HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 24, 2005 Augusta-Richmond County Commis
CALLED MEETING/ COMMISSION CHAMBER
WORK SESSION August 24, 2005
Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 3:22 p.m., Wednesday, August 24,
2005, the Honorable Willie Mays, III, presiding.
Present: Hons. Williams, Beard, Cheek, Handy, Colclough and Smith, members of
Augusta-Richmond County Commission.
Absent: Hons. Grantham, Hankerson, Sims and Boyles, members of Augusta-Richmond
County Commission.
The Invocation was given by Rev. Marion Williams.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, there are two items that are listed on the regular agenda.
There are two items that I ask the Commission’s privilege to add to this agenda that have come
from the airport. The director and chairman are here. It is a particular deadline that they are
trying to meet and [inaudible] and I’d like to get the Commission to so add and discuss.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
1. Motion to accept FAA Grant in the amount of $1,595,000 for New Terminal
Construction Project and Rehab Improvements at Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field.
2. Motion to accept FAA Grant in the amount of $165,630.00 for security fencing,
install security lights and pave access road and car parking lot at Daniel Field.
Mr. Colclough: I so move to add, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Handy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objections to them being added?
Motion carries 6-0.
Mr. Mayor: They’ll be so added, Madame Clerk. And items 3 and 4, if we could, let’s
take items 2, 3 and 4 in order and we’ll come back to item 1.
The Clerk:
2. Motion to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of intent to Ripken Baseball, Inc. for
assignment of the existing lease at Lake Olmstead Stadium currently held by HWS
Baseball, Inc.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beck, do you want to address this?
1
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, as you are aware there has been a
preliminary agreement between Ripken Baseball, Inc. and the HWS Baseball known as the
Augusta GreenJackets for sale of the club October 1. The lease requirements for the sale of the
team require that a letter of intent to assign the current lease, which we’re just into the second
year of the lease extension that the Commission approved last year. They have asked by the
letter that is attached that that be done at this time to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of
intent, intending that the City would honor the terms of the lease from the City’s standpoint.
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Smith: 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.
Motion carries 6-0.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 1. Motion to accept FAA Grant in the amount of $1,595,000 for New
Terminal Construction Project and Rehab Improvements at Augusta Regional Airport at
Bush Field.
Mr. Colclough: So move, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Any discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion—
I’m sorry, Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I’m in favor and I think we doing a lot of
pursuits when it come to grant but my question is though when this grant who is I think stated for
the new airport renovation and improvements, we just did some, we just passed some money
here last Commission [inaudible], Buster, on some improvements at the airport. Will this money
take the place of or that money we then approved still goes out? I mean this money coming in,
and maybe it’s already been figured in. I just need to get clarification.
Mr. Boshears: It’s entitlements money. It’s based on emplacements that we get each
year. It is part of the terminal financing plan. It’s something that we’ve already planned on. It’s
just getting the actual grant. It’s a grant we get each year based on emplanements.
Mr. Williams: It’s already been calculated into the budget or the things that we already
projected [inaudible]?
2
Mr. Boshears: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: You know, when Sylvia write this story she going write in [inaudible] six
figure money coming in, people know we done approved some stuff already for the airport and it
look like additional monies. I just want to be clear in my own head, in my own mind that the
money we approve for previous work to be done, this money is already calculated and already
figured. I see Mr. Johnson standing up. That might mean we’ve got some more dollars.
Mr. Johnson: We’re trying to get everything we [inaudible] to try to make sure you
understand. The FAA has some discretionary money. We actually count on getting that money
but they could say we’re not going to get it. And if we don’t get this information back then they
will take it away from us and they will pass it all to another airport.
Mr. Williams: And I got my clarification. But that’s why I was asking that question
because we talked about last Commission meeting as what we could do and what we couldn’t do
and where the money going come from. [inaudible] this grant brought that question in my head
whether or not that’s something we already figured, hoping to get, now we know we are going
get it, or [inaudible] something [inaudible] we hear a lot of that, you know, up here. You talk
about grant money and how grant money used and what grant money used for. We approve it,
we say we understand but we really don’t understand it. That make sense?
Mr. Johnson: Yes. That’s why I’m trying to—there’s a pool of money usually at the end
that they have that they will based on your emplacements disburse to different airports for
different projects. We are counting on getting that money but there is no guarantee that we
would get it. But since they did have the pool they are giving it to us.
Mr. Williams: I just don’t want Sylvia to write the story wrong. That’s all. I just wanted
to make sure.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual
sign. Any opposed, the same.
Motion carries 6-0.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 2. Motion to accept FAA Grant in the amount of $165,630.00 for security
fencing, install security lights and pave access road and car parking lot at Daniel Field.
Mr. Colclough: I move to approve.
Mr. Cheek: 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.
3
Motion carries 6-0.
Mr. Boshears: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Johnson: Thank y’all very much.
The Clerk:
1. Discuss/approve 2005 Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) Phase V
Resolution.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: I know this is the fifth week that we ordinarily didn’t have meetings and I
don’t know, I assume that the rest of our Commissioners are out of town. But it would be good
if we had all ten here to be able to vote on this and I think it’s very important that we all stand
firm on what we’re attempting to do. I want to make a motion that we hold this SPLOST as the
$160,000,000 as been recommended by our Administrator.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second that the cap remain the [inaudible] where we are. Let
me say this before I recognize any Commissioners. [inaudible] it’s obviously not going to be a
5-5 tie so I won’t be voting with you. But let me clear a couple of things for the record.
[inaudible] various reasons [inaudible] all the different dates that were floating around that the
easiest time to have this meeting was on the day that we’ve been having it for the last five weeks.
There was a little bit of confusion on yesterday and I tried to reach Ms. Cooper about it. She
tried to reach me. I dealt with Mr. Eskola on yesterday and even had to answer whether or not I
was holding a meeting hostage. I might be one of the biggest folk up here but I don’t think I can
hold ten folk hostage. What I was trying to do was to make sure that whenever we voted or
whenever we discussed this that we were thorough in terms of what we were doing. We finished
up last week and to allow the public to examine some of the things we were doing, and me of all
people I certainly wanted us to be able to get back this week and to have discussion on it. So I
want to clear the air on that. There is no problem about when we were going to have a meeting.
Obviously we were going to have one. We are here today. And we have a quorum of the
Commission that’s here today. Whether any decisions are made today that will be the decision
of this group in terms of making that happen, whether it stays where it is, whether we put it on a
day of trying to have all ten people here as a show of unity in terms of making a final decision.
But this is the day that we have been meeting on for the last five or six weeks. And I saw no
reason that anybody should have any panic as though something was not going to happen today.
So we are here and I think that can be put to rest and some people have made some plans in
there, but you know, there is no, there is no disunity about why the Commission may or may not
4
be meeting on a particular day this week. I think everybody is in agreement we are going to have
to make a decision. Now I thought today if there were going to be questions asked, whether it
was on the contents of the agenda in reference to SPLOST or some things that I think we may
still need to do, and Mr. Russell and I have had some conversation, I have met with different
entities in the community, I’ve met with different Commissioners on this board and of talking
about some things. One of the things I think that we need to do that may not necessarily be
contained in this sheet that was worked on last week was the fact that there is still—and I think
we need to be concerned about it as a Commission in reference to what may be fact, what may be
fiction, and what may lie in between. I want to thank the Engineering Services chairman and
members of that committee for when you all were meeting last week in reference to workshop in
trying to get some of those numbers clear in reference to—and I guess depending upon what set
of numbers you may hear, whether it’s $100 million, $130 million, $150 million, what’s clear. I
think there is something that we seriously need to do unitedly as a Commission. That is even if
whether the resolution is passed today, whether it’s passed on a called meeting of next week I
think that we need to articulate very clearly what was discussed in that workshop, where those
dollars lie, what has been spent thus far, what is committed to future projects, where the
corresponding funds will come from in order to make those projects work, and what monies that
we might have that are available for reprogramming out of that category. That is something that
we have not done a very good job of doing. And I think when you talk to the average person
they cannot understand and one of the questions that we get is why should we approve what you
all are doing when there may be X number of dollars that you all have not touched or spent? I
think we need to clarify that as we move along. I don’t necessarily think they have to go hand in
hand on the same date when we do it but I think it’s something we should hopefully at some
point unanimously commit ourselves to doing and that’s a full accounting and explanation of
monies that have been spent, what is available, so that the general public can be able to look at it,
to understand it. We know we cannot spend monies under law to deal with the promotion of
anything about a SPLOST but I think, and the Administrator and Attorney, y’all can jump in on
here and I don’t want to get illegal with anything today, but I think that there can be funds used
that can give a full accounting of what has been done so that there can be a clear record of some
things that are out there. Because I think that with being one of the larger categories of where
monies have been traditionally spent there needs to be some things that are addressed in Public
Works in reference to very, very serious corridors in our county, be it Windsor Spring Road, but
it the replacement of Wrightsboro Road’s money that was switched over to Dyess Park, Dyess
Parkway, very good project. But we also removed it from a high priority project and it is not
there at this point, nor are there DOT funds to deal with it. I don’t think we should leave those
areas with the understanding that we will do something later. When we do finalize something I
think those things should be spelled out, they should be very clear in terms of how we are going
to deal with those monies so that they are not in question and the people will know exactly what
projects are there. I’m going to yield at this time. I have a couple of comments that I do
probably want to make before we wrap up. Give the colleagues a chance to do that but I thought
particularly in that category that is something that I think the committee did a good job on but it
was something that was not heard by a lot of people and I think we need to have the time to
clearly put that out there to do as we talked about, Mr. Russell, in terms of placing it, you know,
in our daily, our weekly, our other means of electronic communication so that people will get
that clear message as to what has been spent, what is really there and of where those projects are
5
committed to. That is something that I think most Commissioners probably until last week did
not know themselves and I think to take this leap of faith on another $160 million of getting
monies clear on what we as policy makers have just done, then we cannot expect 200,000 other
people to understand that in a very short period of time, either. So those are my comments to get
this started today. I know that’s a little bit off from where this page is but I think for anything to
work on this page we need to clear up what’s on the page that has not yet been written nor
explained, and I think that will go long way as to whatever we decide on, whether it has a
hopeful chance of passing if we fully explain to the general public what is in that particular
category. Because that is something that is an unanswered question that’s out there in many
categories that I think can be explained. But if we do not attempt to do it and if we do a poor job
of doing it, then how can we expect the general public to be able to understand that on an
average person basis? And so I would yield, Commissioner Williams, you had your up first out
of the chute, then Commissioner Cheek on that end, and I’ll go straight down the line,
Commissioner Handy, Commissioner Colclough at this end, in that order.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve got a couple of concerns. The cap has been
mentioned and I heard someone discussing on this board about a year. I didn’t get any
clarification from the Attorney as to if you cap it at whatever the number is versus going to a
year, what would that do, what won’t it do, what could it do if we went to a year amount, a date
rather than an amount? Because if you go with an amount and the economy goes up, down or
sideways and we raise that amount, we’ll have to stop it I think at that figure. We traditionally
been five years and the training and the education requirement that we been taking,
recommending to us that no city should go beyond seven years. And I just needed to hear from
somebody as to what would be the advantage or disadvantage of going with a dollar amount
versus a year and a date.
Mr. Plunkett: On that issue I think there would be risk is that a time certain SPLOST, as
the economy goes down, than you may not raise adequate funds to complete all the projects that
you have in that SPLOST. If the economy increases, the SPLOST may be for a shorter period of
time because you have raised the $160 million or whatever number. I believe the bigger risk is
that if you have a SPLOST plan that’s for a time certain it doesn’t raise all the funds that it was
earmarked to, that you have still have to complete those projects and the source of that revenue
may be general obligation of the county. I believe that’s the bigger risk. I haven’t ever looked at
that specific issue but I know there are some issues about uncompleted projects. So the benefit
for the government is that you can set a number certain and if it takes you five years, six years,
seven years, or two years, it stops at that point in time.
Mr. Williams: And I thank you, Mr. Attorney. And that was my point, that we’ve got
projects that has not been completed now that we started off with that we in our fourth—how
many taxes, how many times? Okay, we going into our fifth tax and we still got what you just
stated, Mr. Attorney. And I just wanted clarification because I’m thinking that the voters been
coming back supporting this tax because it’s a fair tax. If we had a date or year rather than an
amount it would be to our advantage. Maybe that be a disadvantage. I just want to put that out
there. My other question, other statement, Mr. Mayor, is that I’m not really comfortable with
what we’ve got on the table. There are some things out there and we keep saying we don’t want
6
to overload it, we don’t want the voters to turn it down. I’m in support of it but there is some
serious issues, go back to what I stated a few minutes about some projects that’s not completed.
And if this, if this goes through we going still have projects that’s out there that should have been
completed that won’t be completed because of the amount that we’ve got in the additional stuff
that we putting on here. So Mr. Mayor, I just, I’m going let the other Commissioners speak. I
do like to reserve the right to come back because there is some other issues I want to address as
we discuss this a little bit more.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I will be coming and will plan on
having another work session next week before this meeting if we do in fact have another one
next week to further work the Engineering Services issues with Public Works. The initial brush
is such that it looks like we will be able to reclaim some money, recapture some money from
Phases I and II. That will have us essentially declaring victory in Phase I but it will also have us
sweeping the maintenance accounts that were established for the Phase I, Phase II projects and
bringing those forward to either use for maintenance or additional projects. There are several
Phase III projects that are near completion that we will be able to sweep for the remaining money
in those projects after they’re completed to use on other projects. I will say this, that in the
review with staff the opinion of staff is that though we will be on station keeping for the next few
years as far as maintenance and upkeep is concerned, that there is adequate funds remaining
within the first four phases of SPLOST to maintain staff and at least a reasonable level of
service. There are adequate projects that will be coming online between now and the next five
years in the way of major road projects that are planned out for the next few years that will keep
us in construction through Phase V of SPLOST. Those, too, will provide hopefully some
additional funds left over in the contingency to bring forward and use. The problems are two-
fold. One is when you close out an account and finish the last shovel of dirt, yard of concrete,
that the state and local entities that owe us money or that we owe money sometimes take as long
as six months to close out. This has been true throughout the entire SPLOST project and is the
nature of government and government accounting. It’s a very complex issue but I will say that
one of the problems we’ve run into in this government in the past habits of going give years is
that for political or to make sure that we have enough projects to take us through the five years
we have basically prepared menus of projects that we knew could never be funded, fully funded,
and that is in fact why we have so many projects now that are partially funded and that we’ve
had to go back and look for recapture on. But the dollar certain figure locks us into a very
simple list of projects that will be funded at those levels and then when that particular dollar
certain figure is finished, whether it be early, that we will be able to go back to the polls, is my
understanding, and ask for a continuation, or late, we will be able to cover those costs without
those projects going short of funds. The bottom line is, Mr. Mayor, we have some monies
available in Public Works but those funds are not laying there with nothing going on. When you
do a $21 million road project it takes more than ten minutes to prepare the environmental
statements, the erosion control studies, community impact, environmental justice and many,
many other things. It involves state and federal entities, not just Augusta-Richmond County. So
you can imagine Windsor Spring Road or Wrightsboro Road, some of these other projects when
you’re dealing with wetlands, endangered species, who knows what we’re dealing with in a lot
7
of projects. It takes time to work them through and indeed Rome nor Augusta was built
overnight. But we’ll bring that information to you. My concern, Mr. Mayor, and I’ll express it
at this time and maybe reserve the balance of my time for later, is that we have a simple package
that has been prepared. It involves governmental entities, it breaks my heart that we can’t fund a
lot of these things at a level that we would like to fund them, but when we as a body did not take
ten members to the people and support the bond, when we rushed through for whatever reason
the last presentation of the SPLOST, we presented an un-unified front to the public. That is
dangerous, one. And two, it brought us to the position where we are in a tight spot. We must
pass this SPLOST. It must be simple, it must be a formula that is understandable, that includes
the categories that have worked in the past, and that is exactly what we’ve got in a reasonable
dollar figure. So I for one, while it breaks my heart not to see some of these other groups funded
that need to be funded, certainly as much I’m on record in support of Recreation and Parks, it
does break my heart to see us [inaudible] be we put us in the position that we’re in now. We
have a Spartan SPLOST, no nonsense, a reasonable dollar amount and a workable formula and
any deviation from approving that as soon as possible and then promoting it in any way legal is
going to put us in the position of jeopardizing Phase V and that concerns me very deeply.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Handy and then Commissioner Colclough.
Mr. Handy: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thanks for your opening comment. I would just
like to ask if there is any way possible that if there is any money left from the other SPLOSTS
that we do not know about as of yet, that that monies could be used to add to our Public Works
projects and there’s a possibility that monies that we have in the $160 million can be shifted to
help other organizations because if you want to cap it at $160 million which we already said that
we are all in agreement, then there isn’t any more monies to give anyone. But if we can shift
monies that is in the other SPLOSTS that has not been completed, to Public Works for instance,
then if we are giving money for Public Works projects now we can give some of that monies to
other projects. That was a question I will have to ask Mr. Russell, if that’ s feasible or not. No
particular organization but to give to other organizations for right now. We’ve got to first find
the money. There’s no sense in promising someone something if you don’t have it.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Commissioner, and I think that as Commissioner Cheek
pointed out, as we work through the Public Works numbers that they’ve been working through,
Ms. Smith and the Chairman and the Committee has been doing a great job with that [inaudible],
I think you are going to find there are some dollars there. My concern is that those dollars are
going to be necessary to complete some major projects that in my mind need to be designated to
some major projects that are Public Works projects that are there. The Wrightsboro Road issue
that keeps coming up in my mind is major issue, as in Windsor Spring Road and those things and
that will be a political decision that obviously y’all will have to make. My concern if you start
looking at this particular project here, our Public Works dollars are very narrow or very limited
and I think they are designed for specific projects that in my mind are crucial to our continued
well being and I would be afraid—while it’s possible to do what you suggested, from my
perspective, and I’d like to quote Mr. Cheek, it breaks my heart not to be able to help fund some
of these other agencies that in my mind deserve the dollars. I think that you would be asking
for—to start cutting on what you have in front of you and to remove dollars from Public Works
8
at this particular time based on the limited number of dollars here in my mind would not be
prudent. Obviously it’s a political decision but in my mind it would not be a prudent decision to
make.
Mr. Handy: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Let me inject one other thing into that to Mr. Russell and Mr. Handy is that
they would have to be within the same category of movement if anything were done. While the
shifting of Public Works can go from one Public Works infrastructure project to another one, it
could not unless you had a line item that was in there from the very beginning similar to what
was done—getting SPLOST old age--I think in the 1991 proposal, I believe, that dealt with when
we still had two different governments where the City had a portion in there that dealt with arts,
cultural, museum and historical places which was a legally designated category. And that was
the measure in terms of how some of the projects that were done, including the museum, was
able to get sales tax money and to put in. That was where that was done and we did it that one
particular time and when the next one came along then we were not acting under that deal but
that has been one that was done and been done also on a [inaudible] basis in terms of where I
think it gets to where you were talking about of where you would get to it but then you had
priorities that were over that from the very beginning. But I think that would be the only way
that you could list that and be able to get that done. Once it’s locked into that category it stays.
We were able to shift, as you remember, to building the Aquatic Center in time, Tom, for the
Georgia Games because we were able to move within Recreation to do it even though we had far
more money in Public Works but we could not do anything other than parts of infrastructure in
order to do that. So it’s a very clear law of how it has to be in terms of the shifting and re-
prioritization. But I do think that within Public Works itself that there needs to be again, I still
repeat, I still think there needs to be a clear line of what’s going to be in there during the course
of this run between now and November because again I think the committee is doing a good job,
done a great job. But I only look right there in front of me in terms of the calendar we’ve got in
IT, and thank you for all you’re doing but I think, Mr. Russell, it’s going to be a task that we
need to put together in-house along with that advertising, something that can be taken in terms of
where neighborhoods may want to look at a [inaudible], be able to see what’s up on those plans,
[inaudible] I think we [inaudible] access channel. I think that every bit of information that we
can put out that’s in there on what has been spent, I just can’t say enough to a point of how this
has taken a life of its own in terms of this $100-and-something million. And there’s a belief out
there that we’ve got it, we don’t plan to do it, and if given some more it won’t get spent. And so,
I mean we handle that like we want to. But if that’s not done there’s a problem and I think
[inaudible] big package out and say okay, fine, it’s going to be enough money in there to do. I
don’t think that’s going to cut it. I think if we’ve got enough trust and faith in each other we can
move on with a package per se but I think prior to being able to get support it’s going to have to
be very clear about what’s in there. I’m sorry, [inaudible].
Mr. Handy: One other thing. What I was referring to, I know about the law about
moving it from one category to the other, but we have $1 million for land acquisition, flood land,
and roads and drainage. That is a Public Works project. We just put that in here which we have
not approved that as of yet. So if it’s not approved then it could be shifted around. That’s what I
9
was referring to. I’m not talking about something that is already approved to do a particular
project with and then we try to move that. And that’s $7 million right there within that. If we
had $7 on the old Public Works that we haven’t spent then that could be shifted to these two
items and then you have $7 million. I don’t know the law on that, I’m just asking the question.
That’s all I’m asking.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Russell I think wanted to respond.
Mr. Russell: Commissioner Handy, you’re absolutely right. That has not been approved
yet and therefore it could be redesignated to other projects. My concerns is that there are
projects already on the books that the money that is currently being identified as available dollars
that in my mind need to be covered and that’s a couple of big projects that did not have sufficient
funding previously. The couple of projects that we did include in the Public Works area are ones
that I feel to be of a crucial nature, one being the flooding of D’Antignac Street at the hospital
and a couple of others there that covers that $6 million that in my mind are continuations of
issues that are critical. The flood land acquisition is $1 million but is one of those things that is
replaced at about a 3:1 ratio based on federal dollars so that’s an investment that brings us back
an extra $3 million and I would be hesitant to remove that at this particular point in time. But
you are absolutely right, none of this is in stone so it’s the will of the body where we go. What
I’m telling you, though, is it’s staff best recommendation that the dollars allocated as these are is
our best recommendation on how to move forward.
Mr. Handy: Right. In closing, Mr. Mays, I just want to thank you for your comment and
your answers. You are here every day. We hired you as the Administrator and you suggest to us
what we should and should not do. And I’m listening to you right, you was a little hesitant about
doing these things. It’s possible it can be done but there’s a red flag that’s up there and had to be
for a reason. I’m not trying to be the Administrator nor an engineer so if there’s a reason there
then if it’s legitimate enough to be concerned then I’m going to be concerned also as a taxpayer.
I thank you for your comment and what you are saying but it is a political decision and that
would have to be done by this body and whether it garner six votes or not. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mays, I have two concerns here. I mean we’ve talked about—I
share ownership of Windsor Spring Road with two or three other Commissioners but I’m
concerned about Windsor Spring Road and no one has said anything definite about Windsor
Spring Road. It has been mentioned two or three times here vaguely but Windsor Spring Road
has been hanging out there for years and I think people talk about crucial projects are to
Augusta-Richmond County, I think Windsor Spring Road is one of the crucial projects there is
because it’s a gateway from the Hephzibah-McBean area, Hephzibah, Georgia, all the way up to
Bobby Jones Expressway and as that area grow out there, Windsor Spring Road gets crowded
and crowded every morning and every afternoon with people going back and forth out there now.
That’s one of the issues I have and I need to find out some specifics about Windsor Spring Road.
10
My other concern is on this list, and I have apologize for [inaudible], the other is about the
relocation of the Sheriff. I don’t see anyone here from the Sheriff’s Department, him be
relocated at the old library now. His jail is out on Phinizy Road and his administration is way
down on Broad Street on Greene Street, I mean I don’t see him here saying whether this is okay
with him, whether he’s agreed to this move. He’s coming out of one bad building, going into
another bad building. That’s one of my concerns and I think we need to hear from the Sheriff
unless you’ve talked to him and he’s agreed to this move. But I think our Public Safety chief
deserves better than that.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. We’ve had that conversation and the recommendation that he’s
agreed to. What we would be moving is just the administrative [inaudible] of what he’s got and
the people that are actually the administrative and the Criminal Investigation Division there. The
library gives you enough space and that was my recommendation. He agreed to that. Obviously,
I think he’d probably—well, he agreed to it as long as we fix the roof, that’s what he said.
Mr. Colclough: That’s what I said, he’s moving out of one bad building into another bad
building so I mean you’re really not helping that situation at all. You’re taking a building that’s
falling down, raining in it, cause the last time I was there he had pots in the floor, and you’re
moving into another building where you’ve got to move the library out because it’s not a good
building. I mean—
Mr. Russell: The rationale behind that is I can give him a better building in the library
for $5 million than I could some place else for $5 million. I’m not opposed at this point to taking
the, to taking the recommendation of using the library off the table so we’re not tied into that,
but—
Mr. Colclough: I would just like to hear from him. If I’m going to vote on this issue I
want to hear from him what is his concern. Moving one [inaudible]—I’m going to us Rev.
Williams’ [inaudible] shotgun house to another shotgun house is not going to work. Okay, so
you answered that question for me. Give me some specifics about Windsor Spring Road. Talk
to me about Windsor Spring. I don’t know how my other two Commissioners feel about it
because they share the same responsibility of that highway.
Mr. Russell: Windsor Spring Road is an ongoing project. It has been ongoing for a lot
longer than I’ve been in Augusta.
Mr. Colclough: As long as I’ve been here.
Mr. Russell: And obviously I think Ms. Smith could probably speak to the details more
so than I could. I’m going to let her do that.
Mr. Colclough: Ms. Smith?
Ms. Smith: For Windsor Spring Road Phase IV, which is from Tobacco Road to Willis
Foreman Road, the Commission approved and we requested from GDOT that the construction
11
funds for Windsor Spring Road Phase V be allowed to be used for right-of-way acquisitions on
Windsor Spring Road Phase IV. And that has been done. For Windsor Spring Road Phase V,
two things have to happen. First of all, we either have to have the construction funds
reprogrammed by GDOT which basically means they either have to come from another project
or it’s simply going to need to be done in an out year and we have to provide I believe it’s $11.2
million for right-of-way acquisition for Phase V.
Mr. Colclough: That’s from Willis Foreman over to 88?
Ms. Smith: That’s from Willis Foreman to Highway 88. That is correct. So the City is
responsible for the $11.2 million in right-of-way acquisition for Windsor Spring Road Phase V.
Mr. Smith: The part that [inaudible] over to Old Waynesboro Road, I mean Old
Louisville Road, from Lowe’s on Peach Orchard to Old Louisville, that’s something that’s
something that we’ve got part of the money from GDOT on that?
Ms. Smith: Yes, sir. That’s neither one of these two projects.
Mr. Smith: Okay. So that it is Windsor Spring?
Ms. Smith: Yes, it’s just the far end. But GDOT isn’t—other than some state aid funds
this isn’t federal aid money like the other parts of Windsor Spring.
Mr. Colclough: From Tobacco to Willis Foreman where we’re at, specifically when are
we going to break ground, when are we doing to see some dirt moving [inaudible]? We’ve been
dancing with this one a long time.
Ms. Smith: I think that for Windsor Spring Phase IV we are waiting on the final approval
from GDOT for us to finish the right-of-way plans. Once the right-of-way plans have been
approved they have to do a process to release those right-of-way funds to us and I would really
hate to go on record to give you a date for that. I think that that’s supposed to start this year.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] plans be completed?
Ms. Smith: I think we’re supposed to finish right-of-way plans and start right-of-way
acquisition before the end of this year. I just don’t remember exactly when.
Mr. Colclough: Do those plans include taking any churches along that area? Because
you know they’re going to put a big concrete divided I understand.
Ms. Smith: We won’t be taking any churches.
Mr. Colclough: No, no, no, no, no. Access into the churches?
12
Ms. Smith: Not all of them. We have I know at least two churches on that end of
Windsor Spring that do have median openings. We just kind of closed that about two weeks ago
and that information was shared with them. The concern was raised at a meeting that we had out
it, I don’t remember which church it was.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Ms. Smith: At Jenkins. And they identified where those concerns were and I believe we
added maybe four additional median openings along the entire stretch of Windsor Spring. One
church had an opening, I know one didn’t, and I think we went back and added at least one other
opening in that vicinity.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Let me, let me just ask this. I know where we are on IV but I’m going to
continue this just a little bit, just to jump in for a second, Ms. Beard. While we are on Windsor
Spring I think if we can clear all of Windsor Spring, IV is basically intact and the question is are
we going to have to reprogram all or parts of V. Is there any money within the plans that we are
putting forth now and this is not to be argumentative but just for information because I think
where that’s—I call it Augusta Little Five Points because that’s where, 9, 6, 4 and 8 come
together. It is on Windsor Spring Road. And what have we got in there at this point that’s
committed to it, I think that’s what Commissioners need to know. Not necessarily—well, I
would think they need to know it prior to sometime within the packaging or at least from the
standpoint of what y’all are going to have to ask for on the reprogramming. Because if anything
is going to stick out from an area where you’ve just built two new schools, where you’ve got
subdivisions growing like you’re growing flowers, and on a two lane road and on the largest park
that we’ve got in this city in Diamond Lakes on two lane road, then we need to start talking
about how much money has to go into that project. And I think the entire Commission needs to
be aware of the fact of how much they’re going to have to have in available reprogramming
monies to make a decision and they need to be very clear that it’s not going to be like, you know,
you know, twinkle, twinkle, little star. It’s real money we’re dealing with. And prior to closing
out where that gap is, I think you’re going to start to see that Public Works pot get closer to the
bottom than it will be rising to the top. So are we looking out of that $11 million maybe having
to reprogram $7 million, $6 million, $3 million, $8 million, $10 million or all $11 million? And
because that’s one that I can guarantee you that when those Commissioners who have to face that
alliance in south Augusta, that’s going to be the one road project that the public is going to ask
where is it and how much money have you got to put into it and how much more are you going
to have to plan to do it? You can look for that one just as sure as the sun is going to come up in
the morning if we’re living.
Ms. Smith: Commissioner, we currently have funds programmed for Windsor Spring
Road Phase V to complete the design and we have approximately $1 million identified that
would potentially cover either right-of-way or utility relocations. I think it’s going to need to
cover utility relocations, which means that the entire $11 million that is identified as needed for
right-of-way is unfunded. Now with respect to the phase or stage of the project, Windsor Spring
13
Road Phase IV and Windsor Spring Road Phase V have been developing together. So when we
get ready to buy right-of-way for Phase IV, if we had the money we could start buying right-of-
way for Phase V as well. We simply don’t have the money.
Mr. Mayor: And I merely asked that question, Commissioners and the general public,
not as any point of criticism but I just think that that’s a glaring example of public works in terms
of a major project of how far off it may be at this point in terms of numbers and we need to
seriously think about and we’re going to ask the question. And if we have to still put in on what
has been identified by this Commission and by GDOT as your number one corridor project, and
if you’ve got to still find nearly $11 million you just need to keep that in your thought process.
And for those who aren’t here, we need to call them and tell them [inaudible] final decision
about what we are doing, that’s what has to be there. And I met with a group of people this
morning and of last week in the business community that are seriously concerned about our
Public Works numbers, ladies and gentlemen, in there, not only the $130 million but what we
have plugged in, whether it will fly or not. And I understand where the capping is but if we are
going to deal with leaving the capping where it is, we better make darn sure that those things that
we have promised over the last several years in more than one sales tax of where we talked about
it, that it’s going to come into reality in order to do it. And that’s just again, it’s just a
suggestion. Ms. Beard, you had your hand up, the Commissioner Williams.
Ms. Beard: Yes. And I’d like to go back to the Sheriff ‘s administration office in the old
library. I firmly believe the old library should not be used as the Sheriff’s administration
building. And I say that because in the near future we hope to develop the third level of the
canal and in my opinion that particular street will be one of our most important gateways from
the city. I think it will be, it could be used for something much more important than this and I
feel the Sheriff could find a place much more suitable. So I am hoping we will not use that
building and hold on to it until we make some decisions in reference to those other things that
will be going into that area. And I’d like a response to that.
Mr. Russell: I just spoke to the Sheriff and he once again reiterated he had no problem
with going to the old library. And he’ll be calling you tomorrow to be able to tell you that
personally. And once again, I have no, no vested interest in putting the Sheriff in the library.
What I was looking at is the chance to do that and get him a better building for the $5 million
that we could invest. If there are other plans for the library that would be more advantageous for
the community I have no problem supporting that, either. I would suggest that you, that we take
the designation of moving the Sheriff to the old library out of the document and just say that we
would have $5 million to relocate the Sheriff, the Sheriff’s facilities, which would keep out
options open and be more effective there. As a matter of fact just yesterday I got a letter from a
citizen inquiring about how much we want to take for the library. He wants to talk about buying
it from us. That just came up yesterday. $11 million we’ll put it on Windsor Spring Road; right?
But you know if that’s the feeling of the group, once again that was only my recommendation,
trying to get the best bang for the buck there. If that’s the feeling of the group to take that away
or to remove that specific thing there I have no problem with that whatsoever.
Ms. Beard: Well, I’d like to place that in the form of a motion.
14
Mr. Williams: I second it.
Mr. Russell: You don’t have a quorum right at the moment.
Ms. Beard: We don’t?
Mr. Mayor: We don’t have a quorum at the moment and we have a motion and a second
on the floor. We can still do a motion and a second when that returns but you’ve got two
motions, quite frankly, that are not germane to each other. You have one that’s on the cap of the
total price and you’ve got one on individual category. What I’d rather see us do is to do up or
down at some point the one that’s on the floor but if we’re going to do one, which the Chair will
allow, but I think it needs to be done separately after that one is voted down so that they stay in
the proper order that they need to be in. And I’ll be glad to recognize that, Madame
Commissioner, that’s not a problem. But I just think you’ve got two conflicting motions that are
out there at this point [inaudible] category [inaudible] if we’re going to deal the cap, the motion
to come forth [inaudible] change the date on the [inaudible]. But when we start talking about
individual items [inaudible] until we can get disposed of on the motion that’s out there. But I’ll
recognize you gladly at that point. That’s the only thing we need to do is hold that. I’m sorry,
Rev. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just want to make a couple of comments and I remember
when that was mentioned. I don’t know how it got on the list anyway unless the Administrator
just thought it was something that would be good.
Mr. Russell: I just had it as a recommendation.
Mr. Williams: Right, right. And that’s why I [inaudible] motion. But I want to go back
to Windsor Spring Road. I don’t have a dog in that hunt out there but I do know that the growth
of this city is bound for [inaudible] south Augusta. We just did the water plant, we just got the
water that’s coming to south Augusta. People used to ask me why don’t y’all do something for
south Augusta? They feel that we are just neglecting. But they don’t understand that. There
wasn’t any water in south Augusta. You can’t put a hotel or restaurant on a septic tank. You’ve
got to have the infrastructure in place and we are diligently working in that area. I thought about
Wrightsboro Road and Sebastian Way but if we are, we got subdivisions growing up, Mr.
Mayor, and using your words like flowers in a garden, we got Fort Gordon who has been passed
over with the closing and it’s going to continue to be there. We have got to start looking
seriously at that area and doing something to get it to handle the traffic and get the relief for the
traffic in that area. So I just wanted to bring that up. I said earlier I’m not satisfied but I know
we need this. But there is so much that we’ve been passing over for so many years and it’s really
done caught up with us now. I mean [inaudible] caught up with us a couple of years ago but it’s
staring us even harder in the face now. We have got to address those issues that’s going to do
some things for the growth. I had a call from somebody is Sylvia’s office. Sylvia, it wasn’t you
this time but somebody in your office called me about a Ruby Tuesday that’s coming in out there
and what was my thoughts on it and what other entities would be coming in that area. So I just
15
know that that’s the only place we got left to grow. It’s wide open out there and I think what we
need to be doing, but we have not been paying the attention, we have not been putting the efforts
on that area like we need to. So I think the voters is going to want to see and want to hear
something. [inaudible] don’t want a vote, don’t need a vote. But I think it’s something that we
all ought to be concerned about, Mr. Mayor, we ought to look at it, where we moving money
from one project to another one, that’s a place that money should be moved, should be utilized.
That’s [inaudible] you talking about [inaudible] people coming back and forth and even moving
out in that direction. So my comments is that the money we need for that ought to be found
somewhere to go in that direction in order to get that process going. We been talking about it for
at least six years that I been down here. [inaudible] and I’m sure something have but it’s not
ready for the type infrastructure and stuff that we need because we have not moved on it. My
comments.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Handy?
Mr. Handy: One other comment, Fred. On the relocation of the Sheriff, I’m assuming
that you’re aware of the audio visual building behind the main library that’s owned by the State
and we’re going to have to have parking for the administration. The next land that we own is on
Walker Street, say south, where the judicial center is going. That land that is part of the
[inaudible] think about putting the old, not the old, but the new law enforcement. Not law
enforcement. Crime lab. Originally before you came. That’s across from the post office there.
Are we going to need additional parking for the Sheriff if he goes in that building, or if we ask
for the building now that the State is on and we tear it down, that that will be sufficient for
parking there, for whatever the Sheriff, if we moved him there?
Mr. Russell: That would actually help the parking at some point. But what we’re
looking for is that we’ve got to provide some additional parking for the Bankruptcy Court in that
area as part of the agreement that we did there. The library itself will require some additional
parking as will the Sheriff. But if you look at the Sheriff’s operation itself, once you take
away—if you go over there today you see lots and lots of cars all over the place. Once you take
away the courtroom and the jail facility, his parking needs are reduced dramatically and we’ve
talked about that. So I think that the plans that we had made would be sufficient to getting him
the parking spaced he would need.
Mr. Handy: Okay. Thank you. That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Let me, let me ask this since Public Works seems to be a part of this
[inaudible]. I yield, Ms. Smith. Did you want to say something?
Ms. Smith: Just one comment and I just want to bring to the body’s attention. Today we
need $11.2 million for Windsor Spring. That number is based on the escalation factors being
included for right-of-way starting at the end of this year. If we do not do it with this phase of
sales tax and we wait five years until the next phase of sales tax, the number will not be $11.2
million. So I just want to make sure that as I stated $11.2 million today, if we come back in a
few years everybody understands the number will not be $11.2 million.
16
Mr. Williams: It’s going to less?
Ms. Smith: It will be more.
Mr. Williams: Well, you said not going to be, I just wanted to be sure. And that’s
something that need to be said and that’s why I asked you that question.
Mr. Russell: And that happens, that occurs with each of these projects, too. Anything
that we don’t build now is going to be more expensive in the future and I agree with that fully.
So we’ve got to be prepared.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, you and I have talked about this being a day of sort of trying to
get in some things to mop up and to clarify and then maybe even of taking another one so that
hopefully we could reach a united decision in terms of moving on. I think it’s important that,
and I think we’ve had very good information brought out and from the standpoint of being able
to do it in an agreeable way. But I think it’s important when you think about [inaudible] and
you’re talking about $11 million I think to identify the other corridor that we’ve talked about, I
think it’s important to put those funds in in their entirety from the standpoint of Windsor Spring
or Wrightsboro Road [inaudible] and it gives us a more realistic figure in terms of what’s left to
even think about reprogramming. Because if those are going to remain high priority items then
you’ve got to be able to take that away from the overall total of what’s in that, that fact or fiction
number of the $100+ million and of where it’s lying around in order to do something with. And
I think we’ve got to be committee to a point of looking at those versus where maybe we’ve
already purchased right-of-way and have invested money on as being ones that may not be the
ones that you want to touch first. I think those that you’ve not invested money and expended
those funds on need to be the place that you look in terms of being able to move a dollar first
because it would be very, very wasteful to have gone into a project whereby you expend funds
and take away and buy something, then you go there and say okay we’re going to abandon that
and then move to something else which is very necessary. But I don’t think that’s a very prudent
way that we [inaudible] and I’m just making that observance because we’re in meeting/work
session format. Let me bring another point to clear since we’re talking about clarity on some
things. I think there was some fuzziness in reference to when one of the projects brought for the,
for the last sales tax, for instance, dealing with Public Works, dealing with infrastructure, where
are we at this point over in the Laney-Walker area and on Laney-Walker Boulevard and into an
area in reference to where there has been movement, displacement of residents, people moving
out, and in the part that we were to deal with with the Board of Education. And the reason why I
say some confusion, some people look at that as a school project but that was to be intended as a
community project. Now, some of you just got out of a meeting the other day in reference to the
situation with Glenn Hills Stadium, Breeze Hill, who is at fault, who is not at fault. What I’m
looking at to a point that if there has been that much movement over in there, I think we need to
get some clarity as to whether that project is on tap for the infrastructure. If there’s going to be a
major stadium built in that area and whether or not the City’s infrastructure is going to be able to
support what is in there or not, I think those are the kinds of things that we need to talk about still
as to where they are, whether they’re going to be in there, because if you’ve got a beautiful
17
corridor that has been created out there and I said this not in a, in a, in a flippant way this
morning to some people, that if we’ve still got stuff to correct that’s on that boulevard when
we’ve got high rains, and if you turn around and you’re going to build a stadium in that area
whereby what’s coming and what’s there do not mix in terms of support for that infrastructure
you can get rod and reel and fishing poles because that’s what you’re going to have in the middle
of that boulevard. I’d like to know where that stands on that Public Works agenda or is that an
item, too, that we are going to have to deal with reprogramming? And that’s not in being
critical. That’s just on information basis. I have been asked by people in that area to a point and
I think that it’s a right to know, particularly after the disruption that we didn’t cause it, but now
that’s an area that contain homes, it contain people and [inaudible] at least to a point everything
that we put on sales tax before has been basically stuff that we talked about putting in. So now if
we’re here to a point if that infrastructure will support it. And mind you I’m not talking about
[inaudible], I’m talking about infrastructure to be supported. We cannot allow that to happen in
an area if it will not support what is going to be there and I think it’s going to [inaudible] that’s
going to build it, they’re going to build one of some size. And we need to be knowing whether
or not there is a dollar figure associated with it. I’m trying to get to that one, too.
Ms. Smith: Are you speaking in reference to the infrastructure that is going to be needed
to support the stadium?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Smith: Okay. Actually we met and the Utilities Department has coordinated with
the Board of Education on that. I think that as far as the stadium was concerned I think the water
line [inaudible] Laney-Walker was sufficient. I think there are some upgrades that are going to
be done off of Laney-Walker in respect to closing a loop on the water line. And when we did the
Laney-Walker project we actually increased the size of the storm drain in Laney-Walker because
we had met with the School Board and were aware that that project was going to be coming
down the pipe a little bit later. Now there are some existing streets out there that I think they
have already been dedicated, the Commission has already taken action to dedicate those streets
where the stadium would replace them and we’ve got some drainage features in there and we’re
coordinating with the Board to make sure that that water is handled adequately for [inaudible] to
go into those old drainage systems.
Mr. Mayor: I guess to finalize what I’m saying there, because you mentioned about what
Utilities is doing. [inaudible] somewhat because this was over in Public Works’ side in the
beginning to deal with it. Now my take on it is I’d just like to see it handled. I’m like the
average citizen, I’m not really concerned about where the pot comes from. But what I am
concerned about is whether the water goes. Because see even with what y’all have done out
there right now, even from Ms. Bonner and before her Ms. Beard were going to Laney, it’s been
flooding in the middle of Laney-Walker Boulevard and then when you’ve done what we’ve just
done now it still floods in Laney-Walker Boulevard. So I’m concerned about the fact that when
a new stadium is built over there, that’s basically on flat land and parking where then does God’s
water go? Is there still—if the money can be taken from Utilities, if that’s a match for it to be
done, then I don’t have any problem with the source. But I just want to make sure that it’s not
18
one of those things where the Board said we thought the City was going to do it, Public Works
said we thought Utilities was going to do it, Utilities said we thought Public Works was going do
it. I think there needs to be some clarity on that, not to decide today where or how we do it, but I
just think that’s one of those biggies that if we are going to talk about reprogramming we do not
need to beautify a corner to look that good, to turn around there and build something that we are
going to have to dig up the rest of the street and try and fix that area in order to get it done. I’m
just trying to clarify that. While we’ve an inter-departmental discussion going on, Commissioner
Handy, you were next. And then Commissioner Smith. Unless y’all are ready to go on this
[inaudible].
Mr. Russell: I think you brought forth a good point on that. And one thing you need to
be aware of, too, is that at some point early in our discussions last time we talked and there is a
continuing dialogue between Utilities and Public Works about that and something we need to
stay on top of. [inaudible]
Mr. Hicks: Mr. Mayor, the Utilities part of it will be sanitary sewage and drinking water,
not to deal with storm sewer.
Mr. Mayor: And that’s why I brought that up because that portion of it only handles one
part of it. Because as you build the stadium and obviously there is going to be, unless it’s going
to be dug out and done and going in from the top of it as you would do in a more expensive
stadium, you probably are going to have ground level situations which if that’s the case it’s
going to really be above ground level. That means you’ve got drainage that’s coming off and it’s
got to come back somewhere and you’ve got to deal with parking lot drainage. So I mean I’m
just throwing that because if was a major one into a corridor where also a lot of other things have
been cut and I think if you are going to at least stick with Public Works and drainage and
infrastructure than that’s at least a small price to pay, particularly in that area, [inaudible] other
things are going to be back to goose eggs and cut out in their entirety. That at least needs to be
done right because we have got a destination point over there. And I’m not going to even get to
that point today because we are trying to keep what we’ve got hopefully to a point of [inaudible],
Mr. Russell, but I think you know, I think you know where my real feelings like to a point that I
think that we’re not creating a lot of drawing cards with this deal and [inaudible] but it’s going to
be with Public Works. If that’s going to be our emphasis and on our basic needs then I’m going
to be darn sure that whether it’s in the west, the south or in the inner city or down in the bottom
that we cover those needs and that we have them there and that we articulate them and put them
out there where folk will know what they are voting on. And I think the Commission first needs
to know what it’s voting on because right now we’ve gotten up to the tune of probably $17
million to $18 million that is going to have to be reprogrammed from somewhere out of what
you’ve got already. And can you do that reprogramming adequately with what we’ve got? And
I think that’s the question that’s going to have to seriously be answered by the policy makers of
this city. That’s not, and I’m not being critical. I’m just being realistic and honest.
Mr. Russell: By our rough numbers, sir, we’re at about $21 million, $22 million. And
there’s not much money to reprogram. We’re not even close. So you’re right, that’s a policy
decision that you’re going to have to make.
19
Mr. Mayor: Are you saying there’s not enough to reprogram, or we’ve not
reprogrammed?
Mr. Russell: No, I’m saying no matter how good we are, we’re not going to come up
with that kind of dollars to be reprogrammed.
Mr. Mayor: Well, what I mentioned is in three corridors and it’s ironic that [inaudible]
three corridors distinctly of this city, downtown and in the Medical College area, a stadium going
where you just invested in University, we’ve got Cancer Center and research over there at MCG,
historic Laney-Walker that’s in there, and what we’ve got going west and to the malls, to the
shopping areas and businesses, the subdivisions that are out there, and also the [inaudible] south
Richmond, I do not think we are prepared to vote today. That’s just a personal suggestion. But I
think we need to find a way to deal with those infrastructure needs that are there. We said we
were going to make it bare bones and cover the needs of the people, not necessarily with
[inaudible] basically been satisfied to say [inaudible] don’t like it, we’ll fall on that sword, we’ll
back off of it if we have to. But I think in infrastructure details we’ve got some talking to do, I
think, in order to gain confidence of folk. And you’ve got to line out what you’ve got, that
which has been spent, that which is clear that’s out there, and that amount that has to still be
reprogrammed. And I’m just making that observance to a point because if [inaudible],
everything that we’ve named so far, that’s a basic necessity that’s there and it may mean that
some of these other folk that’s at the top up here, now they may have to be the ones that wait
because this has not been approved. It may be where somebody’s square footage on a building
may have to get a little bit smaller. Because if we are going to talk about keeping the rain off
folk, if we going to talk about drainage, we are going to talk about flooding, we are going to talk
about putting roads and infrastructure that’s adequate to be able to take care of growth, not
potential growth. Growth that’s already run us over but in a positive way. And you’ve got to
may those folk comfortable. They live there. They got to go home every day. And remember
those who [inaudible] took that money and matched it over there on St. Sebastian, and I hate to
say I told you so, and that was a good project. But I also said on that day it was getting folk out
of the city, we’ve got to do something for those who live here. And who stay here. And who
work here. I’ll yield to the gentlemen down on the left. I think Mr. Smith, you had your hand
up.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor, I made a motion about an hour ago that we cap this at $160
million for SPLOST V and I would like to call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: I heard your call and the Chair is also, Mr. Smith, trying to move with
getting some information and we are not fast tracked and side tracked. Now, we can either talk
about where some of those needs are today, we can talk about them on a different day. I don’t
have a problem with moving on the cap. But I think when people are not informed and they’re
going to make the decision as policy makers, if they are willing to move blindly into the dark to
try and lead 200,000 other folk on a number that they don’t know where it’s taking them, then
the last time that happened they had some help from somebody greater than all of us and the Red
Sea got parted then. But I think we don’t really have a hold on some of this that we’ve got. And
20
I agree with you, we can move on with it but I think if you are going to leave these projects out
here not knowing when and where you are going to put the dollars and how you are going to do
it. I was satisfied, Mr. Cheek, that as long as we had some reprogramming money to go back to,
but now when I’m hearing to a point there is nothing to turn to then that creates another issue to a
point of how do you address those Public Works needs? And I think that’s why you have a work
session and a meeting to discuss it. But now I’ll recognize you and if you all want to go ahead
on and vote to deal with the cap, the cap’s good, and it’s good to set that [inaudible], but if you
don’t have a way that you’re going to get those done, and you can say we’ll just do it later, in
typical Augusta-Richmond County fashion. I told you what would happen in June and I can
basically tell you what’s going to happen in November unless we answer those things in an
intelligent way and lay it out for folk, it’s not going to [inaudible]. [inaudible] all you want.
Mr. Handy: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mayor: Andy had his hand up, Mr. Handy.
Mr. Handy: But that was before you went to Ms. Smith down there and you were
supposed to came by here first. You just forgot.
Mr. Mayor: I didn’t know you had your hand up.
Mr. Handy: Right. Okay. Yeah, you did. You said I’ll recognize you.
Mr. Mayor: I apologize. Go ahead, Mr. Handy, then Mr. Cheek, and then y’all can go on
and vote. But I’ll say this for the record because I ain’t going to say [inaudible].
Mr. Handy: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Just a minute.
Mr. Handy: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: I will, [inaudible] to Mr. Eskola and some others, I’m going to support our
package that we put out here. Whatever it ends up being is the one that we’ve got to end up
living with and doing. It won’t be a half-hearted level of support to do. I think when we come
up with it, I’m hoping that when we have the full meeting our ten folk that we actually will get a
unanimous vote in order to do it. I just want to say that for the record, that I’m going to do that.
But I do take issue to a point that when we don’t want to take the time to at least know
intelligently what we are doing and the problem with that. Mr. Handy and then Mr. Cheek.
Y’all can go ahead [inaudible].
Mr. Handy: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I only wanted to say that the can of worms that I so
eloquently opened up was not to reprogram money to get all what we’ve gotten thus far. I had
no idea about the, the question I asked you, Fred, about the monies that we possibly be getting
back—the question of the $100-some-odd million in sales tax money that we had laying aside
21
doing nothing. Well, based on the conversation we had now we done spent that $150-something
th
million and we still need more money. But right behind A.R. Johnson at 13 and [inaudible]
Street is a fish pond when it rains. That’s just one of those items we was talking about and I just
happened to remember that particular one because there was a lot of questions and concern about
the school and a school at that particular time that everything [inaudible] flooding. That came up
when Mr. Mays was talking about the infrastructure and so if we need all those things, if we vote
on this SPLOST that’s for five years, that stadium is going to be built before five years from now
hopefully. So how are you going to handle all of that if we do what we are doing now? Based
on all of the information that you have received here today, do you have any concerns? You
don’t have to answer that in public.
Mr. Russell: I’d love to answer that, sir.
Mr. Handy: Okay. Do you have some concerns that what we doing is not what we need
to do, that we need to look at this $160 million, or cut something on this $160 million in order to
satisfy the needs that have came up so far today?
Mr. Russell: I think we could spend the rest of the day and probably into the night and
tomorrow morning identifying needs that Augusta has that are very, very important to people, be
they people that live on land that’s next to places that flood, be they people who live in
subdivisions that have traffic in front of them, be they prisoners in jail, or deputies that work in
the jail and sewerage comes down through their office because of the facility itself. And that’s
not the issue. I think each of you agree is very, very, very important questions. And very, very
important concerns. Commissioner Mays, Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Cheek, Ms.
Beard, and all of you have raised very, very big concerns and very, very valid issues. The
question that I keep asking myself is where do you want to start? We can’t solve all these
problems unless you want to put in a SPLOST that has lots more money in it than I think the
citizens are going to be willing to vote for. We can’t solve problems that have been there for
twenty years unless you want to put forth a program that requires lots and lots of money, you
know, that’s there. The hard part that you have is to take the information that we’ve been trying
to give you and make those decisions on what you think is appropriate for us to do. This isn’t
my program. This is a recommendation that I’ve made based on the professional staff and the
people that are around me, and listening to y’all for about a year-and-a-half discussing our needs.
Do I think it’s perfect? Heavens, no. Never have and never will. But there is a place to start and
this is it. If you want to add $21 million that takes us to $189 million-something. Will that pass?
I don’t know. And that’s the issue that is unfortunately—or fortunately for me your decision to
make. Whatever you want to put in here is fine with me. What you’ve got in front of you is the
recommendation that I and the professional staff thinks the best that we can do. But that’s got to
be tempered by politics just like you said a little while ago and the burden is on y’all. I’d love to
be able to put in $11 million to fix Windsor Spring Road. Or $2.5 million to fix whatever. Or
whatever it would take to fix that lake that gets created behind Johnson School when it rains.
But there is a priority decision that has to be made and you’ve got my recommendation but I live
with your priorities. And that’s, that’s all we’re doing. The problem is that your priorities and
my recommendation have to pass the litmus test of the voters. And we haven’t been—the last
22
two times we’ve tried that, we haven’t done a very good job. So, you know, we’re getting pretty
hard up at the moment. And I apologize, but you asked my opinion, sir.
Mr. Handy: Yes, sir. And I accept your opinion and I’ll decide when I vote how
[inaudible] going to go based on what you just said.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I don’t know if I want to start basin by
basin or street by street on flooding problems. I’ve been fighting this [inaudible] since I’ve been
here. We have identified $90 million plus worth of draining issues in this city. We will not in
any way, shape or form unless we dedicate the entire SPLOST package to cover the drainage
issues in this city. Marion has inherited a District that has the largest flood plain in the city of
Augusta. The only thing that is going to solve that is rehabbing Oats Creek, digging out around
Glendale, cleaning out the channels, $3 million to $4 million worth of channels we’ve put in and
concreted in that are silted up, just like Oats Creek. We need to dredge the bottom end of Oats
Creek, we need to open the bottom end of the canal, the third level, in order to have it drained
down Phinizy ditch and [inaudible] drain east Augusta and Laney-Walker. And I can go on and
on about what we need to do. The money ain’t there. We are in a tight spot. If we don’t pass
the SPLOST, ladies and gentlemen, we’re going to lose thirty-plus percent of our staff in Public
Works to funding issues that won’t be covered. What are we going to do then when they’re
standing in the unemployment line? Grieve over them because we didn’t do a better job on
SPLOST? We can add to the list, we can change the list around, some things are just going to
have to wait. I’ve resolved myself to that and I’d like to Phase II at Diamond Lakes complete,
I’d like to see the drainage projects built that we have fought over so hard down here, so many of
the other things that need to be done in this city, but they are just going to have to wait. Thirty-
plus percent of our employees in Public Works will lose their jobs if we don’t pass SPLOST.
Get the message? That’s just in Public Works. And there are other departments that are
depending on SPLOST funds to keep staff employed to manage SPLOST projects. We can hem
and haw around here and talk about not the perfect list. I can go street by street and basin by
basin or drainage issues or road issues and anything else. The bottom line is the capacity of
Public Works to take care of the projects. We do have over $100 million sitting there now that
hasn’t been spent in four years. Period. So if we add another $100 million to Public Works the
bottom line is we’re going to have another $125 million in four years or five years unspent if we
don’t change the way we do business. Now we have got a serious problem on our hands and it’s
called public perception. Now we can fight about this and drag it out but the more time we fight
about it the less time we have to promote this very no-nonsense, common sense SPLOST
package that is before it. And it is not perfect and I don’t like it because a lot of things I’d like to
see done in this city are off. But we as ten people did not [inaudible] the grand vision that the
bond package and subsequent SPLOST package could have been. We fought amongst ourselves
in the public. We actively went out and fought against the package to the public, some of us. If
we do not change the direction we’re only going to repeat the mistakes of the past and I will not
be one of the people on this board who is responsible for seeing probably 100-150 people in this
city government lose their job when they’ve been working so hard for us and that’s where we’re
at. So I just hope that we will consider where we’re at before we start tinkering with the list,
23
before we start hoping for bigger and better things because it’s going to have to wait. The
money is not there. We’ve got a good list and this body can deliberate forever. But for every
day we deliberate we lose a day towards promotion. We can’t afford to lose one minute towards
promotion. So, Mr. Mayor, I know it may not pass today with a vote, but my main concern is
not passing today and getting the particular street I want paved, it’s those jobs, it’s these bigger
projects, and I’m going to say one other thing and I’m going to shut up. I’ve fought for two
years at least on the project at the top of the list, of reducing that. And some of the board
members on here wanted to build an 80-story tower, wanted to do all these other grandiose
things and wouldn’t even address cutting that down to where we could use it for other projects.
It made me smile when you said that earlier. There are a lot of things that need work out here, a
lot of things that we won’t be able to cover. That’s the bottom line. But what we are covering
are things we must have, not necessarily want to have but must have. And you know I’m not a
public relations expert but I do know the drainage of this city, I do know some of the other
engineering aspects of this city. We’re never going to be able to cover the cost and as far as the
recapture money we’ll probably get ¼ of what’s necessary, what you mentioned earlier, to put
that in real perspective. But we’ve got to work on this package and we’ve got to work on it
together and if we can’t do that then we need to call the vote off today and walk away from it
until we can get heads in one place.
Mr. Mayor: Ladies and gentlemen, I think we’ve got obviously some things that are
coming. One, the chairman of Engineering Services and I started off talking about what was not
on here in reference to what we needed to do in terms of clarity on another issue. I think that’s
something that can be worked [inaudible] in progress. I think, Andy, you all probably over the
course of the next week, ten days, two weeks be able to deal with that, move [inaudible] where
we can get that out, get it talked about. The motion that [inaudible] deal with the cap that we
have I think that will at least send a signal of the amount of money that we plan to work within
and I think there are details that you can work on the other. I actually think the discussion has
been good because I still think you’ve got to get clear in terms of what you are actually going to
vote for, particularly in that Public Works category. But hopefully even with the number that
we’ve got here today that that can at least get passed and then be able to move to the next stage
of where we need to go. So Mr. Williams and [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: If I can get clarification. I just want to get some clarification, Mr. Mayor.
We voted last time on the SPLOST to do a cap and if we vote for this cap and it’s passed, I mean
am I to understand that we are going to either approve, if it’s approved today or are we going to
have to deduct from what we got here if anything here is different? I mean I guess that’s what I
want to know. I mean I hear and I know we need a cap. I agree with you that we need to
dialogue some more about what we are doing and where we are. But I’m just asking a question
because I’m thinking if we approve a cap of $160 million that’s what we are going to shoot for,
that’s what it going to be. Well, if there are some problems and Commissioner Cheek brought
some very interesting points about the drainage and the infrastructure we need to do. Well, it’s
several and I checked them off. I got six, seven items on here that’s not [inaudible] people that’s
concerned about it. But only the things that Commissioner Cheek talked about, the voters is
going to be in agreement with [inaudible] trying to do. The things that are on this list that I
checked off, it’s going to have some people to vote for but it’s not going to be the mass of
24
people. So I’m thinking if we cap it all at $160 million that’s what we are going to have to deal
with. Is that the way the vote, just want to clarify that.
Mr. Mayor: Whatever we vote on stands until, quite frankly, unless you unvote it. And I
say that not to be facetious but it stands in terms of that figure. And if six votes on another day,
then [inaudible]. But if we vote to cap it at the $160 million that’s where it is for this point in
time and probably will be the number that you’ve got to work within. And this will be the first
time that we’ve done this on a numbered figure. Everything else has been based upon either four
years in the beginning or the five year extensions where there was a definite run-out date time.
This one does not in terms of money. Like I say if it’s a good economy it runs out quickly. If
it’s not do good you may continue it. So you actually entering in some new ground in the
government because you’ve not done it this way before. Commissioner Handy?
Mr. Handy: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I just want to say one final thing about the motion on
the floor today. If I look at the list there is $140 million that is within the District that I represent
right now. $140 million. Now, I did not ask the former Mayor to resign when he did and left.
But I did ask to have the opportunity to come back here and work on this Commission for
Augusta. Now there is no way that any Commissioner could sit up here and think that within
three weeks that I can come up here and know about all the things that you all have talked about
two or three years ago. And when I’m trying to get a clarification on whether or not I should or
should not vote for something based on that, then don’t come up with all the things that we could
do or should do. I don’t know that. I wasn’t here when you came up with those ideas.
Unfortunately, the Mayor decide to pack it and run. Then we had to have an interim mayor.
Then we had to have interim Commissioner. Well, interim doesn’t tell you that I’ve been here
every meeting that you all had and I know everything that you all are talking about, but when I
push this button up here that means that I’m agreeing with everything that you all are talking
about. And how can I agree with something that I don’t know anything about? That’s all I have
to say.
Mr. Cheek: Me, too.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: No further discussion, there is a motion and a second to deal with the, with
the cap. I will say this on behalf of my former Super District colleague. He and I talked both
last night and today. He was going to try and get a call in to us in the middle of the day, that
being from Mr. Grantham. And we were hoping, quite frankly, that—and my main reason for
this actually being a meeting/work session was to get out some of what we’re getting out today.
And hopefully that when we are at full strength and to be at a full Commission that we could get
approval by an overwhelming majority of this Commission even with differences that are there
and things we might like to see, to be able to get it passed and to be able to get it moving. And
hopefully that can occur. There is only one motion. Nobody has made another one to deal with
[inaudible] and I’ll have to carry the one that is out there. But—you want to say something,
Fred?
25
Mr. Russell: I just want to thank you for the dialogue. I think it’s been very valuable and
these are tough decisions and hard things to do and I think that you’re being prudent in making
sure that we understand and get it right as best we can.
Mr. Williams: I’d like to make a substitute motion that we go five years and not a dollar
amount versus $160 million [inaudible] or whatever it is.
Mr. Colclough: Can’t hear you on this end.
Mr. Russell: Can’t hear you.
Mr. Williams: I make the substitute motion, Mr. Colclough, that we go with a year, with
a date rather than an amount. I just don’t see how we can get what we going to get anyway but I
think five year, the Mayor mentioned earlier, that if the economy is good we may raise more than
that. And if we raise more it will probably be [inaudible] been normally doing here anyway is
having a year versus a dollar amount.
Mr. Mayor: There is no second to that motion. The original motion is the only one that’s
on the floor. The substitute dies for lack of a second. All in favor of the original motion of
holding a cap at the, at that particular number, Ms. Bonner, would you so state it for me, please?
The Clerk: $160 million cap.
Mr. Mayor: $160 million?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion fails 5-1.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor: Do you have before you—if everyone would remain in place for just a
moment I need to set a meeting time kind of right now.
Ms. Beard: [inaudible] the library?
Mr. Mayor: If you let me finish asking her this question [inaudible]. I just want her
while we’re doing that vote [inaudible] Monday’s schedule before we lose the folk I’ve got in
here. Because I think we need to go ahead on it [inaudible] in order to [inaudible].
The Clerk: The schedule for Monday—
26
Mr. Mayor: For Monday, what do we have that’s blank?
The Clerk: Well, 9:00 a.m. is the called meeting to receive the Housing & Economic
Development audit and you asked for a two hour span on that. Then you have a called meeting,
legal meeting at 11:00. And then we have our regularly scheduled committee meetings starting
at 12:30.
Mr. Mayor: Ladies and gentlemen, if we could between now and Tuesday, if we could
check in with the Clerk’s office I’d like to be able to get a majority of Commissioners, hopefully
since most of you will be here on Monday for committees then we could probably try and
squeeze that in to do it. If not then we’ll have to move in terms of Tuesday and being able to
have that meeting in order to get that done. The Chair recognizes Ms. Beard for the purpose of
making a motion. While they’re side barring, I’ll recognize Ms. Beard. I don’t want to lose a
quorum. If you’re going to get a motion in, I’m going to let her get it in.
Ms. Beard: I’d like to make a motion that we take the old Library off the table as the
place for the Sheriff’s administration building.
The Clerk: Remove the designation of the old library for the relocation of the Sheriff’s
administration office. Is that it?
Ms. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Need a second or it does.
Mr. Williams: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second.
Ms. Beard: May I add one thing?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Ms. Beard: I’m simply thinking about the future and I do feel that this in the long run
will be the best decision for the City of Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: There is a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion will do—I’m
sorry.
Mr. Cheek: I won’t belabor the point long but if we’re not going to put a facility in there,
I would rather have the Sheriff than an empty building which is what we are going to have at that
property, that discussion be undertaken if we pass this with the library to put that in the Land
Bank, to have it sold for commercial or other development because it will be an empty building
if we don’t.
27
Ms. Beard: It will not. That is not what I have in mind. I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: Jimmy? I mean Mr. Smith, I’m sorry. Can I get [inaudible] it’s on the
motion. Ms. Bonner can take that off, with Sheriff’s Department use. That’s the motion that on
there right now. We’ve had adequate discussion on it. All in favor of the motion will do so by
the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Handy: We voting to take it off?
The Clerk: The remove the designation of the old library for the relocation of the
Sheriff’s administration offices. Administrative offices.
Ms. Beard: That it will be placed someplace else.
Mr. Handy: I don’t know anything about what’s going on there. If staff has agreed, he
recommended—
Mr. Mayor: I go on and get y’all to vote because I remind you of a big overriding factor.
You don’t have a cap figure set so all that is really immaterial. So let’s go on and carry the
motion and get out of here.
Mr. Handy abstains.
Motion fails 5-1.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy
of the minutes of the Called Meeting/Work Session of the Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on August 24, 2005.
___________________________________
Clerk of Commission
28