had our shortest while
still taking care of our business on last week. I don’t know whether we’ll end up
breaking that record today but one change that has taken place is the fact that we have
had legal session and legal briefing already today. We’ve done that. We have a couple
of items that will potentially be added to today’s agenda. Legal meeting has already been
held and we’ll be able to move through the complete agenda as it is and will not have to
end up spending time to do that. So we’ve kind of set a little unofficial goal that we can
get that news and business out from this meeting to media people, operatives, and to the
general public, and to be able to also every now and then get out of the building before
everybody else does while still taking care of our business. We were able to do that last
week I think in two hours and thirty-five minutes and we if we can do it in two hours and
thirty-four, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, you will not make this person angry
at all. I would like to say the young man that’s sitting to my right, our Mayor for today,
this was something that obviously I was more than happy to do. We sit next to each other
sometimes at football games and I’m looking at the game and he’s looking at the
cheerleaders.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Very, very, very, very smart young man. And he came up with this
idea and he wanted to know pretty much what Mr. Willie was going to do for the kids
and to a point of when were they going to be able to serve in the government. And of
course last week, as you know, I had quite a challenge from Camp Fix It and those kids
1
and about participating in their government. And I told them to come back. I didn’t
know they’d be right back. And they were back a few days. And we had quite—it was
quite an experience for them but I think also in terms of being able to conduct that class
here in the chambers along with another class, and the questions were tremendous in their
concern for the community. Which this was Jayme’s idea in reference to being able to
have young people, particularly elementary students to be able to come in, to be able to
serve as a Commissioner, to be able to serve as Mayor, and I was wondering why, why
didn’t you think about this before, you know, the summer got almost over. And he had a
very intelligent answer for that, too. He reminded me, well, you just got the job.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: He’s rolling, he’s rolling on Stage One, so I’m just glad that I won’t
have to compete against him for anything but dipping over into the bag of popcorn at the
football game. His mother is back there in the back, Ms. [inaudible] Powell, and
grandmother is over there, too, isn’t she? Okay. She’s holding the—there was a little bit
of a competition. There were two folk that maybe wanted but this was his idea, so his
little brother is on the outside where he won’t completely do a take over while his brother
is serving as Mayor for today. But we’ve been quite proud of him. We have something
for him. He’s going to spend most of the day with us and what I plan to do so that this
will not be something that’s dominated by the Mayor is to ask the other Commissioners
in terms of submissions for young people to be able to come down whether we’re
conducting business, whether we’re sitting with parties that might come in, interview,
just business sessions with the Mayor, whether it’s through meetings. The lucky ones
will end up when it’s a day to go to lunch. And we plan to bring all of those young
people back at an appropriate time and to be able to give each of them their certificates,
whether they served as Mayor, whether they served as Commissioner, whatever place
they might be in. So I think it’s a great idea to involve them. But most of all, the fact
that we are following up on an idea that was not started by a grown-up. And this was his
idea to come up with and I said well, since it’s his idea then you certainly need to be the
first one. So Mr. Mayor, I thank you for that idea and look forward to seeing you football
season. I’m probably going to miss some Falcons game so I know you’ll end up with my
tickets, too. That will work out. Okay? You want to go ahead, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: The City of Augusta by His Honor Willie H. Mays, III, Interim
Mayor, to Jayme Powell, greetings. By virtue of the power and authority vested in me by
the Constitution and the laws of this State and pursuant of your appointment I do hereby
commission you, the said Mayor for the Day. You are therefore authorized and required
to perform all and singular the duties encumbranced on you as said officer according to
the law and trust reposed on you. Given unto you my hand and the seal of the Office of
nd
the Mayor, the Municipal Building and the City of Augusta, on this 2 day of August in
the Year of our Lord 2005.
[A round of applause is given.]
2
Mr. Mayor: Is [inaudible] back there? He’s getting ready to campaign. And if he
doesn’t look familiar to you that’s because he looks like his mom, thank goodness. He
happens to be the son of my old Commission colleague and now Senator, J.B. Powell.
But [inaudible], thanks for providing his good looks. Appreciate that.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
Richmond County Community Partnership
Roberta D. McKenzie, Ed. D
Executive Director
RE: Children’s Week – September 30- October 6, 2005
The Clerk: Dr. McKenzie?
Dr. McKenzie: Good afternoon. Thank you so much for allowing us to come in
and talk for a minute about Children’s Week. I think it’s so appropriate that we have the
young man here today as our Mayor for the day since I’m going to talk about Children’s
Week. I’ve given you a handout which gives a lot of information about the partnership
and I hope by now all of you know that we are really a group that really works on behalf
of our children and families in this community. And so part of our effort, what we try to
do is celebrate our children. We celebrate them through an event that we call Children’s
Week. And so in your packet I have the information about Children’s Week which
th
begins on a Friday, this year September 30, and I believe last year Commissioner Beard
actually spoke to the large group of kids down at the amphitheater. So I’d like for you all
to take a look a look at the activities that we are going to have in place again this year.
And I’m always begging and I never am ashamed when I beg for kids. So what we’d like
for you all to do is to take a look at what we are proposing to do again this year and see if
we can get a little bit of help from you all in the way of help with amphitheater. I think
there is a letter attached to the back of your handout that was inside of your partner
th
report. And we were asking for is your help with the amphitheater, with the 8 Street
Plaza, and with the stage rental. For those who have been around for some time, you
know about the week and a number of you have attended one of the events, which is the
Legislative Breakfast. I know that Commissioners Sims and Boyles have attended that.
I’m really here begging, Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Boyles?
Mr. Boyles:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Interim Mayor. I’ve looked over Ms.
McKenzie’s letter and where she has requested $300 for the Jessye Norman
th
Amphitheater and 8 Street Plaza, that’s another $400, plus a stage rental fee of $150,
which comes to $850. I believe that these can be handled as in-kind services within our
I’d make a motion that through our Administrator’s Office that we handle
budget.
these as in-kind services and it does not cost us any actual dollars, it’s just a matter
of service. I make that in the form of a motion.
3
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a motion. Is there a second?
The Clerk: By Mr. Grantham.
Mr. Mayor: I think you got plenty of seconds on that one. If there be no further
questions to Ms. McKenzie, because there certainly doesn’t need to be any discussion, all
in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Mr. Colclough will be
attending today’s meeting but he will be running a little late.
Mr. Mayor: So noted.
Dr. McKenzie: Is that is?
Mr. Mayor: That’s it.
Dr. McKenzie: I thank you all. I thank you. Come out for some of our activities
this year. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: You continue to do a great job.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of Items 1 through 24A, Items 1
through 24 A.
For the benefit of any objectors to our alcohol petitions, when the
petitions are read would you please signify your objection or objections by raising your
hand?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by Christopher C. King for an on premise
consumption Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with South Beach Grill
located at 2935 Deans Bridge Road subject to the removal of the existing trailer and
the construction of a new structure. There will be Sunday sales. District 5. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 25, 2005)
2. Motion to approve a request by Michelle Wiggins for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Another
Level located at 1370 Gordon Highway. There will be dance. District 1. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 25, 2005)
3. Motion to approve a request by Robert A. Prescott for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Finish Line
Café located at 3960 Wrightsboro Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 3.
Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 25, 2005)
4
4. Motion to approve a request by Robert W. Shelor for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Bonefish
Grill located at 2919 Washington Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 7.
Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 25, 2005)
5. Motion to approve a request by Ivan W. Kim for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Pak-N-Go located at 1649 Olive Road.
District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 25, 2005)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions as read? No
objectors.
Mr. Mayor: Ladies and gentlemen, are you ready to pull any items that may be on
potential consent? Commissioner Cheek, you had your hand first?
Mr. Cheek: Just a quick question on number 1, just what type of structure? I
don’t necessarily want to pull it. If it is a permanent structure and not another mobile
home, I’m okay.
Mr. Hankerson: I want to pull number 1.
Mr. Mayor: Pull number 1? Okay. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull Item 12. And I’d like for us to delete
Item 8.
8. Motion to approve declaring the former J. C Penney and Kress Buildings as
public nuisances and taking appropriate actions to remedy the situation. (Approved
by Administrative Services Committee July 25, 2005)
Mr. Mayor: Let’s stay with the pulling for a moment. But I note where we’d go
back. We have to do a separate motion on that deletion. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I’d like to pull Item 17 for clarification.
Mr. Hankerson: What number that was?
Mr. Mayor: Pull on 17. Any other items to be pulled from this end? If not,
starting with Commissioner Hankerson on that end, anything else to be pulled?
Mr. Hankerson: I want to pull 15 and 16.
Mr. Mayor: Pull on 15 and 16. Anything else? Commissioner Smith, Mr.
Grantham? Madame Clerk, would you—I’m sorry?
Mr. Williams: Clarification on 13.
5
Mr. Mayor: Clarification he said on 13. If it’s just on clarification did you want
to go ahead and address it, Commissioner Williams? The Chair will allow it if it’s just on
clarification.
Mr. Williams: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I’m all in favor for this project and I’m not
against it but there’s some things that I had not got some clarification on. We going to be
voting on an event today and I’m in favor of, but there is some details that I’m not sure
what it comes to, what’s going to happen after we approve this. And I don’t know what’s
the best way to handle it, whether we need to revisit it again or next Commission meeting
or approve it today or just what. So I’m in favor, I said that earlier, so I’m not opposed to
it but I just don’t know the outcome or some of the things that’s going to happen once we
approve this item 13 on here today.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell may have an answer on 13 and 14. If it’s not satisfactory
in the clarification then I suggest we pull it and we go ahead on it and move.
Mr. Russell: And if that question is in reference to the employees, is that the right
direction I’m going in?
Mr. Williams: That’s right, Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. We had asked the new owners, potential new owners, that
question yesterday. It’s my understanding, the response that I received, that there might
be some temporary layoffs during construction, which would be understandable. But it’s
there intent to make sure that everybody has a job when they get back running again and
there is some creation of new jobs in addition to that. I think they probably have
somebody here.
Mr. Mayor: If that answers the clarification, I don’t want to disrupt to a point of
having to bring them in. That’s why I was saying—is that satisfactory on the
clarification?
Mr. Williams: Yeah. That was the area that I was looking in. Mr. Russell did
clarify some and we understand there would be some temporary situation, but you know
from the top to the bottom of that area, some jobs, and some of those people are not
trained to do anything else but that job and they trained well at that job and I’m wanting
to certainly make sure that they continue in that employment rather than to be that we
approve something that create twenty jobs and get rid of twelve.
Mr. Mayor: Good point of clarification. Commissioner Cheek had his hand up
and then Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Cheek: Just a question to the requestor on the pulling of Item 8. I don’t have
a problem with it as long as it’s understood that staff will follow through with the
necessary due diligence that they should in the interim for this to be brought up another
day. Is that the understanding?
6
Mr. Boyles: That was my intent.
Mr. Cheek: Very good. Just for clarity’s sake. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: And that’s in the form of asking for a deletion?
Mr. Boyles: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The only question I had to follow up with
Item 13 and 14 would be that the period of time that they’d have temporary layoffs that
maybe the personnel at that point would be able to file for unemployment with the
assurance of going back to those positions, which I what I think we understand it to be.
So there will be some unemployment that they could apply for at that time? Is that—
okay. That’s what I want to know.
Mr. Mayor: Anything else to be pulled from my left or my right? I think that’s
got them, Madame Clerk, if you want to state those numbers.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Item 1, Item 12—Mr. Williams, you got the clarification you
needed on 13?
Mr. Williams: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk: Okay. And that leaves Item 12, 15, 16, 17 are items that have been
requested to be pulled for discussion. And 8.
Mr. Mayor: Delete.
The Clerk: Delete?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, just let it go—
The Clerk: Item 8 being requested for deletion.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Sure, go ahead, Mr. Boyles.
th
Mr. Boyles: Could I add at this time Item 28 because that is in the 7
Commission District and I’ve talked with those folks up there and she was not available
for the hearing in Public Services last week. We’ve got another one similar to it on the
consent agenda, same office, same personnel, so I’d just like to add that to the consent
agenda, Item 28.
7
PUBLIC SERVICES:
28. Discussion: A request by Rosemarie Brummett for a Therapeutic Massage
license to be used in connection with Hand Over Stress located at 104 Warren Road.
District 7. Super District 10.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to 28 being added? No hands. It’s so added. Any
questions on the numbers? Do we have a motion, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Sir?
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion already over there?
The Clerk: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion on the consent.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Deleted from the consent agenda.
2. Motion to approve a request by Michelle Wiggins for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Another
Level located at 1370 Gordon Highway. There will be dance. District 1. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 25, 2005)
3. Motion to approve a request by Robert A. Prescott for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Finish Line
Café located at 3960 Wrightsboro Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 3.
Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 25, 2005)
4. Motion to approve a request by Robert W. Shelor for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Bonefish
Grill located at 2919 Washington Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 7.
Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 25, 2005)
5. Motion to approve a request by Ivan W. Kim for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Pak-N-Go located at 1649 Olive Road.
District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 25, 2005)
6. Motion to approve a request by Amy J. Pollack for a Therapeutic Massage
Operators license to be used in connection with Hand Over Stress located at 104
Warren Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee July 25, 2005)
8
7. Motion to renew the Sec. 5311 Rural Transit grant application between the
Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and Augusta, Georgia from
January 2006 to June 2007. (Approved by Public Services and Finance Committees
July 25, 2005)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
8. Deleted from the agenda.
9. Motion to approve setting the qualifying fee for Augusta Commission
Districts 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 at $360.00 and for the Office of Mayor of the City of
Augusta $1,950.00. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 25, 2005)
10. Motion to approve the reprogramming of $30,000 in Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the Senior Center and Section 108
repayments projects to New Savannah Road Social Services, Inc. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee July 25, 2005)
11. Motion to approve DBE Department procedures to ensure inclusion of the
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Department. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee July 25, 2005)
12. Deleted from the consent agenda.
13. Motion to approve acceptance of a $2.5 million Section 108 loan guarantee
from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for use on
the Partridge Inn project and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract for loan
guarantee assistance and related documents. (Approved by Administrative Services
and Finance Committees July 25, 2005)
14. Motion to approve an agreement to loan $2.5 million in HUD Section 108
loan proceeds to Walton Way Hotel, LLC for acquisition of the Partridge Inn and
authorize the Mayor to execute the loan agreement and related documents.
(Approved by Administrative Services and Finance Committees July 25, 2005)
15. Deleted from the consent agenda.
16. Deleted from the consent agenda.
FINANCE:
17. Deleted from the consent agenda.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
18. Motion to approve execution of an Encroachment Agreement between the
Augusta Utilities Department and Atlanta Gas Light Company. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee July 25, 2005)
19. Motion to approve an Easement Deed between the Augusta Utilities
Department and Georgia Transmission Corporation. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee July 25, 2005)
20. Motion to approve and accept a Quit-Claim Deed for donation of a 1.97 acres
tract and an Easement Deed for the donation of 4.51 acres of permanent easement
and 1.94 acres of temporary construction easement from International Paper
Company to Augusta, Georgia, and payment for damage to a commercial crop.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 25, 2005)
9
21. Motion to approve Resolution authorizing adoption of Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) 130158 0015 B, Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) 130158
0015 and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 130158 0060 E Revised to Reflect a
Letter of Map Revision dated January 25, 2005 with an effective date of May 19,
2005. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 25, 2005)
22. Motion to approve bid and award contract to the only bidder, Empire Tree
and Turf, in the amount of $37,600.00 for Herbicide Control Program at Magnolia
Cemetery. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 25, 2005)
23. Motion to approve bid and award contract to the only bidder, Empire Tree
and Turf, in the amount of $12,992.00 for Herbicide Control Program at Riverwalk
and Augusta Commons. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 25,
2005)
24. Motion to allow Augusta Utilities to proceed with the lease of three
manufactured office units at Hicks Plant. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee July 25, 2005)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
24A. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held July 26, 2005.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
28. Discussion: A request by Rosemarie Brummett for a Therapeutic Massage
license to be used in connection with Hand Over Stress located at 104 Warren Road.
District 7. Super District 10.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? None being, all in favor of the motion will
do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: I like them 9-0.
The Clerk:
1. Motion to approve a request by Christopher C. King for an on premise
consumption Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with South Beach Grill
located at 2935 Deans Bridge Road subject to the removal of the existing trailer and
the construction of a new structure. There will be Sunday sales. District 5. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 25, 2005)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: My reason for having this pulled is because I previously
discussed this particular item in Public Service. My concern about it is that they are
applying for the liquor and beer license without a building design. I’d like to see a
10
building design. We have—South Augusta Initiative is working on the Deans Bridge
Road corridor and we are very concerned about what kind of structures go out there now.
We are trying to revitalize that entire area. As you know, Deans Bridge Road is going to
be part of the freeway that is going to be coming through and so we are getting ready for
that. There are a lot of eyesores already on Deans Bridge Road. And not saying that this
is going to be an eyesore but when it came before us in the last meeting it had the
potential of being the same thing because a trailer was there and I couldn’t see how you
are going to have a bar and grill with a trailer there, that old structure, and I request we
see about getting that removed from there. I notice that some drain work has already
started out there. But before we pass this for a liquor and beer license I would request
that we see a building design, what kind of building going there, then I don’t have a
problem if it’s a building that will fit into our expectations of that area, I would not have
a problem with it. But I do have a problem with it by going forth now and approving a
liquor and beer license without knowing what kind of building is going to be there,
approving something that is no building. I think the building ought to come first. I can
assure him that if I see a design and it’s a good design there, I don’t have no problems
with your beer and wine license. I mean your liquor and beer license but right now as it
sits now I need to see more than what I’m seeing.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to address for the department?
Mr. Harris: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: And the petitioner can also speak.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Sherman and Marshall Master, who is our construction manager,
they’ve been meeting with Mr. King and they are working on plans and designs as we
speak. What we brought before you is not something that we have not done in the past as
far as getting an alcohol license approved prior to the actual structure being built. As a
matter of fact we did it out by Bennock Mill Road on Mike Padgett, we did it several
other places. The young man has stated that his finances are limited and he can’t build
the building not knowing whether or not he is going to be able to get a license. And that
was one of the reasons we got him into a discussion and brought it back before you. It is
up to you.
Mr. Hankerson: That’s why I’m addressing the issue, as I know that you said that
we did it this way before. I’m confronting a lot of problems in my District now because
things were done the way they were done before, the City having to come back and
address these problems, some things now having to go through Legal and nobody seem to
be responsible for the way they were constructed and so forth. So that may be true that it
was done in another area but in this area I’d like to see the design, and if the design is a
satisfactory, I don’t have any problems. You don’t to spend any money building
anything, just spend the money on the design, bring the design to us, let me see the
design. If the design of the building fits in with our plans for Deans Bridge Road I do not
have a problem with that. I move that—
11
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Chairman, if you might, before we get a motion on the floor,
even though we’ve had a departmental spokesperson, if you would, I think we to allow
the petitioner an opportunity to respond in case he has something in mind that he can tell
us further. And then I’ll switch back where we can get a motion on the floor.
Mr. King: I don’t know where you want me to bring plans to. I’ve come down
here about four or five times already. I’ve had different meetings with everybody. I keep
getting the run-around. I don’t know what you want me to do. I mean do you want me to
bring the plans to this meeting here? Nobody can seem to give me a good answer. I am
just trying to vitalize south Augusta myself. I live there. I wouldn’t build a new building
that looks like a dump. We weren’t happy with what was there before. I spent four
months of rent on this lot and I haven’t been able to build anything yet. I followed all the
correct procedures. I still keep running into a brick wall.
Mr. Hankerson: If you’re responding to me, you just heard License & Inspection
say they are working with you so you should know where to go.
Mr. King: They’re working with me, but nobody else seems to be working with
me. I mean where do I go from here.
Mr. Hankerson: I just gave you instructions, let me see a design, bring a design
back. I don’t have any problems with what you are doing, just how it’s done, I’m going
to be watchman over there. So bring the design. As soon as you finish your design bring
it to me, bring it back to the committee, either way you want to do it, and we look at it. I
don’t have a problem with that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with Commissioner Hankerson in
that that corridor, south Augusta regional development, we’re trying our best to change
what is going on out there, change the perception and all of the things, the drugs, the
prostitutes up and down the street, and of course right now we’re working on Lyman and
Dover Street area and in the process of doing something there. And we’re not against it.
We just want—
Mr. King: I understand.
Mr. Smith: —what you put there to complement the area and the future. We’ve
already mentioned about the Fall Line Freeway coming right through there and we’d like
for this to set an example for other parts of the city.
Mr. Mayor: If I could get staff back in the room for just a moment, please.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Williams. I need to ask one thing but go ahead.
12
Mr. Williams: Yeah. I’m just trying to figure out something. I think we got staff
who looks at the design or the structure of whatever building goes anywhere, not the
contents that’s in it. Now, I don’t care if this young man serve whatever he desire to
serve but I think that our staff from License & Inspection and the Engineering
Department is supposed to look at the structure that’s going to be put together and
determine whether or not it’s feasible or it goes that. Now, if each Commissioner is
going to have the opportunity to look at what goes in his District and approve it, then I
need to know that, too, cause there some stuff that put in my District that nobody gave
me the opportunity to say yeah [inaudible]. I think the man is asking for his license, the
way I understand, is he’s taken the steps that he can afford to take at whatever point. I
mean at some point. I wouldn’t build a building and then come to try to get approved and
not be approved. I think the first step is to get approved here. Now, we know what
bringing revenue into this city. Whether you like it or not, people buy that and they
consume that. I’m just saying that if we are going to change the standards of where we
do things, let’s do change every other week, fellows. Let’s keep it the same way all the
time. That’s all I’m saying. Now, if a structure is going up where a trailer been put in
and there are people living in trailers—we had somebody come in and buy a trailer and
say they didn’t know before they bought the trailer they couldn’t put it in. We allowed
them to put it in anyway. So if this young man is taking down a trailer, a mobile home
situation, and from what I heard and fixing to build a situation and going through the
necessary architect and plans that going to have to be certified through our own
department to be put up. I mean if we talking apples, let’s talk about apples. If we
talking about apples and oranges then we need to say that too, but I don’t understand it. I
think the young man is doing what License & Inspection asked him to do. The Sheriff
Department approved it. I think the location is right. It’s not too close and not too far
from. It’s in the guidelines. And if that’s not true that that’s what we ought to be judging
this young man on. I’m looking at the Hawaiian shirt you got on, my man, cause I got a
lot of flack about that but in that training over there we talked about all this kind of stuff,
about doing smart government and doing thins right. And if you meet the guidelines then
you meet them. If you don’t meet them then you don’t. Ain’t no in between. It’s either
right or it’s wrong. Now if you’re right, you’re right.
Mr. King: The plans I had before were approved. I had plans that were approved
through Planning & Zoning and [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: And I think that even takes care of parking and trees and landscape
and everything else that goes along with a facility when it comes. Now if we got a
problem with what the young man is doing then we need to say that, too. We don’t need
to pretend like there’s another reason. I mean I think it’s right, so if there is right—and if
there’s something wrong, Larry, you need to bring it to this board and tell us whether we
should or should not be approving. But if he meets the guidelines—
Mr. Speaker: He does.
13
Mr. Williams: --and before he can put up a building got to meet another set of
guidelines—
Mr. Harris: Yes, sir. And there is also a “subject to” clause in this approval that
you have here today. If he does not meet your standards or exceed the standards you
cannot [inaudible] license. He’s got to meet your approval.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] interrupt you, Commissioner Williams, but this “subject
to” which we’ve done more than once or twice, we’ve probably done is several hundred
times, and on structures that you build, and then if it’s not completed to a point of where
it conforms and you get that in there, you may have a license but then the building
doesn’t go through. So there’s a safeguard that’s in there from where you’re going. I just
think to a point that—let me ask this. How far have you all gotten in terms of agreement
on new structure to a point of where you pretty much know what [inaudible]?
Mr. Harris: Mr. Masters and Rob are negotiating with him as far as the structure.
I don’t deal with the actual structure part of it. I have no knowledge of the structure
whatsoever. So where they are in the plans I don’t exactly know. My major concern was
with the licensing part of it and I made sure that he met all of those guidelines and that
there was a safeguard in place so that if he did not meet their standards that we had a way
to keep him from giving him that license.
Mr. Mayor: And part of it in here deals with the removal of the trailer and the
construction of a new building.
Mr. Grantham: Is there any time frame on that?
Mr. Harris: No, sir, not to my knowledge as far as the building. But I would
think that once the license is approved that we could put a time limit as far as the removal
of that trailer because he could not build with that trailer there.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Hankerson.
Mr. Smith: Go ahead.
Mr. Hankerson:
Thank you. See, that’s the problem with this. You’ve got
License & Inspection talking about approving the liquor and beer license and then we are
saying that you have the building inspector that’s going to approve the building. Those
are two things here. Now, the way it came to us the first time, to me it would be an
eyesore. I just passed by it this morning and what I’m seeing there now, and they’re
telling me that that’s what they were going to approve? I would really be embarrassed to
say that our City inspector is going to approve a trailer, adding on to a trailer and going to
call it a bar and grille on a public highway or expressway as Deans Bridge Road is.
That’s not [inaudible], nothing that do with the liquor and alcohol or the contents. It is
the aesthetics of the building. I would feel good about it if I would see a design. If we’ve
got a design, bring a design, let me see a building, let me see the design of it. A lot of
14
times we’ve held up off of a lot of buildings until we saw a design. We Augusta State
built the complex we had to see the design before we approved it. I think it’s left up to
the officials to know what kind of building is going where. We are working on
something on Barton Chapel Road now that was built without Inspection giving a good
inspection or approval of it and now they’re trying to come back on us to make us pay for
what’s happening out there now. And we need to look at it from kind of different
I would ask the Commission if you would hold up on it until we see the
perspective so
design of the building, and that’s taken care of, and then approve the license.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith and Mr. Harris and then the Chair is going to
entertain—
Mr. Cheek: Is that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Hankerson: I would so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. The Chair still recognizes Mr. Smith and Mr.
[inaudible].
Mr. Smith: What you mentioned, that it was passed the last time, that was the
plans you had with the trailer; is that not right?
Mr. King: Yes.
Mr. Smith: Okay. This is entirely a different situation.
Mr. King: [inaudible] trailer the first time [inaudible] building a completely new
building. 24’ x 40’ with a deck on 24’ x ’33 on the front of that.
Mr. Smith: And the only thing the Commissioner is asking is us seeing the plans.
Mr. King: [inaudible]
Mr. Smith: If you bring them, and I guess Rob and his department would do that,
Larry?
Mr. Harris: As far as the plans?
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Harris: Yes, sir.
Mr. Speaker: As far as [inaudible] before you, I don’t know if you’re aware that
even with the situation with the trailer there are aesthetic things that you can do to a
15
trailer that you don’t even know that it is trailer. There was going to be [inaudible]
kitchen built on the back with a [inaudible]—is the actual deck, a canopied deck. And
once he had put the wrapping on the trailer we probably wouldn’t have even known the
trailer would have been there. So it would have been aesthetically pleasing [inaudible]
and finished. But what you see there now is what we had there for the last ten years,
fifteen years.
Mr. King: And I’m trying to improve that.
Mr. Smith: And sir, we are, too, and that’s why the Commissioner is trying to
hold it, because we’re trying to rebuild, trying to get back to changing that whole
corridor. We’re not against what you’re trying to do.
Mr. King: You’re never going to get anybody to rebuild anything there. I’m
stepping up to the plate, trying to do my part.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] You’ve got a motion on there and a second [inaudible] .
That motion, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: As I understood it, the motion was to hold off on the approval of this
petition until the plans are reviewed by Commissioner Hankerson.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I’m going to make a substitute motion that we approve the plans,
approve the license for this young man and then bring those plans as well. There’s some
safeguards that I think the department has said that’s in place, that if he didn’t follow
through—the safeguards—that he wouldn’t be able to get the license anyway. But he
would have to bring those safeguards back and make sure that they approve. So I may a
motion that we approve them.
Mr. Mayor: Substitute motion to approve. Is there a second to the substitute
motion? Not, the substitute motion dies. We go back to the original motion. The Chair
recognizes Ms. Flournoy.
Ms. Flournoy: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Mr. Shepard is involved
in another legal matter now. He asked that you consider that this liquor license, that that
condition with regard to the trailer may be a thorn issue and he’s not sure but it may bring
us some legal issue with regard to putting zoning issues into the condition for approval of
the liquor license.
Mr. Mayor: I’m tempted to comment on that cause I took up on that co-mingling
last Tuesday because we did have one that was out here that had zoning and liquor mixed
together. And it came out a mixed drink and it ought to either been a chaser or it ought to
16
been real liquor but I substituted them myself and I didn’t put a legal bill in it. But we
appreciate that. But I think the motion that’s on the floor, the substitute has died and
that’s to deal with bringing, bringing this back. The only thing I would suggest is that
there be a defined place and time of meeting to deal with this in terms of where the
petitioner is with his plan to a point that if it’s going to be—and I’m not pre-empting the
motion—but if that’s going to be the [inaudible] that the Commission rules that there be
some time frame to a point whether we like what the petitioner has or not, that there be a
time expressed that that person can present it and it either meets approval of where you
all want to go, bring it out here, and then the petitioner knows then in terms of what rights
that he has to conduct in terms of moving. And I think one of the things that the
petitioner was the concerned about was the fact that on the property where the trailer was,
was the fact that trying to get the actual owners to agree to get some of it moved. I think
it’s kind of an old [inaudible] somebody willing to construct something on some property
that they’re having to basically lease and don’t own. So the other side of that is, quite
frankly, if we don’t approve it then the trailer basically to a point stays where it is. It may
not have any liquor in it but it will sit up there until we find another plan. So I hope we
can get something to work out of this to a point that comes out properly. Motion and a
second.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: And I’m remembering on last meeting when we talked about
issues with respect to special exemption and the item was about special exemption. It
wasn’t about whether or not there was going to benefit drawn on special exemption and
we voted on just that item that was on the agenda item. The agenda item today is to vote
for a license to be approved, not whether—I mean he can put a dog house up there but if
that don’t meet our guidelines then he can’t put them. But this is—I mean we are mixing
apples and oranges and we’re talking about one thing, we need to talk about what we’re
talking about and that is right now a license rather than where the license going to housed
at. Where the license is going to be housed at will be stilled determined. If it comes back
and they try to build a facility that is not conducive to what we ask for then they won’t be
able to do it through our own department. So I’m really, I’m really confused as to what
we’re doing and how we’re doing it. We had not done it all this way. I think we’re
talking about two different things. You said yourself last week we had a mix to come in
here and if he met the guidelines to get to this point, Mr. Mayor, then we need to vote up
or down whether he meets that guideline, not on the potential things that he might be do.
Next we going to be knowing what kind of folks going be coming in, if they ain’t the
kind of folks we want to come in then we might want to do something about that. That’s
not the issue.
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to recognize Commissioner Cheek and I’ve got a reason
for letting the co-mingling go and I’ll explain it in just a minute. Go ahead, Mr. Cheek.
17
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, that—I was in that trailer ten years ago and it was nasty
then. Again I don’t see how it could have been renovated just short of burning it to the
ground and building a new one to be suitable for habitation, one; two, we’ve got parking,
car lots and real estate places all over this city where they have temporary office space
housed in these portable offices that tend to turn out to be permanent structures. One, I
kind of wonder if that’s the case we have here, that this was allowed as a temporary
office or portable office to serve the building and I doubt that it’s zoned mobile home
there. It’s probably zoned commercial. I agree that we need to forward with this and
certainly anything would be an improvement but we would just like to see something
decent brought to the area, and 20’ x 40’ or whatever, as long as it doesn’t roll in on
wheels and has some curb appeal and meets the tree code and all, I’m in support of that.
I’d just like to see it and get some assurance because quite frankly the case has always
been that anything is good enough for south Augusta but we wouldn’t dare build that in
other areas, and that’s not being regionalistic but that’s being factual. I can give you
many, many examples of that. While I support the idea of you putting your business in
there I’d like to see it. As soon as I can see what you plan to build I plan to support the
measure and help you get underway. But we’ve got too many things promised to us, only
to have things built that we’re exactly what we were told and unfortunately you’re caught
up in that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. [inaudible] if staff can work that out on the placement of what’s
going to basically be final, to bring back, let us do that. Bring it and to [inaudible]
Commissioner Williams’ question, I fully understand about the co-mingling. What I
think would happen, though, that we might penalize the petitioner from the standpoint if
the license is voted on just strictly up or down, because then it’s denied and then if you
come back with a [inaudible] plans you’ve denied the license that’s there, then that
person has to turn around and wait a lengthy period of time, which would actually be
punishment to the petitioner. So as mixed as it is, I’m going to leave it in there. All in
favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 7-1-1.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, a point of clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: That issue has been voted on and I’m going to let it stay but we
just got through talking about the attorney. The attorney should have been, somebody
should have been able to make a legal decision up or down on that. I’m not the Attorney.
I think there should have been somebody though to address that issue so we won’t be
confused as to what we doing in this meeting.
Mr. Mayor: I’m tempted to take a stab at that, too, but I’m going to leave that
alone. Go ahead, Madame Clerk, next item.
18
The Clerk:
12. Motion to approve Good Faith DBE language for RFPs, bids and contracts to
be placed in all documents let by Augusta Richmond County. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee July 25, 2005)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. At the request of Mr. Shepard, there was
apparently a little hitch in there that he needed to get some clarification on, and so I’m
pulling this in the interest of the Attorney.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Number 12. We’re on number 12.
Mr. Shepard: The good faiths efforts clause, sir?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. I talked with the staff attorney who prepared this and Ms.
Gentry and there is language in there that indicates that the failure to use the DBEs in the
contract, once it was awarded, “shall” constitute a breach of contract. But they didn’t go
on to have, which stated that there is a possible defense that would better be inserted
through the use of the word “may” in the document. Failure to utilize the DBEs “may”
be a breach of contract and it “may” result in a termination or other adjustment of the
contract. So I thought this was more consistent, instead of having the word “shall” in
there since we’re traveling under good faith efforts that we should have “may” constitute
a breach of contract. It may and it may not. So I talked to Ms. Gentry and Ms. Flournoy
prior to the meeting and during the meeting and they thought that would be consistent
with our good faith efforts as well. If you would like them to—
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to do like a marriage. I’m going to ask if anybody here
objects to this trio being joined together, speak now or forever hold their peace. I need to
hear from that to a point. If y’all are in agreement, fine, but we’ve been working on this
thing now—since 1990, old government, and we been working on the new government,
and we’ve been working on this one since the DBE person was hired. And you all
worked this out in committee and the last week and I’m a little curious about this “shall”
or “may” hang-up in here to a point, you know, when we get before 100,000 people to
discuss it. And I think it ought to be worked out to a point then. And they may be
satisfied with it. I’m not so sure I’m going to be satisfied with it. As one person. I don’t
have a vote but I’ve worked on it longer than anybody else. Now, I thought in the good
faith effort that was in there that good faith is what it says, that the person has exhausted
the methods of good faith, that it’s enough written in there that you can move on. It may
be in a case whereby they may not be able to use a small, woman-owned or minority
19
business. May not exist in that category. And then you’re not locked into it. But “shall”
and “may” can get us into a lot of language just like the consolidation Bill with “shall”
and “may” and we’re still dealing with some of that for ten years [inaudible]. So I want
to hear from the three of y’all with it because I’m about ready for this to move on and I
don’t know what date I’m leaving this building, but unlike Elvis I’m living, I’m coming
back whether I’m an elected official or not. I’ve worked too hard, too long on it, and I
didn’t intend for it to be a discussion in here today. I thought it was worked out and
through. Now, I’m turning it over to y’all to deal with but I’m going to be a little bit
disappointed if y’all have worked on this this long and y’all still got a hang-up about one
word than changes the complexion of it. And I’m sorry if anybody thinks I’m beating up
on anybody but that’s a “to whom it may concern” from Willie. Go ahead, you’ve got
the floor.
Ms. Gentry: Mr. Mays, Mayor, members of the Commission, the language was
drafted to ensure that all bidders make a good faith effort. To be honest with you, this
information was brought to my attention less than fifteen minutes ago and basically it’s
just a play upon words. One word does not indicate whether the individuals are making a
good faith effort. There are twelve steps that the Attorney, as well as myself and the
Director of Procurement worked on to ensure that we were doing all due diligence in the
event that the language was challenged. Again, to me it’s just a play on words. If Mr.
Shepard wants to use a different word it’s fine with me. I, like yourself, would like to
just move forward. As we speak, contracts are let each and every day. We really need to
just move forward with this.
Ms. Flournoy: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, in my review of the
language I am comfortable with it saying “constitute a breach of contract.” As I
conferred with Mr. Shepard a few minutes ago he said that “may” would lessen the
impact of the breach of contract, but I don’t think it lessens the impact of the overall
program. I think we still have a good DBE program. We still will be looking at the good
faith effort. When it gets to the breach of contract we’ve already looked on through the
good faith effort, opportunity for them to waive [inaudible] waiver if they cannot meet
the good faith effort or a substitution of a DBE [inaudible] particular DBE and that
person cannot comply with the terms of the contract then there’s a provision for a
substitution. So when we get to the breach of contract it’s always going to be last resort
as it reads. I also want you to know that it says it “shall” constitute—originally it said it
“shall” constitute a breach of contract, which “may” result in the termination of the
contract and such other remedies as deemed appropriate by the Owner. So it wasn’t a
requirement that if a breach of contract was determined—if it was a breach of contract it
was no requirement that the contract be terminated; that you, as the Owner—the Owner
refers to the Commission—you as the Commission would have the opportunity to, with
the recommendation of staff, to come up with an appropriate remedy under the
circumstances. So it wasn’t definite that a termination of the contract would be the result
of any breach of contract.
Mr. Mayor: Questions from the Commission?
20
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: And I agree with you, after all of the discussion and all of the
conversation about this department and trying to get it in place and how it’s been, for the
life of me I don’t understand why this was shared fifteen minutes ago, if Ms. Gentry is
correct in her time span. I need to know what it’s going to take to get this document
through and workable so we can go on. We spend all this time, we been moving with
Procurement, we been meeting with the DBE person, we been meeting with the Attorney,
we still [inaudible] everybody, and all this work supposed to be done, but everybody still
getting paid but ain’t no work been produced yet. That’s my problem, Mr. Mayor. Now,
if we ain’t being billed they can take forever. But we are still charging the taxpayers of
Augusta-Richmond County and paying folks to do a job that they have not done yet. And
I need to know what’s going to get it in place. “Shall” or “may,” whatever it’s going to
take to get it in place, that the DBE person going to be comfortable with. Not what the
Attorney going to be comfortable with, not what Procurement going to be comfortable
with, but wt the disadvantaged, small business, women-owned, person that we hired—we
took all that time to get—going to be comfortable with. And I think they need to be
working with her and the legal language that it’s going to take to be put in place. So
that’s my question, Mr. Mayor, I need to know what it’s going to take and how much
more time. And how much it’s costing us, too, that’s another thing, too.
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to let Mr. Shepard answer that. I’m so disappointed at this
point to a point there’s a bigger issue that I’m not going to even get into today but I am
just going to say disappointed, is the word. I spent an hour, better than an hour in legal
session and to a point of something and waiting for ten years to a point to be discussed to
be changed, this was ready to go. I resent it from the standpoint that I think it makes our
community look divisive when it does not have to be and I’m still disappointed in it. If
there was a problem it should have been discussed before it left committee and it should
never have entered the auspices of being placed on this agenda. No disrespect to
Commissioner Boyles but I think if the Attorney had a problem of dealing with it, then
the Attorney ought to ask the question in reference to it. I’m really just disappointed.
The floor is yours, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: And I hope we can go ahead and vote up or down after over fourteen
years of wrestling with this and to a point of dealing with it.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, thank you. And members of the Commission. We
talked to the committee about having a good document. I have followed through with
Ms. Flournoy’s authorship of this document and I just had the additional thought that if
we wanted to make a defensible document that the terms of the breach of contract should
indicate that that was a possible sanction. It is not a mandatory sanction but I just offered
this as an additional security for the good use, good faith concept being drafted into our,
21
into our contracts. And I asked one time for a floor amendment for the builders’
registration ordinance because I thought it improved it. Quite frankly, Mr. Mays, I didn’t
think of it until recently and the answer, the question would be well, you thought of it,
Mr. Shepard, why didn’t you bring it up? And I have fully cooperated with the DBE
officer and Ms. Flournoy has put a lot of work into this. To me it just made sense to
indicate that it was not a “shall” terminate but a “may” constitute breach of contract
which “may” lead to cancellation. You’ve used the word “may” already. And I’m just
thinking that it would be consistent with what had been written, that it may constitute a
breach of contract and that may lead to termination of the contract. It’s just, it’s just an
improvement that I saw and I thought I would be remiss if I did not bring it to the
attention of the body.
Mr. Mayor: I appreciate your wanting to not be remiss. I just wish that as a
former member of this body and now the City Attorney and to the point of how this has
had to be wrestled with, also of how DBE has had to wrestle with your office in reference
to cooperation of even being involved in these contracts, Mr. Shepard—
Mr. Shepard: Sir—
Mr. Mayor: No, no, sir, I still have the floor and still chair it. I am very
disappointed still to a point that I think this should have been either done prior to or not
done. The second thing is if it was entrusted to a staff attorney to do, I think to do this in
public, to be undressing one at this point is very demeaning at, at, at the least. And I
would be remiss if I sat here and didn’t say that. If you put an attorney in that’s supposed
to be qualified to work in conjunction with the DBE office, then as the person who heads
that department, if you do not have the confidence to do that prior to bringing it into this
body then I think we need to deal with a different issue other than that. Again I’m only
just disappointed and only because it’s taken a decade-and-a-half to get to this point. It’s
a very conservative measure, it deals with goals, it does not deal with any set-aside, it is
one in which even if you had followed the plan of the former City Attorney, Mr. Jim
Wall, in reference to how it was constructed and done, that is the most tested means and
has been upheld by every court that you can deal with in America in order to do it
because it does not specifically guarantee anything, and I think that’s the beauty of it. It
only provides opportunity and to be able to do it. And that people make the good faith to
do it. But I think at this point this was one particular deal that this City, quite frankly, did
not need to deal with today. If it was going to be that form of it then it should have been
one of the first things to come off of the agenda in order to deal with. Now, we started a
while ago to a point we dealt with legal. It wasn’t whispered to me fifteen minutes ago. I
mean we were in here dealing with other issues and the Attorney’s seat was basically
vacant and to do it. So I am disappointed in it and I hope the Commission approve after
coming in and dealing with this department that was put in in terms of the consolidation
Bill, the original part itself, the only part of it, quite frankly, that has not been acted on
until this day and time and taken us a decade to do, to be in this type of manner. We need
to move forward as one city in doing it. The language is there which is fair, it is
conservative, it does not put this City in any punitive means, and I think we need to
support the department that’s there. It has been a long struggle just within the confines of
22
getting departments in this City to cooperate and that’s with the attention of the
Attorney’s office as well. I would hope that you all will approve item 12 as is. It’s for
the betterment of this City in order to do that. Commissioner Cheek and then
Commissioner Boyles?
Mr. Cheek:
Mr. Mayor, according to our former City Attorney, “shall” and
“may” are the same things. I know y’all remember that from the discussion of the Legal
Department. But anyway, I’m like you, I’m ready to move on with this. This has been in
I just make a motion
the Legal Department’s hands for a couple of months now and
that we approve it as submitted.
It’s a document that we know we’re going to have to
review in a year, make adjustments to, tweak it, make it perform better. It’s just time to
move on with this and give this department some policies and procedures and guidelines
And so I make that in the form of a motion.
to help it work for the City.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Commissioner Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mays, my intention was to make the same motion that Mr.
Cheek just made.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you so much, Mr. Boyles. And while we’re on a 9-0 day I
hope the City Commissioners will see fit to make this one in that manner, too. The Chair
rules we have had enough discussion on it and hope we can heal from it. Motion and a
second. All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign, and that the language
remains as it is in the caption of the motion.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk:
15. Motion to approve to adopt resolution supporting NACO prescription drug
discount card program for Augusta-Richmond County. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee July 25, 2005)
16. Motion to approve the scheduling of a presentation regarding the
NACO/Maximus Debt Collection Program. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee July 25, 2005)
Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there discussion on it? Mr. Chairman?
23
Mr. Hankerson: Just briefly, because I’ve received some calls about the
prescription drug program, the discount program by NACO. And with this resolution and
once we turn in the resolution and get the necessary documents, the discount drugs will
help a lot of individuals that do not have insurance, prescription insurance, we’ll be ready
to go forward with that. Also, with the NACO Debt Collection Program, once we hear a
presentation we decide what—if we’re going to use Maximus, how can we used them in
collecting some debt that we do not have a program for. I know we already have a
program for fines and so forth, like that, with Sentinel. But this will go beyond that with
the million dollars that we have out there with uncollected debt. I’m quite sure that we
could use them in this area. So I just wanted to make those comments.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? If
not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. That’s on 14 and 15.
The Clerk: 15 and 16.
Mr. Mayor: 15 and 16, I’m sorry.
Mr. Boyles out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Number 17.
The Clerk:
17. Motion to approve a request from the Greater Augusta Arts Council for city
sponsorship of the Arts in the Heart of Augusta Festival. (Approved by Finance
Committee July 25, 2005)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Brenda, we had this discussion in
committee room and I wanted to find out or to ask some—and we are in support of trying
to support the request that you have. But it’s amazing to me how we have to pay out so
much money to the Sheriff’s Department to protect, to put on a City function. I
understand that we do need some off-duty officers to come in, but every event that we put
on—I mean we, it’s been costing this government a lot, a lot of money for extra
policemen to come down. And I’m just amazed that when we put on a special event that
we got to pay out so very much. I’m not opposing. I’m going to vote to support it but I
think it need to be noted that there has got to be another way. Commissioner Boyles and
myself, we comment when we was in Savannah, we went to Tybee Island and went out
on the boardwalk and they had this musical going on but we didn’t see any off-duty
police standing around with the lights flashing and pulling folks over and all this kind of
stuff. They was [inaudible] people to be able to enjoy themselves and to spend money in
their city. And that’s something we’ve got to get targeted to, get the law enforcement to
understand. If you break the law you ought to go to jail. I’m not saying anything other
24
than that. But I’m saying that we got to pay out so much money to have our off-duty
cops to come back in and to be able to stand and to be able to be a part of our city. What
happen if something happens in Augusta? I understand if there’s trouble, we got some of
the best cars, we got, we got more cars than any city our size, we got the best equipment,
we got all the technology, we ought to be able to convene whatever officers we need in
here. But it should not cost this government the money it’s costing us. And Brenda, if
you can give us those figures. Do you have those figures that we have to pay to assist us
and that kind of program?
Ms. Durant: The Sheriff’s deputies last year at Arts in the Heart cost the Greater
Augusta Arts Council $8,160.
Mr. Williams: And that was just on the Sheriff’s Department?
Ms. Durant: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And that’s every time this event is put on we put that or
more; is that right?
Ms. Durant: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: And we talk—
Ms. Durant: But I do want to make it clear that this is not officers sitting in cars
with lights flashing, making it look like we’re under siege. This is officers who are
friendly and helping our guarding our money and escorting our finance department and
helping us find lost children when one wanders away from its parents. We have never
had an incident at Arts in the Heart, ever, even the year that we had Arts in the Heart four
days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Washington, D.C. I’ve
always felt secure and I think the community has always felt secure at Arts in the Heart
because of the special, the special help that we have from the Sheriff’s Department.
Mr. Williams: And I guess my reason for bringing this is every year your group
comes to this government, to this body for funds for that. And I understand that. We’ve
got at any given time over 300 police cars on the street. We got 900 police cars in this
city. Every Monday morning you can go down to the City stables or the shop and you
can see all these cars. You think ain’t nobody working. My point is why should we have
to pay additional money for folks who already patrolling or should be patrolling? Now,
there may be some officers needed for like you say walking somebody to a place with
monies and whatever. But I think we spend a lot of time, a lot of money on off-duty. I
looked at the [inaudible] that was put out on the City and you had officers sitting there
with the lights flashing this time, and I’m guessing for safety. I’m not judging the
officers as why they do what they do. I’m just trying to figure out why we have to pay
for those services again after paying through tax paying and then pay for those services
again to put on. And there may be some special duty officers [inaudible] even any event
you have, you’ve got to have a fireman and you got to have a policeman and by the time
25
you pay those fees to have an officer there, a fireman there, the fee comes going up. So I
just wanted to bring that to the table. I’m in support. We talked about it in committee
but I think we need to look at how we can streamline, how we can cut back on those
expenses. When you come to this body and ask for and normally we try to support that,
so it just, it just, it getting to be expensive I think and it’s beginning to add up if you look
at it, where we stand.
Ms. Durant: We’re planning additional festivals this year at the Arts Council and
I know that the City is hoping to add additional festivals through other means. I’d be
glad to take on that challenge to work, to continue to work on how to streamline that.
Mr. Williams:I make a motion to approve.
That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Mr. Cheek: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Brenda, I’m going to put you on the spot here. Since we have an
absence in the director position at DDA is that going to impact the coordination of events
for the next few months, do you think?
Ms. Durant: No, not at all, Commissioner Cheek. I’ve never depended on the
DDA or Main Street for any assistance with any of my events.
Mr. Cheek: So there’s really no impact and the events run themselves?
Ms. Durant: Not on the ones of the Greater Augusta Arts Council at all.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Ms. Durant: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk: That concludes our consent agenda, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Go to regular.
The Clerk:
26
RICHMOND COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS:
25. Report from the Chief Tax Appraiser regarding the 2005 Tax Digest.
26. Report from Finance Director regarding 2004 property tax revenues.
27. Set 2005 Millage Rate.
Ms. Birkinshaw: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. I am pleased
to announce that the Tax Assessor’s Office has finished compiling the digest for 2005.
We have delivered it over to the Board of Education and to the comptroller for computing
the millage rollbacks or whatever millage rate that you decide you’re going to adopt.
And as it stands right now we have a tentative appointment with the Department of
Revenue on August 19 that will be dependent upon the value in dispute being at the
proper level. At this point we are probably $3 million over but by that point in time I’m
hoping that it will be at the proper level.
Mr. Boyles: Could you give us those numbers again? We couldn’t hear.
Ms. Birkinshaw: The digest figures?
Mr. Boyles: Please.
Mr. Cheek: If you could step up to the microphone a little bit closer, please.
Ms. Birkinshaw: The net M&O digest for 2005 is $3,964, 504,054. That is a
40% figure. That is not 100%. That represents an 11.5% increase over 2004.
Mr. Boyles: 11.5%?
Ms. Birkinshaw: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Any questions to the Tax Assessor? Go ahead, Andy.
Mr. Cheek: That’s, that’s 40% , that $3.9 million plus—represents 40% of the
total amount if the adjustment were laid out across the board for the increase in millage,
the increase in revenue I mean?
Ms. Birkinshaw: The 40% figure is the assessment ratio in the State. If you
wanted the 100% figure you would divide that by 40%, by .40.
Mr. Cheek: I guess the question I’m asking, because certainly millage and that
type of thing are not my particular area of expertise, is what’s the, what is the total
amount that the City can expect of its 29 cents of every dollar as a factor of the increase
in the re-evaluations of properties for the coming year if everything stayed the same?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if I may. What numbers she gave you is on the tax
history that’s in your book. That 40% is the tax rate of the value of the property here in
Augusta so that’s $3 billion.
27
Mr. Cheek: That’s after homestead exemption?
Mr. Russell: That’s after all the exemptions and stuff like that and you’ve taken
the 40%.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Russell: The total value of our property here in Augusta is 60% above that,
which would be double plus a little bit, so you’re probably talking a lot of money.
(Laughter)
Mr. Cheek: My question is how much—you know, we have a deficit that we fund
and had to go into our savings. With the re-evaluation of properties what can we expect
to see if we don’t change the millage rate, keep it the same, don’t make any adjustments
or tax rollbacks? What dollar value is that going to bring and is that going to offset the
deficit?
Mr. Russell: If you go through the different funds, generally speaking, and David
can probably help me with that. If you do not roll back the millage you’re going to get a
total of $44,724,000. If you roll that back you’re looking at a difference of $2.7 million
or so in the general fund. That doesn’t include the balanced funds. If you look at the
general funds over all which would include urban services, the capital outlay, fire
protection, [inaudible] fire district, you’re looking at about $4 million total, a little bit less
than that.
Mr. Cheek: We’re zeroing in on the question here and maybe I’m not phrasing it
properly. The question is, we have a deficit of about $6 million to cover, to break even,
without going into savings, plus or minus a few dollars.
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Cheek: We’re going to be asked to set the millage rate here in just a few
minutes. The question is do we need to roll back that amount? If we roll it back what’s
the impact going to be on the deficit? Can we erase the deficit by not rolling it back?
Mr. Russell: Now I understand what you’re asking. Let me give you my
recommendation. That’s the point we’re at. My recommendation would be that in the
general fund we budgeted approximately $2 million or so to go into our fund balance. If
we do not roll back the millage and keep it at the current level we would be able to pretty
much close that gap. About 60% to 75% of that goes toward law enforcement and the
general fund. There are some additional funds that would go to the fire protection fund,
Blythe urban services fund, the Blythe fire and capital outlay. It would be my
recommendation that we maintain the millage at its rate that you adopted in November
and do not roll back that millage.
28
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams and then Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Russell, I appreciate your insight and I think you probably
[inaudible] Finance Director. But I want to hear from David Persaud. I want him on this
camera here. I want him on this tape. To reiterate to me on some numbers here. If we
keep things as Mr. Russell has said, Mr. Persaud, in your opinion is that—I mean just
give me your opinion I guess is the best thing to do, Mr. Persaud.
Mr. Persaud: Thank you, Commissioner Williams. The report you have in front
of you basically is a presentation [inaudible] rate. The 2005 is going to bring in the same
revenues as 2004 [inaudible] new construction. If you leave the rate as it is without any
millage increase [inaudible] general fund [inaudible] additional $372,000. If you do not
roll back the rate and keep the rate in 2005 the same rate as 2004 we will bring in $2.7
million. Going back to the companion question from Commissioner Cheek, will that
close the budgetary gap? No, because the budgetary gap is almost $6 million to $7
million. So you still have $4 million budgetary gap unless you’re going to deplete your
reserves. So you’re looking at a budgetary gap and basic service level of $6 million to $7
million with inflation or 2004 dollar value [inaudible] new revenues of $2.7 million so
you still have a budgetary gap.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The only way you’re going to get rid of
that budgetary gap is either raise millage and raise everybody’s taxes or go into your
reserves; correct?
Mr. Persaud: Or reduce expenditures.
Mr. Grantham: Right.
Mr. Persaud: That’s so, Commissioner.
Mr. Grantham: And I think that’s something we don’t want to have to do and
look at. One of my recommendations was based on the revaluation and increase in the
property values that we had back this past year, was that everyone always talked about
well, if we raise the value of properties then your taxes are going to increase but in the
first year we’ll roll back those taxes so that you’ll not pay any more this year than you did
the previous year. And I think that was pretty much the conversation that I had with a lot
of people. And of course knowing the shortfall that we were in, based on our general
fund, look like we were either going to have to have a no rollback or a percentage of
rollback to at least let the people who are paying the taxes to know that we’re trying to
look after them to some degree. And I feel like that we do owe them that much, that we
need to have a percentage of rollback in order to show some good faith and good
29
initiative on our part in trying to balance our books and our budgets that we have,
realizing that of that percentage our public safety is most important to this community.
And we know that the Sheriff’s Department has been facing some tough times recently
with maintaining the deputies, as well as being able to buy equipment and promote the
deputies that are certainly on staff right now. I think it’s important that we leave enough
of that increase in this tax digest that we’ve had that we’ll be able to take care of the
public safety of our community. And so it’s my recommendation that we do a 20%
rollback in the taxes that we have in front of us today. So I’m going to put that in the
form of a motion that we have a 20% millage rollback based on the increase of property
value and taxes that have just been distributed to us today.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that has been put in place and I know that’s a little
ahead of 27, but because all of this is going in the same context, I’m going to allow the
motion to stay on the floor if there is a second to it.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mays, I’d like to second with a couple of comments.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Go ahead.
Mr. Boyles: If we roll it back 20% and we’re talking about $2.7 million in
increased dollars, was that the difference I heard you use, David, $2.7 million? I heard
that figure a while ago. So you’re rolling back to 80%; am I correct? You’re rolling it
back 20% to 80% of that, which if my math is not very good or as quick as it was, but
80% of $2.7 million I would guess would be probably—
Mr. Persaud: [inaudible]
Mr. Boyles: Dropping about half a million.
Mr. Persaud: [inaudible]
Mr. Boyles: In the audit we received last week we did about $3 million better last
year than we anticipated and all of us know from being out at the gasoline pumps that the
price of gasoline that the citizens and all of us paid about $1.40, $1.45 last year, and
paying about $2.00, $2.10 right now, that that’s an increased value in the sales tax that
comes to the City also; am I correct about that, David? Before I say that am I correct?
That there will be a—I’m not going to use the word “windfall” except here but there
should be an additional amount over what was expected in the sales tax because of the
higher prices of gasoline? Would that be—
Mr. Persaud: That’s a safe assumption.
Mr. Boyles: Safe assumption then. So I think that we’re safe by going ahead
with 20% rollback in the millage. As I said before, Mr. Mays, I second that motion of
Mr. Grantham’s.
30
Mr. Mayor: Let me, let me just say this. I’m glad to hear the word rollback being
used period, but I’ve got a question and then a comment. Mr. Russell, Mr. Persaud,
looking at deadlines in terms of dropping dead with getting millage rates set, where are
th
we on it? Are we on it right now? You mentioned in reference to the 19? Just kind of
gathering all of the information.
Mr. Russell: To do the advertisements necessary to either—to not roll back the
millage entirely, it’s my understanding we had to make a decision today.
Mr. Mayor: But if we’re looking at a partial rollback or a complete rollback then
what are our deadlines on that issue?
Mr. Russell: The deadlines are the same. Anything in addition, anything that we
keep above what the rollback numbers would be would have to be advertised as a tax
increase and requires three public hearings. So you have to go through the same process
if you roll it back, if you don’t roll it back at all, or if you roll it back 90%, the same
process is used.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, that answers my question in reference to deadline. Let me tell
you the problem I have, and I’m glad to hear the word “rollback” but let me tell you the
problem I have with 20%. Having not discussed at this point in time in reference to what
preliminary figures we plan to ask departments to adhere to in reference to the
possibilities of expenditure trimming, it puts us somewhat in a premature position
because that 20% or let’s say that 80% that you’re looking to keep, if that’s not closing
the gap, for lack of a better term that 20% hasn’t done anything but made some folks
mad. We can’t control the dates and deadlines because fiscal years, budgets, all those
things fall at a different time. But I think to a point when you do not know what you’re
going to ask folk to take off and I heard last week, too, Commissioner Boyles, the $3
million in the savings measure that’s in there, but I’m concerned about the fact that we
are playing a numbers game here. And it’s a very serious numbers game. I was in west
August during the bond hearings, I was in Turpin Hill, I was in south Richmond. Income
levels were different, people may have looked a little bit different, may have sounded a
little different. But one thing that they all echoed and they had in mind at the same time,
there was a three letter word that echoed loud and clear and it was spelled T-A-X. Didn’t
change because of location, didn’t change because of party affiliation, didn’t change
because of color or income. It was very clear. Now, I’m concerning about the fact that
we may have to a point [inaudible] portion of it that we can get, but let’s do a little
riverboat gambling now. Do you want to take $2.7 million or a portion of it because you
can or do you want to look at the fact that you may gamble on $35 million per year
because some people may use the Lewis Newman theory that they don’t always fight you
about what they say they’re mad with you about. I think you’re in a different scenario
this year and it gets back to what you were talking about, Don, that once we got to these
assessments that the kind of off-the-record agreement was going to be that the first year
you deal with those increases probably would be the no-no. Now, that that I’ve argued
about and even begged about for over a decade in terms of educating people and
ourselves about what we do as a government, what we provide in terms of the tax
31
structure, most people think that we probably have the highest taxes in Georgia. They
know nothing about us being the lowest millage rate in terms of a metro county. They
basically feel that they’re too high. And that’s the fault of this government. I think you
need a year of preparation to talk about what you’re spending, how you’re spending it,
and how people can react to it. [inaudible] Gene Hunt when I’m talking about taxes, but
Gene was one of the one [inaudible] Rev. Hankerson, I know he’s your brother-in-law.
But Gene served on that committee which showed what we needed to be doing, what we
needed to be talking about six, seven years ago, this government, a few years after it was
consolidated. And we’ve not done that. And I think at this point in time to say all right,
we can balance it out of that means and we’ll take most of it and yet we’ll make some
folk feel good because we stuck rollback in there and we deal with 20%, yet we don’t
know at this point what we’re going to ask for in the budget. We’re talking about $6
million and a deficit to a point we don’t know how that door is going to be closed. I just
think to a point that folk are going to see through that like a clean glass that’s just been
sprayed with Windex. I think to a point the retaliation figure can be to a point that we
answer it to a no-no in November with what you deal with with sales tax. I would much
rather see us, and this is just personal opinion, bite the bullet in terms of what we may
have to deal with this year because we have not educated the taxpayers properly in terms
of what they pay, what they can expect, how long those millage rates really are, and give
some breathing time in there to those who have been reassessed and deal with new
figures. I think anything less than that is going to put us possibly in jeopardy, and if you
can do elementary math, $2.7 million from $35.0 million doesn’t even compare. So I
hope that we will think very thorough about it. I know we said about deadlines. But if
it’s probably anything that if we had an extra night to sleep on, this would be that subject.
I respect the Administrator for bringing it because he’s been truthful about what it is and
where the numbers are. Our Finance Director has been very thorough [inaudible] come
from for a long time. But some simple measures that this government could have done
under all our leadership from the point of talking about this over and over, some of us
have tried on so many occasions to do it, but as a solid government we have not done that
and it just bothers me to a point that while it’s the right—while we may have the right to
do it isn’t necessarily the smartest thing to do. Because there’s a factor in there that we
can’t control and that rests with the general public in terms of saying that they know a
great difference between 20 and 100. We’ll know a difference between $2.7 million and
$35 million, and I’m just not sure whether that is the prudent and correct thing to do.
Now, that much I liked about rollback, the word. But the numbers in there, I’m
disappointed if we go in that direction. I just think to a point it’s too big a gamble. It
means to a point that if we lose that sales tax there will be pink slips to hit the exit door in
this county government in massive numbers and how they function. Can we do it in
terms of one more year? I realize that little office over there is small next door. I’m
looking at a Clerk that works one person down in hers. I’m looking at some managers
over there that we’ve taken and we’ll probably have to ask some folk to do the same for
one more year. And at the same time start in January, whoever comes into this office as
being Mayor, to take the official leadership and say this is what we need to talk about in
terms of our money, go throughout this county, every Rec center that we’ve got and to
schedule those meetings and to talk about what we have in terms of taxes, what we pay,
what we expect, what we should be getting, and maybe some of the items that we should
32
not be doing. But I’m thinking this is where we are at that decision to make. I think it’s
a gamble that I would much rather see you all not take than take. Do we need the
money? Yes. But can we afford to lose the $33 million and leave it on the table per year
times five years? I don’t think we can. And those are my comments. And I’m not
saying that to a point of whether or not I’m out of here or in here, because if I’d been
voting just like y’all I’d have been out of here anyway. But it’s to a point that you know
I’m not hypocritical and I’ve preached this about taxes for the last ten years now, since
this government has been established, of the things we’ve not done in a prudent way and
it’s just a simple means of communication. We’ve not done it. I recognize
Commissioner Cheek and then Commissioner Sims for comment on this end first.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One of the greatest things we can do to
enhance our position in the eyes of the community is to send out two bills. That doesn’t
mean we don’t collect for all the governing bodies, but if the people if this city saw how
little we collected in light of the School Board, I think they would see they’re getting a
pretty big bang for their dollar and I really think that’s one way to set us apart and let
people know where their money is going, one. And two, we’re operating this
government in deficit. We’re taking from our savings account. We did that with our
solid waste collection service and then a few months later everybody scratched their head
and said geez, you know, how did that happen and what are we going to do to correct it?
Sales tax will stand on its own merit, this is just Andy’s opinion. Rolling back these
taxes it will equate to $2 or $3 or maybe $10 a household overall for all portion of the
tax. The bottom line is we can’t afford to run this government in deficit. And I can’t
believe we’re actually sitting here considering running it in deficit and taking out of
savings again. The fact is if we make no adjustments whatsoever the austere budget steps
that we had to take this last year will still have to remain in place. We’re going to still
have higher increases and potentially look at some layoffs in order to balance the budget
for the year coming. Again we’re deferring a problem to another year and taking out of
our savings because it’s the easy thing to do. If we put together a good, comprehensive
SPLOST package and promote it together that is consistent with the packages of the past,
it will pass. The thing about this thing, we are here to be good stewards of the people’s
city and their finances. If they’re getting good services for the money they pay,
everybody I’ve talked to said they don’t mind that as long as they see they’re getting
something for their money. But for us to throw these little token things out—people are
smarter than that. We are running the City in deficit. We are borrowing from our
savings account which is getting smaller by the year in the hopes—and I’ve heard this
every year that it’s going to get better next year or we’re going to do something better
next year—the fact is we went fourteen or so years without raising taxes. [inaudible]
prices and other grants and other things have quit over the years and so we’ve been left
with less money coming in from other sources and it’s fallen back heavier and heavier on
property taxes. We have got to get to a point—and we are one of the lowest-taxed cities
when it comes to city services to the homeowners in the state. Now, I’ve heard this and I
think a partial rollback, it’s a great and grand gesture, but is it better for the people to get
$2 or $3 back or for the people to have some confidence that their City is being run in a
financially-sound manner which means not running it in deficit? I’m in favor of
following the Administrator’s recommendations myself. Even if we follow them and do
33
no rollback we’re still going to have to have very austere management of this
government, we’re still going to have to have hiring freezes and freezes in expenditures
and other things in order to balance the budget. True, if SPLOST doesn’t pass we’re
going to have to lay off a whole bunch of folks. But if we don’t get a SPLOST package
together that’s consistent with what the people want by the end of this month it’s not
going to pass anyway.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to say that I want very, very much
for us to act as a unified front here. I want the people in Augusta that do pay taxes, which
is most everybody—I think they’re looking to this government to see what we’re going to
do. We’ve reassessed their property and we’ve all said we’re going to take care of that in
a year. I think we are compelled to roll back for the taxpayers. I do not think that we can
go without doing that. The reason I say it? I don’t believe SPLOST will pass because
this will be another case of our taking money and their not knowing what’s happening to
it. I know that we are going to do a good package. I believe we will with SPLOST. But I
don’t think we can not roll back and expect the taxpayers to pass the SPLOST. I think it
hinges on whether or not we roll back any of these taxes. That’s my opinion.
Mr. Mayor: Don?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Looks like my motive really got started
in the right direction by talking about either rollback and what percentage and what idea
and what thoughts we were going to take to the public. I appreciate your comments in
regard to what we had talked about when we were going to do the revaluation of
properties, because we did talk about that there would be a rollback based on the taxes
that I had discussed earlier. I realize that what our deficit problems are right now, you
know, I could come in real easily and say yes, let’s don’t roll back anything, let’s take the
money and cover our shortfall. I don’t have that opportunity to do at home the same way
we do here. And so I have to make certain cuts, I have to make certain adjustments
within my business or within my home as to how I’m going to spend the dollars that I
have available for me. And I think that’s what we’re talking about right now. Ms. Sims
hit the nail on the head when she said we need to regain the confidence of the people.
And to me that’s one of the most important issues that we take today. We don’t have the
opportunity re-evaluate based on our budget before the end of the year as to any type of
millage increase or decrease or whatever. I think what we’re doing today is just
establishing a guideline as to what we would like to see happen for the future of our
government, for the future of the people, and that is to initiate good, sound business,
financial decisions. And by doing that I set a 20% rollback and sure, that is, that is
peanuts when it comes to the amount of dollars that we talk about. But I think I’d rather
have a little piece of pie than no piece of the pie at all. First of all I’d like to have the
whole pie but we can’t do that right now. So I think in a commitment that has been that
you reminded me of, Ms. Sims, as far as getting the confidence of the people again and
the rollback that we were going to look at, as I look at our Administrator here right now
I’m sure that he can find a way for us to make adjustments and for us to do the things that
34
are right and necessary to make this work and to give us a budget and to give us a good
SPLOST program that our people will accept and that the voters will again gain some
confidence in this government. I’m going to ask that I amend my motion and I know I’m
going against the better judgment and some things that people have asked me to do. But
I’m going to amend my motion that we have 100% rollback in our tax, and if we show
the people that we are being prudent in what we are trying to do and that in the future we
want to educate these taxpayers and voters as our Mayor Mays said and let them know
what is necessary for us to do in the future. So I’m going to amend my motion to that
point that we have a 100% rollback in our revaluation and what’s been presented to us
today.
Mr. Hankerson: I second the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Grantham: You’re on the spot.
Mr. Russell: Thank you for your confidence. We’ll be turning the straw into gold
in the tower upstairs very shortly.
(Laughter)
Mr. Russell: Is that Rapunzel? I think the motion, if I may help, should read that
we adopt the state mandated rollback and that we meet again on the 18th to confirm that.
We will advertise that as appropriate. That would not allow us the necessity of having
the public hearings. If you could amend your motion to cover those two items. Make
sure I didn’t leave anything out. Is that right?
Mr. Shepard: The schedule.
Mr. Russell: We need to adopt the schedule on page 3 of the document that you
have in front of you in the agenda item that you have in front of you and then confirm
that we would meet again on the 18th for a special called meeting to adopt the final
millage, which would be this millage with no rollback and would be advertised
accordingly. We have the paper on standby to do that, sir.
Mr. Grantham: I’ll accept that.
Mr. Mayor: Were you going to say something, Mr. Persaud?
Mr. Persaud: No, I just wanted to bring to your attention that [inaudible] .
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles and then Commissioner Cheek. Oh, I need to recognize
the lady last between you, too. [inaudible] we’ll save the best for last on that [inaudible].
35
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Again, that’s what I was trying to emphasize
a little while ago as Finance chairman that this past year when we had budget requests—
I’m going to use round figures—of approximately $112 million, $113 million, that we
had projected revenues of $102 million, $103 million, and we cut this budget back 6.9%
for all departments and 3.8% for the Sheriff’s Office. But it looks like when Miss Meg
comes in and tell us there’s an 11.5% increase in the tax digest, the taxable portion, the
40% I think it what you say, Meg, 11.5%, and knowing that by tightening our belts last
year we came up $3 million better, and our auditor said that, $3 million better than we
expected and we know that the sales tax—I know this past weekend was a bad gauge but
you couldn’t go anywhere that somebody wasn’t buying something. You had to wait to
get anything. And I know that there’s got to be inventory tax and everything else that
maybe we don’t get the sales tax, maybe our Rep. Howard can tell us that, we don’t get
the sales tax but we do get inventory tax and those kind of things that come in as a part of
that. So I’m tickled to death to hear the zero tax rate.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek and then Commissioner Sims.
Mr. Cheek: So in other words we’re telling our employees no pay raise again this
year, we’re telling our Sheriff’s Department who is losing significant people no pay raise,
we’re telling our staff to cut another 6%, which means additional cuts over and above
what they’re already doing which remain in place until we lift it as a governing body?
We continue to run this government in deficit to the tune of Lord knows how much, when
we’re going to get into the blood of the cushion which is recommended by government
accounting practice, so many days of operational capital. I just—I understand the intent
and I’d love to give everybody no taxes and us have gold streets and just parade around
just in Shangri La but this is the real world. Gas prices have gone up, energy prices have
gone up, medical prices have gone up. We’re going to send a token out to the people,
and the true token is we may not raise your taxes this year but you’re going to lose 25%
or 30% of your Sheriff’s Department, we’re going to train them for $25,000 and then
they’re going to leave and go work someplace else where they pay more, we’re not going
to give any of the employees who have had their medical benefits cost go up any pay
raise, we’re not going to increase salaries to our Fire Department and our Sheriff’s
Department all for election year, election year politicking. And you know, this is not
going to solve the problems. We don’t have a major economic boom staring us in the
face. We have consistent increases in the cost of energy and gasoline and everything else
staring us in the face in the next few years. We need to make some corrections. Rolling
it back makes everybody feel good, but when we swore ourselves into this office, got
sworn in and put our hands on the Bible, we said we would manage this city in a
financially sound way. Running it in deficit is not financially sound. And what
[inaudible] mentioned about your household the other day, well, this is the equivalent of
your boss saying I’m going to give you a $2 an hour pay raise to help you cover the cost
of raising your kids and you telling him no, I’m going to go ahead and continue to borrow
money or take it out of savings, I don’t need your pay raise. This city is short of money.
This city is short of money. We have a very low tax digest as it is. SPLOST failed not
because of anything else other than the way we managed putting it together and then not
working together to publicize it. I just think this is—and I’m not a financial expert—but
36
if I continue to dip into my savings to run my household and spent the same amount of
money, pretty soon I’d be broke. We need a rainy day fund and we’re digging into it.
Ladies and gentlemen, this may sound good and you may think it’s going to buy a lot of
public trust but that’s going to take time and it’s going to take all of us working together.
This one act isn’t going to do it. I think this is bad business for the City of Augusta
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with my twin brother, my
colleague on a lot of what he just said. When you talking about services that are going to
have to be cut, that [inaudible] tell employees you’ve got to do more with less. I’ve got
people still complaining now about all the overgrowth that we got in this city, the rain we
had and how much flooding and stuff is backing up and then when you talking about
being the second largest city in this state, one of the lowest tax base out of 159 counties, I
mean it’s, it’s never easy. But I think we have to make those solid decision on things that
going get us to another level. I said it before and I ain’t got no problem saying it now.
We not do anything to bring monies into Augusta. And if we was doing that and say we
not going to rollback anything—it’s something that got to be done and I don’t think this
going solve it. I don’t know what the answer is but I do know that when you tell the
employees who—we started off talking about the national average, what they paid, the
national average, and we start giving one pay and another pay and the rest of them ain’t
got it. We got some folks who got money in one fund that they can pay and other
employees can’t get paid. We got folks that been here for 25 or 30 years that still hadn’t
got a raise in the last 15 years. I mean somewhere we going to have to bite the bullet, we
are going to have to do what is necessary. So I wanted to make that comment. I been
sitting here listening. Don’t know the answer, Mr. Mayor, but I don’t think this is going
to do it. I think we are going end up with some sleepless nights worrying about how we
going to make some things work with the public safety. I look at the fire chief over there
and the stuff that the Fire Department wants to do and they need to do those things. But
it takes money. And if you ain’t bringing some money in you ought to have some money
already in here somewhere and I just don’t think we have that. That’s my comment, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much, Commissioners. Are there any comments on
the motion? We’ve had a lot of discussion on it. There’s only one motion that’s out
there. Am I correct, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Amended.
Mr. Mayor: There was no objection to the amendment so it’s still the one motion
that’s there which has been amended.
Mr. Cheek: What was the motion?
The Clerk: The motion was to adopt the state-mandated, no rollback.
37
Mr. Cheek: Substitute motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Hold on. Just one second, Andy.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
The Clerk: Rollback.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Cheek [inaudible]. You’ve got the—
The Clerk: 100% rollback. 100% rollback. State mandated with no public
hearing.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek, you have the floor.
Mr. Cheek: That’s the original motion, amended; is that correct?
The Clerk: Yes, it is.
Mr. Cheek: I make a substitute motion to follow the recommendations of the
Administrator with no rollback.
Mr. Williams: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Substitute motion, the Administrator’s recommendation of no
rollback. The Chair recognizes the Administrator.
Mr. Russell: Let me correct something I missaid before. What we need to do, if
you don’t want to do the rollback, is just adopt the third page, the schedule in your packet
there. That is inclusive of the rollback as determined by the state formula. The language
of the 100% rollback is my interpretation but that’s not accurate. You’d adopt that
schedule that’s in your book, which would include the mandated state rollback. That was
the intent.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. There are two motions on the floor. We’ll take the substitute
motion first. Does anyone need a reading on either one of them? If not we move to the
substitute motion. All in favor of that motion will do so by the usual sign.
(Vote on the substitute motion)
Mr. Boyles, Mr. Grantham, Ms. Sims, and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Ms. Beard abstains.
Motion fails 4-4-1.
Mr. Mayor: Go to the original motion.
The Clerk: The adoption of the schedule in our books. State mandated rollback.
38
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion will do so by the usual sign.
(Vote on the original motion)
Mr. Williams, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Ms. Beard abstains.
Motion fails 5-3-1.
Mr. Mayor:
Because of the urgency, Madame Clerk, of what we have before us
the Chair is going to entertain a motion that since
in terms of the deadlines of time,
neither one passed here, is going to entertain a motion if I can get it to table until the
last item of this Commission meeting.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. All in favor of the motion will do so by the
usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if we could—do we have guests here on 31?
[inaudible] Madame Clerk, before they get a little restless let’s move to item 32. I’ll
come back and hit 31 and 29.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENT:
32. Appointment of Interim District 9 Commissioner. (No action vote – July 5,
2005 and deferred from the July 26, 2005 meetings)
Mr. Mayor: The Chair is open for the usual way in which we do nominations on
appointments and that is to receive them and we’ll vote on a nominee or nominees in the
order in which they are received.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I nominate Freddie Handy.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Handy’s name has been placed in nomination, first nominee.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
39
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: I nominate Barbara Gordon.
Mr. Mayor:
Ms. Gordon’s name has been placed in as second nominee. Are
The Chair will entertain a
there any other nominations to my left? Any to my right?
motion we close the nominations.
Mr. Grantham: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Vote to close on the nomination, all in favor
of the motion do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see where this is going. We will vote on them in the order in
which they were received. All in favor of the nomination of Mr. Handy, Mr. Freddie
Handy for the District 9 seat.
(Vote for Mr. Handy)
Mr. Williams and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Ms. Beard abstains.
Motion carries 6-2-1.
Mr. Mayor: Let us congratulate Mr. Handy on the nomination of the Super
District Commission seat for District 9.
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, did we do a stand-by?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, we did.
Mr. Mayor: If the Commissioner-Elect would like to have some comments at this
time, we can kind of consider this a semi-recess period because we’re going to have to do
a swearing in. He’s been selected but not sworn in at this point. We have to summon
one of the Judges in order to do the swearing in.
Mr. Handy: Good evening. Good evening. To the Mayor and Commissioners,
I’d like to say thanks. Thanks for selecting me to be the representative of District 9. I’d
also like to let all of you know that I’m ready to work, I’m ready to roll up my sleeves
and work for Augusta. Not only Augusta, I’m ready to work with the Commissioners of
District 1, 2, 4, and 5. 1, 2, 4 and 5, I am obligated to work with those Commissioners
because they make up District 9. So if there is anything that I could say to you today is
40
thank you for making this selection and you will not be let down because I will be here to
work for Augusta. Thank you.
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to recognize any guests, Commissioner? I see one
tall fellow back there trying to sneak out. I remember when he couldn’t see a thing when
he first started coming down here.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor: If we could—I didn’t know how long 29—Commissioner?
Mr. Hankerson: I’m ready.
Mr. Mayor: The Commissioner is ready. Let’s do 29 and then we’ll deal with
the recess.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
29. Approve the implementation of the 2006 Defined Benefit Plan. (Requested by
Commissioner Bobby Hankerson)
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] If you’ve got some comments, fine, but I think you’re
going to get a good vote over here.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I do have some comments to make on it. I appreciate that
because it’s been such a long haul to get this far with working on this. It’s not an easy
process even though some of the employees thought that it was a moot issue and we
received letters from department heads about how far we are with this, but I just want the
citizens and the employees really to know that it’s not an easy process when you start
going through the legal process of combining pension plans and so forth. We are not
where we want to be. This is just the first phase of it. But we’re working on it. I think
this that we are presenting today will be better than what we already have. That’s why it
took so long and we’ve been meeting and meeting and I’d like to thank our
Administrator, Deputy Administrator Leverett for working with this, along with Ms.
Brenda Pelaez and also our Finance Director and our Attorney for working diligently to
41
get us this far. We are still working on it. It still needs a lot of improvement but at this
time our HR Director is going to come and kind of brief us on where we are and what we
need to do as a vote at this time.
Ms. Pelaez: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Administrative Services Chairman. The
pension plan that you have before you today is actually our way of trying to transition
back to a defined benefit plan. We currently have the 1998 pension plan which is the one
that all of our employees mandatorily have to enter into. That is a defined contribution
plan. We’ve had a series of discussions with employees and as I’m sure you’ve heard
from several of our employees or may have heard from our employees regarding the
contribution statements that they received. There’s a lot of skepticism as to the ability to
retire under the 1998 plan simply because we are not—they’re not as sound in the
investments as we would like to be. And therefore we feel as an employer it is our
purpose to make sure that at the time that employees have worked very diligently for us
and that at the time of retirement they are able to retired and have an ascertainable and
defined benefit as well as medical benefits. Now, what we had originally proposed, we
wanted to have that in Phase II, we were wanting to merge the 1977 plan and the 1998
plan, giving an increase in the multiplier. However, there are some issues with the 1977
plan, some past issues that we still need to address before the IRS so therefore we were
advised by counsel in D.C. if we still wanted to go forward with a pension plan for our
remaining employees for the 1998 pensioners as well as those employees that are not in
any plan at all that we should essentially mirror the 1977 plan. And that is what the 2006
plan is. It is the very same plan that we have in place for the 1977 plan. You will have
the ability to have early retirement at age 50 and 15 years of service, you’ll have the
ability to have regular retirement at age 62 and 25 years of service, or of course age 65.
Built into this 2006 plan is also your non-employment related disability as well
employment related disability. It is the exact same plan that we currently have in place
for the 1977. However, for the 1998 people, when they decide to leave there is actually
not a retirement under the 1998 pension plan per se, but now if they were to enroll into
the 2006 plan they would be able to take medical benefits with them, whereas where they
are now they just leave and have the sum of money that’s in their account, they would not
have access to medical benefits upon their retirement. So essentially as Commissioner
Hankerson has stated it is the first step. Of course, it’s by no means what we originally
want to say this is what we’re leaving you with but it does get us in a better direction that
now those employees that are in no pension and that are in the ’98 pension plan, they can
make the decision as to whether or not they want to enroll in the 2006 defined benefit
plan.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, if I could add to this, one thing, the original goal was
and thanks to the Commissioners for allowing me to work on this and encourage. One
thing that it was coming before us was there were employees in the ’98 plan that would
not have medical insurance if they retired. And under this 2006 plan that will correct that
problem. So that’s one of the things.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner, thank you for being diligent on that. I
know it was one of the things that you wanted to look at when you first came aboard as a
42
Commissioner and for being patient but continuing to work hard on it. I think it’s gotten
at least to this [inaudible] and with a motion and a second that’s already on the floor, and
I see the Judge waiting, I’m going to—Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ll be brief. I’ll try not to be premature in saying
congratulations, Mr. Chairman. And really, the dedication and hard work you’ve shown
in pushing this through and your team has been a tremendous step forward. I think we’ve
got greater things ahead as you keep working on it. Congratulations.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’re going to wait just a little on that recess. I see the young
gentleman in the robe back there that I started with a long time ago. [inaudible] they say
judges have always got a lot of time on their hands but I don’t like to play with them
because they may give it out at the wrong way. But Judge, you can come forward with
this time. The Commissioner-Elect will be with us.
Judge Brown: [inaudible] repeat after me. I, Freddie Lee Handy—
Mr. Handy: I, Freddie Lee Handy—
Judge Brown: Swear or affirm—
Mr. Handy: Do swear or affirm—
Judge Brown: That I will well and truly discharge—
Mr. Handy: That I will well and truly discharge—
Judge Brown: The duties of Commissioner for Richmond County—
Mr. Handy: The duties of Commissioner for Richmond County—
Judge Brown: In all matters which may require—
Mr. Handy: In all matters which may require—
Judge Brown: My official action—
Mr. Handy: My official action—
Judge Brown: To the best of my knowledge—
43
Mr. Handy: To the best of my knowledge—
Judge Brown: And skill—
Mr. Handy: And skill—
Judge Brown: And I will so act—
Mr. Handy: And I will so act—
Judge Brown: As in my judgment—
Mr. Handy: As in my judgment—
Judge Brown: Will be most conducive—
Mr. Handy: Will be most conducive—
Judge Brown: To the welfare—
Mr. Handy: To the welfare—
Judge Brown: And best interests—
Mr. Handy: And best interests—
Judge Brown: Of the entire city—
Mr. Handy: Of the entire city—
Judge Brown: And the entire county—
Mr. Handy: And the entire county.
Judge Brown: I do further solemnly swear—
Mr. Handy: I do further solemnly swear—
Judge Brown: Or affirm—
Mr. Handy: Or affirm—
Judge Brown: That I am not the holder—
Mr. Handy: That I am not the holder—
44
Judge Brown: Of any unaccounted-for—
Mr. Handy: Of any unaccounted-for—
Judge Brown: Public money—
Mr. Handy: Public money—
Judge Brown: Due this state—
Mr. Handy: Due this state—
Judge Brown: Or any political subdivision—
Mr. Handy: Or any political subdivision—
Judge Brown: Or authority—
Mr. Handy: Or authority—
Judge Brown: Thereof---
Mr. Handy: Thereof—
Judge Brown: That I am not the holder—
Mr. Handy: That I am not the holder—
Judge Brown: Of any office or trust—
Mr. Handy: Or any office or trust—
Judge Brown: Under the government—
Mr. Handy: Under the government—
Judge Brown: Of the United States—
Mr. Handy: Of the United States—
Judge Brown: Any other state—
Mr. Handy: Any other state—
Judge Brown: Or any foreign state—
45
Mr. Handy: Or any foreign state—
Judge Brown: Which I am prohibited—
Mr. Handy: Which I am prohibited—
Judge Brown: From holding—
Mr. Handy: From holding—
Judge Brown: By the laws of the State of Georgia—
Mr. Handy: By the laws of the State of Georgia—
Judge Brown: And that I am otherwise qualified—
Mr. Handy: And that I am otherwise qualified—
Judge Brown: To hold said office—
Mr. Handy: To hold said office—
Judge Brown: According to the Constitution—
Mr. Handy: According to the Constitution—
Judge Brown: Of the United States—
Mr. Handy: Of the United States—
Judge Brown: And the laws of Georgia—
Mr. Handy: And the laws of Georgia—
Judge Brown: And that I will support—
Mr. Handy: And that I will support—
Judge Brown: The Constitutions of the United States—
Mr. Handy: The Constitutions of the United States—
Judge Brown: And of this State—
Mr. Handy: And of this State—
46
Judge Brown: So help me God.
Mr. Handy: So help me God.
Judge Brown: [inaudible] please raise your right hand. I, Freddie Lee Handy—
Mr. Handy: I, Freddie Lee Handy---
Judge Brown: A citizen of Augusta, Georgia—
Mr. Handy: A citizen of Augusta, Georgia—
Judge Brown: And being an employee of Augusta, Georgia—
Mr. Handy: And being an employee of Augusta, Georgia—
Judge Brown: And the recipient of public funds—
Mr. Handy: And the recipient of public funds—
Judge Brown: For services rendered—
Mr. Handy: For services rendered—
Judge Brown: As such employee—
Mr. Handy: As such employee—
Judge Brown: Do hereby solemnly swear or affirm—
Mr. Handy: Do hereby solemnly swear or affirm—
Judge Brown: That I will support the Constitution—
Mr. Handy: That I will support the Constitution—
Judge Brown: Of the United States—
Mr. Handy: Of the United States—
Judge Brown: And the Constitution of Georgia—
Mr. Handy: And the Constitution of Georgia—
Judge Brown: So help me God.
47
Mr. Handy: So help me God.
Judge Brown: Congratulations.
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Mayor: Thank you so much, Judge Brown. We appreciate it. At this time
we are going to take our recess. I’m going to [inaudible] recess and [inaudible] you’ve
got ten minutes to leave and ten minutes to get back, so if you’d take care of that for me
[inaudible] I’d appreciate it.
[RECESS]
Mr. Mayor:
Madame Clerk, I know we had said—the motion was to—on the, on
Item number 27, we had received a motion that was passed to table that until the last item
of the agenda but if there are no objections, particularly because of the advertising time
that we need to make a decision on, if any Commissioners don’t have an objection, let’s
the Chair will receive a motion to take that off the table and we’ll go
move to take—
back to 27 first.
27. Set 2005 Millage Rate.
Ms. Sims: So move.
Mr. Handy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second to take 27 off the table. All in favor of the
motion will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: At this time, we had a situation were on a motion and a substitute,
neither one received the required number of votes. I think we pretty much know the
issues that are there. What I’m going to ask the Clerk to do is to read both of those
motions, the motion and the substitute as they were and then the Chair will then receive a
motion just in case there was going to be one that may end up being the same [inaudible].
But if you could for the record, Madame Clerk, state what they were and then the floor is
open at that time to receive a motion.
The Clerk: The original motion was to approve the state mandated rollback with
a scheduled called meeting on August 18, 2005 to adopt the millage rate. The substitute
motion was to accept the recommendation of the Administrator with no rollback.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
48
Mr. Grantham: I will make my motion again that we
Mr. Mayor, thank you.
abide by the state regulations as far as the rollback based on the presentation today
based on the taxes.
Mr. Mayor: And just for, just for the open record out here, if you could state what
those, that percentage is in there, even though I know where we’re going with the 100%,
but just for the sake of the general public if we could state that in there.
Mr. Grantham: We would roll back the taxes 100% based on the
reevaluation of properties that was just done this past spring.
Mr. Handy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Just a point of clarity, that basically means we adopt the schedule
that’s in your package and I’d like to have it noted for the record that we do have a
th
special called meeting on the 18 to confirm that millage rate, at 2:00 o’clock.
Mr. Mayor: Before you get into reading a crystal ball, better let me [inaudible] .
That’s why I didn’t play the game. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make my motion again, too. I think it’s poor
financial judgment to operate the city in deficit. This will be the second time we’ve done
this this year by not charging three additional dollars for trash collection and it’s put us in
a $7 million deficit by the end of this year. I can’t say no to the employees who have
patiently waited for reclassification and all the other things we’ve promised for the last
three years for the sake of political correctness or expediency so the motion is to have no
rollback.
Mr. Williams: I second it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second on the substitute motion. The Chair is going to
rule we’ve had adequate discussion on both motions.
Mr. Williams: I need to get some clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Clarification only, please.
Mr. Williams: On the initial motion that Mr. Grantham made, that will mean we
going to have to go back to some cuts and stuff that we [inaudible] in need of now, we
going to have to cut even more if that passes, and I guess that’s what I need to hear from
the Administrator; is that right?
Mr. Russell: What that basically means, sir, is that we would have to continue the
cuts that we have programmed already. We anticipated approximately the same amount
49
of dollars so there will be no additional cost but we will be moving, going into, into the
fund balance as opposed to the opportunity not to do that. So I’m not as optimistic with
our ability to manage as well as we did last year but we will do as best we can. But we
did not anticipate any additional funds so that should not require any more extreme cuts.
I’m sorry that’s so vague but that’s the best I can do.
Mr. Williams: And Mr. Mayor, my reason for asking that is that some employees
have received monies now and when we tell the rest of the [inaudible] that we promised
[inaudible] we going to be telling them now is that we’re not going to do that. And I
can’t support that. I know it may be an election time for a lot of people and they want to
look good in the eyes of some of those but I just don’t understand how we can sit here
and not do what we got to do and make that kind of cut on employees. I just can’t
support it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, today is the opportunity to make good on the promise
we’ve made for three years now to work towards correcting some of the disparities within
the consolidated government and help our employees who are taking net pay cuts due to
the increasing cost of medical coverage and so forth. I remind all the members of this
body that stood up and said we’re going to do something to help you, not once but several
times, [inaudible] and roll these taxes back, what you’ve done is not been honest with the
public and the people of the city, that work for the City of Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: Being no further discussion, all in favor of the substitute motion first
by the usual sign, opposed the same.
(Vote on the substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Handy, Mr. Smith, Ms. Sims, Mr. Grantham and Mr.
Hankerson vote No.
Motion fails 3-7.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the original motion will do so by the usual sign.
(Vote on the original motion)
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ve got 30 and we’ve got three more items, 30, 31,
33. You going to start with Mr. Sibley on 30? Okay.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
30. Consider a request for additional office space for the Augusta Judicial
Circuit Public Defenders Office.
50
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor of
the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Good job, ladies and gentlemen.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
31. Update on the following drainage problems: (Requested by Commissioners
Don Grantham and Tommy Boyles)
• Milton Martin –Walton Way Extension
• Warren Road Project
Ms. Smith: In your packet should be a set of information that was provided on
yesterday on the Walton Way Extension storm drainage improvements. The Commission
reconsidered and identified repair for the 84” pipe on May 17 and directed that the repair
method to be used would be [inaudible]. There was an additional $500,000 approved for
the construction phase of the project. On May 17 the letter, a notice to proceed was sent
to the design engineer. The original proposal included 75 days for design once a repair
method was identified. On July 29 we received an updated project status and project
schedule from the engineer. The engineer commented that due to the difficulty in
obtaining information on the practical application and specifications for this repair
method on this size pipe that the submittal date for the 90% plans would exceed the 75
days included in the original proposal. The design is currently 60% complete with an
anticipated submittal date of August 15, 2005 for the 90% plans and you have in your
packet all of the letters and documentation that have been received from the engineer
since the date that the Commission approved the [inaudible] as the method for this.
Mr. Mayor: Any questions?
Mr. Grantham: Yes. Mr. Mayor, the reason that I brought this up is that having
to see this today does bring me up to date as to what we’re doing. Have we been in
communication with Mr. Martin in regard to this time frame, this additional time that’s
going to be needed?
Ms. Smith: I have not spoken with Mr. Martin but I understand that Mr. Leverett,
the Interim Deputy Administrator, has.
51
Mr. Grantham: Right. Well, the reason I think that took place is that Mr. Martin
called me twice last week and wanted to know where we were and what we were doing
and if we were not going to adhere to what we had talked about in May or the spring in
getting this project done—it’s a project on board now for about two years and he was
looking to file a lawsuit within five days if we didn’t come up with some answers. And
so that’s why I asked Mr. Leverett to get in touch with him and at least talk to him about
what schedule we are on now and where we were as far as getting the information from
the engineering firm that we’ve done, and you have this now so I assume this will be
satisfactory for him. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Any other questions? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Not on a question on this particular subdivision that we’re talking
about here now. Don mentioned about the man mentioned a lawsuit. I mean he have to
get in line, Don, with all the other lawsuits we got coming in.
Mr. Grantham: Oh, I know it.
Mr. Williams: I don’t think we ought to jump because somebody mentions suit. I
mean if that the case I got some folks that should have been at the head of the line. But
Ms. Smith, while you standing I need to get a report back about Wilkinson Gardens
improvement. We supposed to been working on as to where we are with that, what’s the
next step. We did some studies I think and got some preliminary work done. I’d like to
get a report back as well as to where that’s been. That’s past two years, Ms. Smith.
That’s been about four years now we been out on that one. So I understand the money
and other things but can you give me a report as well so I can stay abreast of where we
are with the project we got out on the table?
Ms. Smith: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: After Mr. Cheek, the Chair will entertain a motion for information
because the report’s in front of us and on this item and I’d like to move on to the next.
Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you. Now when we get the design back are we looking at
normal 30 days for sending this out for bid and so forth? And I guess the second question
is we designated this as an emergency. Is this the best we can do to turn an emergency
repair around?
Ms. Smith: Well, the method that was selected for the repair—I believe it was
identified as an emergency last year and the recommendation that was made by
engineering staff as to how we should proceed was tabled as we were then directed to go
out to an engineering firm and have them to analyze what the method should be for
repair. That, I believe, added about 3-1/2 months to the time table associated with the
information coming back in. The information initially came in in I believe it was
February. However, the Attorney had also spoken with the engineering firm and received
52
some information that Engineering was not familiar with so we had to go back, get the
information from the Attorney and the engineering firm to try to determine how we
should proceed with the different sets of information that had been obtained. In March I
believe it was our final report from the engineering firm on the different methods that
could be used for repairing this particular pipe. We prepared an agenda item and sent it
forward to the Commission in April. The Commission took action in April but then had
th
the item reconsidered in May. In May, on the 17 when it was reconsidered and we
received final direction, we prepared a notice to proceed letter to the design engineer and
asked them to move forward with the design. In this proposal that was, that we received
at the direction of the Commission, he indicated that it would take approximately 75 days
to prepare the plans for this particular project. One he received a notice to proceed he
indicated that [inaudible] typically is not used on pipe this size, as I understand the
information that he’s collected thus far, and because of the [inaudible] or the fact that this
pipe has squeezed and deformed, having that particular method as the preferred method is
more difficult for him to write up specifications and to give to a contractor to go out to
actually perform the work. So that’s sort of a timeline and background information as to
what has transpired and the interactions between the department, the Commission and the
engineering firm and the Attorney with respect to what has happened on this project since
we started it and it was identified as an emergency last year.
Mr. Cheek: What in the process broke down to where we have an emergency
designation a year ago to where—and I guess we’re probably still a month-and-a-half-
away from actually starting the repairs on this thing—what can we do better, differently?
What broke down within the system to have us have a year-and-a-half-old emergency?
Ms. Smith: Well, initially when this item came up there were no funds identified
to address the problem. And I believe Commissioner Grantham mentioned that it had
been out there about two year ago. I believe that Jim Wall brought this to the attention of
the Commission back when he was still the Attorney. And I wasn’t in the legal session
but it’s my understanding at the time that there was a decision made not to take any
action. We went out and we did repair work in the area until funds could be identified to
address the problem. Last year when it came up again the recommendation that we—
excuse me, that the department made was that we’d consider going in and lining the pipe
with the, basically a produce by [inaudible]. I believe Commissioners Smith and maybe
Grantham, I’m not sure, had some conversation and indicated that they thought
[inaudible] would work in lieu of the [inaudible] product. At that time we were directed
to go out and get an engineering firm to take a look at it because the recommendation of
the department wasn’t the same as what was presented as being another alternative. So
we did that and thus the time has lapsed, as was presented in the previous statements.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: I’ll still take that motion whenever y’all are ready. And I’ll save
comments for another day. We’ve got a report out here. We’ve got an explanation as to
where it went, how it got done, and we really want to know what clogged up dealing with
53
the emergency—it was the board of Commissioners. So I mean we need to go ahead on
and receive it if that’s what’s in there and deal with that.
Mr. Grantham: I make a motion we receive this as information.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, this doesn’t include the Warren Road.
Mr. Mayor: No, no, no. This is just on Walton Way. That’s why I’m trying to
move it on if I can. All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Opposed, the
same.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Now, if we could go ahead and move to the Warren Road.
Ms. Smith: In April of this year we provided a status report on Warren Road that
basically indicated that the utility relocations were anticipated to be complete in August
of 2005. Because of some conversations that we had had with the contractor about
remobilizing and some potential issues associated with the utility relocations we
identified an October date to restart the road construction. As of yesterday BellSouth has
indicated that they are approximately 60% complete with the repairs that—excuse me,
with the relocations that need to be done on Warren Road. I have received information
th
today that said that they may not complete by the August 30 day but they will definitely
complete within the month of September, which still allows us to be on schedule for the
road construction to restart in October of 2005. We do have Change Order No. 5 that
was approved in January of 2005 to adjust the retaining wall. The contractor has opted
not to start on that work until he comes back and mobilizes to do the rest of the road
construction. Because he was required to cease activities on the project as far as the
construction is concerned there were several activities associated with traffic control, soil
and erosion and miscellaneous maintenance and upkeep activities that are additional costs
to be borne by the project as a result of the delay, and we are in the process of finalizing
the information for that and will be submitting a change order to address those additional
costs.
Mr. Boyles: When will that change order—I’m sorry, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Boyles: When will that change order be coming to us?
54
Ms. Smith: Well, we would like to make sure that we have the total time allotted
for the utility relocations and any costs associated with them to bring it forward instead of
bringing it forward and having to bring another one back for the exact same item. So it
should be within the next 30 to 60 days before the road construction restarts.
Mr. Boyles: Thirty to sixty 60 days and they’re supposed to start it back in
October?
Ms. Smith: Correct.
Mr. Boyles: I’ve had a terrible problem up there with drainage. Mr. Seals sitting
right here was able to take care of his own but all the water that came to the ditches, that
were formerly ditches, that have been piped now, it just backed up in people’s yards and
it caused septic tank problems because the septic tank people are the people who want to
tie onto the septic tanks, can’t do it until we finish the road project. That’s what Utilities
has told me. And I think that’s what they just told Mr. Seals I think last Thursday or
Friday; Wednesday or Thursday whenever we were talking. You know, this thing started
last February. February of ’04. And we’ve had people up there with gravel in their front
yards, pipe in their front yards, sand in their front yards. It just looks like a little battle
zone up there. Right there at the corner of Washington and Warren. And I bet I get two
calls a day from someone wanting to know what’s going on. And I gave them copies of
the letter that you department put out back last February when the construction started.
And we should have been away from there and gone by now. But here we are, a project
that started last February of ’04 and we’re going to expect BellSouth’s that 60% complete
now—so I mean how do we do that? And here we are looking at another $70,000, and if
I remember early in the project budget we were right at zero. You were right down to—
you had this number of dollars, this was what the project was going to cost. Because I
think I remember we all went to Atlanta and before Mr. Linnenkohl, and he gave us some
additional money for Warren Road to get that going. And now where are we going to
find the additional $70,000 to get it going?
Ms. Smith: That information will be brought back when we bring the change
order. I can’t answer that for you today.
Mr. Boyles: But you’re basically telling me, though, that we’ll be through by
December of ’05?
Ms. Smith: Barring any unforeseen problems that may arise, yes, we plan to be
finished by December of 2005.
Mr. Boyles: It’s just—I hope you understand, it’s very difficult to explain to
people who live on that road and people who travel that way.
Ms. Smith: Most definitely. And I’ve received some calls as well. I haven’t
received any calls from you or any communication from you with respect to the activities
out there, although you indicate you’ve spoken with Augusta Utilities and several other
55
members of the department. But with respect to receiving calls and attempting to address
concerns of citizens, then I certainly have been communicating with those citizens.
Mr. Boyles: You’re absolutely right about that. When somebody calls me about
a sanitary sewer problem I contact Utilities. I saw no need in contacting your
department. Now, I have contacted some people in your department concerning the
water, basically lakes and dams that have been built up in 211-213 Warren Road.
Ms. Smith: Yes, sir, and I—
Mr. Boyles: Where the septic tanks don’t work because—with all the rain we’ve
had? But I’m going to put you on your word here that you will be through by December
of ’05. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: I move that we receive this as information.
Mr. Mayor: There’s a motion. Do we have a second?
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I must come to the defense of the Public Works director. When
you’re talking about Warren Road, now, we need to talk about [inaudible] the
construction that been going on, from the wall that was built and had to be taken down
and how much time that took us and how it threw us back and the wall was directed by
somebody who had no business giving that direction. I’m not going to sit here and let the
Public Works director accept all of that blame by herself. I know she’s over that
department. And we, too, talk about how long time it’s been dealt with and I think you’re
right as to address it. But there is a lot of other issues in that, on that Warren Road
process that we hadn’t talked about. So if you going to talk about it, now, let’s talk about
all of it and how we got to where we are, what was done, who approved it, who
disapproved it, who knew about it, who even didn’t know about it. So that’s how Warren
Road [inaudible] got in the shape it’s in. That’s not your fault. That’s this government.
But I don’t want it to seem like it was the director who was handling it—no, no, no, not
talking about you. I don’t want it to seem to this body like it was her responsibility and
nobody know anything. Because we had people giving direction that shouldn’t have been
giving direction. And nobody said a word to them about it. They even erected a wall
that cost this City some money and then had to try to turn around the property. The lady
wouldn’t sell it. We had to end up paying to take the wall back down. So there is a lot of
confusion that has been in that area. And you as the taxpayers have to suffer by it
because you live up there. But let’s put everything out there if we’re going to put it out
there, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Boyles: That wall is still standing; am I right? That’s never been taken
down.
56
Ms. Smith: That is correct. But the Commission has approved the change order
to have the wall removed. Due to the lack of follow-up and accurate information being
provided by previous staff members with respect to the activities associated with
constructing the wall in the first place.
Mr. Williams: That person going to sue us, too, if we don’t get the wall off their
property. That’s another suit coming in.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Opposed, the
same.
Mr. Boyles votes No.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got one more, I believe, Madame Clerk, and then we’ve got
the items [inaudible] legal. If we can we need to try to wrap those up. 33 and then
information coming from the Attorney and the Administrator.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
33. Discuss the management of city owned property. (Requested by
Commissioner Cheek)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. What we have before is an official
homeless color TV found in operation in the City’s pension property over behind the
museum on Reynolds Street. Not only was the color TV in operation but there was a
bedroom, a chair, and a bathroom which basically took up most of the building. The door
was broken on Friday when we drove by and we called the police and had it secured.
Saturday it was open again and we went in and found the water running out back in the
field behind it, it was approximately a foot-and-a-half deep, been running all night,
probably for days. Several of the doors were broken. The interior has had a great deal of
damage. It seems that somewhere between us being good stewards of the pension
property and it becoming City property, nobody secured the building. The power was
still on. The emergency light panel had been stripped out where you couldn’t see
emergency light, they didn’t want people to know that they had their little home away
from home on City property. The power was still on, had this extension cord and two
heaters so they’d been there since the cold months, which would have been several
months ago in there and a bed. We left him a present, the police and I, a really good soak
in pepper spray on the bed in hopes that they’ll come up and enjoy it later. And
[inaudible]. That is why I had this—and that got me to looking at other City properties.
Mr. Mayor, we need a full inventory of vacant lots, buildings and other properties
57
[inaudible] come to Engineering Services of properties that the City owns, separated into
vacant lots, buildings the City owns, buildings the City leases. The City has a bad habit
of having leases lapse, the tenants in these buildings not living up the lease that they
have. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to lose the pension property over there
because right now it is full of feces, trash, wood that is dry, kindling dry, and we need to
occupy that building. However, it has escaped this City’s attention that we had an
umpteen-thousand square foot warehouse over there that looks exactly like the visitors’
center in Charleston or the Publix in Charleston and leave it so vacant for so many
months when the tenant left is amazing to me. We have several groups within the city,
Main Street, DDA, the Development Authority, and several other people at the Summit
meeting last week, last Thursday, have expressed interest in occupying that building. If
we do not occupy that building soon it will be on fire one night and once that heart pine
in that building starts there’s no putting it out. That is an irreplaceable structure. So I’m
asking that that information be brought to Engineering Services [inaudible] to discuss that
and I have already discussed with some board members on Main Street, DDA, the
Development Authority, and CVB about the potential of renovating and using that
building as a one-stop welcome center for the downtown area and the people that come to
Augusta, could go to that one location. It’s a beautiful building, structurally sound, but
ladies and gentlemen, we’ve got homeless people living in public facilities for months if
we do not maintain our facilities. So I’ve ask the Administrator to secure the building.
We are going to have to manage our properties better. One dollar a month would be
better than what we’re collecting on it now. We’re paying the power and water bills with
no real return. So what I’m going to ask for, through the consent of the body, with the
make a motion at this time that we at least in concept support
consent of the body is
having potentially DDA, Main Street and other agencies that are downtown or in
the area in need of office space to begin negotiations with the City for short-term use
of the facility.
They’re all in need of space, we need a tenant in that building. DDA, for
example, is paying about $800 a month for two rooms over in the Harbor House
Publishing building. If they take that same money and turn it around into renovating that
structure, that will stabilize it for future development and it will also protect it at night
So I’m going to make that in the
and secure it from homeless invasion and misuse.
form of a motion and also ask the Clerk to get a report from Facilities, from
Finance, from the Legal Department,
who all three I understand are involved with
leases, property management, or at least listing of properties. I make that in the form of a
motion and I offer this TV for free to anyone who would like to take after this meeting. It
works, too. It’s a nice color Mitsubishi.
Mr. Mayor: Motion, is there a second?
Mr. Handy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. I would suggest this, Mr. Engineering
Services Chairman, and it’s a very good motion. What I would suggest, though, is prior
to the next committee date if those stats that you do need, and they are needed even if this
incident had not come up, that Mr. Russell, y’all can do a check-off so that we, so if we
put it, if we put it on, and I’m not sure which committee, where you may be, may be
58
going. But if it’s not ready on the information side to be fully put in that committee, let’s
not put it on, even on committee. Let’s make sure that it’s thorough to get it out there so
that it won’t just fall on deaf ears and get caught on a day when we’re doing it, and while
I’m on that subject to a point that if we could, that information that possibly can come to
these committees, or information that has an administrative report that can be given
particularly to a Commissioner—I realize that a citizen may not always have that type of
information. They may need to come to this Commission as a last resort. But I think that
that can be handled internally, that Commissioners know about, it would be great if you
have that information to go ahead on, secure it, and then deal with it during that
committee process. That’s why we have it and that’s what I call the in-house fighting
days, deal with it on those days until [inaudible] to eliminate some of the stuff that we
have on this day, that will not have to be here. Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. To my colleague and my twin brother
and my comrade, with all of the amenities that you talked about with this homeless
situation, that just let me know even more so that it is a serious situation in Augusta.
We’ve got a lot of people who can’t afford, who may not can afford is the wrong word,
but are out and down. You can go right across Greene Street and find a bed that people
lay up under the bridge with no other shelter but the bridge, where folks get in there and
sleep. There are pipes, large, round pipes that folks crawl into to sleep at night so there is
a serious problem in Augusta about homeless. And I don’t think it’s very funny, I don’t
think it’s something we ought to laugh at or even turn our heads at. I think that just tell
us that we’ve got some serious issues around here. Now, the downtown people you
named, Andy, the different entities you named about the building, that no one even came
to us and even reminded us. We just talked about making some cuts here, where we
going to ask the Administrator to pull a rabbit out of a hat and to provide services. But
for those buildings downtown, nobody came to us and said hey, we’d like to use this
building or here’s a building we can use. We can’t maintain what we got already. We
got drainage problems. We got people with snakes in the yard. This summer has been a
tremendous heat wave across this city, Richmond County. Grass is growing like it’s
never grown before. And we got folks that’s suffering and dealing with situations and
some of them homeless folks was in that situation. So I think that just tells us that we got
a serious problem. We got some things we need to look at. We got some things we need
to try to correct. I’m not saying we ought to open the property up and let everybody just
come in there, Fred. I’m saying that we’ve got some issues we’ve got to deal with. And
it takes money to deal with those issues, it takes money to renovate that building, it takes
money even if you put a rental in there, you’re going to have some liability to be
associated with it as well. So I think we need to be careful about how we point the finger
because the same folks that’s down may have been up Monday but they’re down today,
and we may be in that same position. So I don’t take that lightly when it comes to
homeless people. Now, some people can do better. There some people that can. There
are some people that come here and I think somebody mentioned earlier about they come
to Augusta because they heard about some of the services. They might not know about
that abandoned building we got that they can use around here, but they come in here on
trains, planes and buses, I guarantee you, any way they can get here. And I think we need
to be mindful of those agencies out there that trying to do something about it and to help
59
them and I think we ought to be about that, too, trying to help those people, to show them
there’s a better way. So I take a little issue with the color TV as if they living the life if
Reilly. I don’t think you’d like to live like that, my twin brother, cause I certainly
wouldn’t.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed,
the same.
Mr. Boyles: Are we sending this back to committee? Is that what we’re doing?
The Clerk: He asked you approve in concept that the DDA, Main Street and other
entities negotiate with the City for possible usage of space and he asked for a report from
Finance, the City Attorney and the Facilities Maintenance regarding City property, City-
owned property, leased and owned and vacant lots.
Mr. Boyles: So it goes back to committee?
The Clerk: For that report [inaudible].
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, I think that concludes our regular listed items that are
not under legal. We can move to those that came out of legal briefing this morning from
the Attorney and the Administrator. We won’t beat everybody else out of the building
but the sun will still be up when we leave.
Mr. Shepard: From legal I would ask that the body add and approve the
purchase of the interest of Homesites Ltd.—
Mr. Shepard: I don’t think they can hear you. One voice talking, please. We’re
going to end the whole thing in a minute.
Mr. Shepard: I’d ask the body, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I’d
ask the Commission to add and approve the purchase of interest of Homesites Ltd.
and Larry and Connie Force at the intersection of Almon Road and a private right-
of-way owned by the Forces in the Granite Hill subdivision in the right-of-way of
Almon Road, that purchase to be in a not-to-exceed amount of $1,250, and
alternatively if the sale of said interest is not consummated that condemnation of the
interests of the parties, Homesites Ltd. and Larry and Connie Force in the
intersection of Almon Road and the private right-of-way owned by the Forces—
is
this better?
Mr. Grantham: Lean into it.
60
Mr. Shepard: I’ll start again. I would ask the body to add and approve the
purchase of interests of Homesites Ltd. and Larry and Connie Force at the
intersection of Almon Road and the right-of-way of a private road owned by the
Forces in the Granite Hill subdivision in the specific right-of-way known as Almon
Road. The public purpose to acquire this property would be to secure access to the
public improvements on the Granite Hill subdivision side of that intersection with
those public improvements including roadway structures and storm sewer, sanitary
sewer and water.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Any discussion? None being, all in favor of
the motion do so by the usual sign. That was to add and approve.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. And the other matter to add and approve—
Mr. Handy abstains.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: Also, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, to add and
approve for execution by the Mayor of sales contracts presented in legal to acquire
the Vallotton estate and the other two owners of the property in the area to be
acquired for the Utilities and Public Works campus, said contracts to be filed with
the Clerk of the Commission by tomorrow.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion
will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Handy abstains.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Handy: Mr. Mayor, Ms. Clerk, on the last item that I voted for could you
make that an abstention because I was not in the legal meeting so I’m going on something
I have no knowledge of.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
61
Mr. Handy: Thank you.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I have no further items from the legal meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell has one there in reference to that concept that we had
discussed.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if it be the will of the body, I’d like to have the body
add and approve authorization for the Mayor to sign a Letter of Interest with the
Salvation Army in reference to the Ray and Joan Kroc Center which has been
designated to be built if funding is available through the Salvation Army’s grant in
the Harrisburg and West End area. This is a letter of intent that would just give
them the opportunity to move forward with the application process.
We would have
the opportunity to review any plans or review any action taken prior to any other action
needed by this body.
Ms. Sims: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion to add and to approve?
If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Handy abstains.
Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: That conclude everything we’ve got there, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: If I could for just two moments, one to again welcome our newest
colleague, Commissioner Freddie Handy, and to welcome him back. He’s no stranger to
this Commission body. And to also thank our Mayor for the Day, Mayor Jayme Powell.
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] and we’ll be adjourned.
Mr. Handy: One second, Mr. Mays. I would like to say that I’m ready to go to
work so I need to know which committee that I’ll be working with.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
(Laughter)
62
Mr. Mayor: Three o’clock tomorrow. You’ll move right into the District 9 seats.
The Clerk: Engineering Services and Administrative Services.
Mr. Handy: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: We are adjourned.
[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 August 2, 2005.
________________________
Clerk of Commission
63