HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 19, 2005 ARC Commission minutes
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
December 19, 2005
Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., December 19,
2005, the Honorable Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
Present: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Williams, Beard,
Cheek, Sims and Rearden, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Absent: Hon. Handy, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Reverend Clarence Moore, Pastor of the Good
Shepard Baptist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
The Clerk: On behalf of the Mayor and members of Commission, we’d like to
thank you for imparting that petition to heaven on our behalf. We thank God for you and
in honor of you today we have named you Chaplain of the Day for your civic and
spiritual guidance demonstrated throughout the community [unintelligible].
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Mayor: We will start the meeting with presentations to outgoing members of
the Augusta Commission.
PRESENTATION(S)
A. Presentations to out-going members of the Augusta Commission.
Mr. Mayor: I will go down front and as your name is called, if you could please
come up front.
The Clerk: We’d ask the following Commissioners to please join the Mayor here:
Commissioner Bobby Hankerson, Commissioner Barbara Sims, and Commissioner Roy
Rearden. Commissioners, Augusta, Georgia salutes and sincerely thanks all of you for
your outstanding dedication and service on the Augusta Commission. With grateful
th
hearts and great appreciation, presented by the Augusta Commission this 19 day of
December, 2005.
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. First of all, I want to say thanks to God for allowing
me to serve for the past four years. God has been good. And He’s always good. I thank
Him for his wisdom and for His knowledge of decisions had to be made and decisions
that we made. And I want to thank my family, most of all, for all the lack of presence
there at the home many time during a lot of things. My church family, also that worked
1
and prayed along with me and supported everything that I was doing. And we want to
thank them. I want to thank most of all the citizens that placed me in the position for the
last four years, that I tried to do a great job, I tried to hold what I campaigned to do, what
I said. And we always was guided by the Holy Spirit in decisions that we make and we
want to thank all of the constituents of District 5, all the citizens of Augusta, Georgia for
your support, your kind words, and your encouragement. And I do say that I’m tasked,
I’m a servant, I’m tasked to continue to work for the city of Augusta to make Augusta
one of the places that everybody want to live and the things that are good for Augusta and
I will continue to do that. I’m not going nowhere. I’m a [unintelligible] citizen, I will
remain. Thank you so much.
[A round of applause is given.]
Ms. Sims: And I’d like to thank everyone here. I would first of all like to thank
the Commissioners who gave me a vote of confidence to sit on this board with them two
years ago, and then for the citizens who voted for me, to be representative of District 3. I
met a lot of great people. I’m thankful that I had the opportunity to serve and that is what
I tried to do. I tried to be a servant. That’s all I ever wanted to be. Nothing more than
that. So I hope that I—I’m not living this city. I’m only leaving this stage. I will be in
the audience and I’ll be watching everything that is going on. But I thank you all for the
opportunity to be a servant.
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Mayor: Thank you all. Okay, we will next—I’d like to call for the consent
agenda. Commissioners, are there any additions to the consent agenda?
The Clerk:
Mr. Mayor, while the Commission is reviewing for items to be
those items on our consent agenda consisting of our Planning petitions.
pulled, I will
read those in the event that if there are any objectors to those Planning petitions, once the
petition is read if there are any objections to the petition would you please signify your
objections by raising your hands:
PLANNING
1. Z-05-124 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Ingenium Consulting Inc., on
behalf of JWS Investment Properties, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-2
(Two-family Residential) and Zone P-1 (Professional) to Zone P-1 affecting property
located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Curran Street and Chafee
Avenue and containing approximately 2.3 acres. (Tax map 45-2 Parcel 262-273, 275,
276 & 277) DISTRICT 1
2. Z-05-125 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Michael T. Kramer, on behalf of
Horace A. Smith, et al, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General
Business) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) affecting property located at 3392
Beaver Drive and containing 1.62 acres. (Tax Map 41-1 Parcel 65) DISTRICT 3
2
5. Z-05-119 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Value Place LLC, on behalf of
Noland Properties, Inc., requesting a Special Exception to establish an extended stay
hotel per Section 22-2 (d) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County affecting property known as 2115 & 2117 Noland Connector and
containing approximately 2.9 acres. (Tax Map 68 Parcels 139 & 140) DISTRICT 5
6. Z-05-120 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that the property be fenced
on all four sides and the fence be locked when property not in use; a petition by
Lakemont Presbyterian Church requesting a Special Exception to utilize a residence
for church related activities per Section 26-1(a) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property known as 1001
Bluebird Road and containing .46 acres. (Tax Map 19-4 Parcel 104) DISTRICT 7
7. Z-05-121 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Marilyn Robinson requesting a
Special Exception to establish a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (F) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 2714 Cardigan Court and containing .25 acres. (Tax Map 141
Parcel 327) DISTRICT 4
8. Z-05-123 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Ingenium Consulting, on behalf of
JWS Investment Properties, requesting a Special Exception to establish a public
parking area per Section 8-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1021 Moore Avenue and
containing .16 acres. (Tax map 45-2 Parcel 242) DISTRICT 1
The Clerk:
Are there any objectors to those Planning petitions? There are no
Under our Public Service
objectors, Mr. Mayor. portion, if there are any objections to
the alcohol petitions would you please signify your objection by raising your hands?
PUBLIC SERVICES
9. Motion to approve a request by James C. Young for an on-premise
consumption Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with Cuz’s located at
1979 Tobacco Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee December 12, 2005)
10. Motion to approve a request by Ju Yun Bell for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Super Mini Mart located at 1812
Lumpkin Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 12, 2005)
11. Motion to approve a request by Anara Confer for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with The
Flamingo located at 2320 Gordon Hwy. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee December 12, 2005)
12. Motion to approve a request by Binal Patel for a retail package Beer & Wine
license to be used in connection with Richmond Hill Enterprises, Inc. DBA
3
Richmond Hill Market located at 512 Richmond Hill Rd West. District 2. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 12, 2005)
13. Motion to approve a request by Harish B. Mistry for a retail package Liquor,
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Kam & Harry's Booz Market
located at 1889 Gordon Hwy. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee December 12, 2005)
The Clerk:The Consent
Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Agenda consists of items 1 through 43, items 1 through 43.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, could we add on the consent agenda, from the
regular agenda, 44, which is alcohol, and 45, which is a massage?
PUBLIC SERVICES
44. Motion to approve a request by Mukesh N. Patel for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Raceway located at 2161 Gordon Hwy.
District 5. Super District 9. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee
December 12, 2005)
45. Discussion: A request by Richard Bighon for a Therapeutic Massage license
to be used in connection with Massage - X - Stress located at 104 Warren Rd.
District 7. Super District 10. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee
December 12, 2005)
Mr. Mayor: Is there any discussion on that? Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, is this the item that the gentleman didn’t show up for
the pre-meeting? 44. Yes, I would like to hear the reason why this gentleman wasn’t
here.
The Clerk: Are you okay with 45? Oh, you wanted for both? For both? Okay.
Mr. Mayor: So we will leave them on the regular agenda. Any other discussion
on the consent agenda?
Mr. Rearden: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Rearden?
Mr. Rearden: I would like to move item number 18 to the regular agenda, please.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can get some clarification. Are we going to move
or we going to pull those items to be discussed? I mean I just need to know which we
going to do it now. Are we moving those items over to regular agenda and just wait for
4
them there or are we pulling those items and then discussing them? I got no problem
either way. I just need to know which way to go with it.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Rearden, correct me if I’m wrong, but you are moving
that one to the regular agenda; correct?
Mr. Rearden: That’s correct, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Williams: So Mr. Mayor, we’re not going to be able to pull and discuss
them? We going to move them over to the regular agenda; is that right?
Mr. Mayor: Well, on this particular agenda item Mr. Rearden has just requested
that it be moved to the regular agenda.
Mr. Williams: I need Mr. Shepard to probably step in here. I think what we can
do—
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Parliamentarian?
Mr. Williams: Pull that item and come up for discussion. After we approve the
agenda we go back and discuss those, but not move it to the regular agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Parliamentarian?
Mr. Shepard: It’s the same thing, Mr. Williams. Commissioner Rearden desires
debate on 18?
Mr. Rearden: That’s correct, sir.
Mr. Shepard: And so that would not be part of the consent agenda. The Chair
would then be able to call that later for full discussion, Mr. Williams. When you pull, in
our parlance.
Mr. Williams: And Mr. Mayor, I want to apologize. I wasn’t trying to—
Mr. Mayor: No, don’t worry about it.
Mr. Williams: Well, I just want to make sure that we’re on the same page. I
mean if we’re pulling items, and I know you in this mode right now and you got to go
through that. But I want to make sure that we’re clear.
Mr. Mayor: I understand.
5
Mr. Williams: We’ll pull those items, Mr. Rearden can talk about them, cause I
got a couple I need to pull as well. I didn’t know if we was going to forward them on to
the other agenda and do something different today. That’s all. I’m just trying to keep it
at that simple Steve stuff we talked about, Steve.
Mr. Shepard: I appreciate it, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any more discussion on moving agenda item number 18 from
the consent agenda to the regular agenda? Hearing none, we will move it. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull item 16 and item 31 for some—just
clarification on those. Also, Mr. Mayor, item 38. I need some clarification on 38 as well.
Mr. Mayor: Any others? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, with the consent of the body and the Chair, I’d like to
suggest moving item 49 and 51 to the consent agenda, please.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
49. Motion to approve Georgia Department of Community Affairs Local
Assistance pass-through grant in the amount of $250,000 for Augusta-Richmond
County to provide funding to the Augusta Burn Center for indigent care subject to
the approval of the Attorney and Administrator.
ATTORNEY
51. Resolution in Support of Fourth Judgeship for State Court.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s deal with Mr. Williams first. Is there any discussion on
moving 16, 31 and 38, pulling those from the consent agenda? Okay, that’s fine. Is there
any discussion on moving number 49 and number 51 to the consent agenda? Mr.
Williams?
Mr. Williams: 51, Mr. Mayor, I need some discussion. I’m not in favor of
moving that. I have no problem with 49. But 51, I think it needs some discussion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion on moving agenda item number 49 to
the consent agenda. It shall be moved. Is there anything further to be pulled or added to
the consent agenda? Is there any more discussion on the consent agenda?
Mr. Grantham: Motion to approve.
Ms. Sims: Second.
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
6
1. Z-05-124 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Ingenium Consulting Inc., on
behalf of JWS Investment Properties, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-2
(Two-family Residential) and Zone P-1 (Professional) to Zone P-1 affecting property
located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Curran Street and Chafee
Avenue and containing approximately 2.3 acres. (Tax map 45-2 Parcel 262-273, 275,
276 & 277) DISTRICT 1
2. Z-05-125 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Michael T. Kramer, on behalf of
Horace A. Smith, et al, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General
Business) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) affecting property located at 3392
Beaver Drive and containing 1.62 acres. (Tax Map 41-1 Parcel 65) DISTRICT 3
3. FINAL PLAT – WEST WHEELER TOWNHOMES, SECTION 2 – S-731 -
A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to APPROVE a petition by Southern Partners Inc., on behalf of ATC
Development Corp., requesting final plat approval for West Wheeler Townhomes,
Sec 2. This residential townhome subdivision is located of West Wheeler Parkway,
south of Antilles Drive and contain s 26 lots. (Reviewing agency approval 12-5-05)
4. FINAL PLAT – CEDAR RIDGE FARMS, SECTION 5 – S-687 – A request
for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to
APPROVE a petition by Southern Partners Inc., on behalf of Kenneth McCumbers,
requesting final plat approval for Cedar Ridges Farm, Section 5. This residential
subdivision is located on Forest Road, adjacent to Cedar Ridge Farms, Section 4
and contains 47 lots. (Reviewing agency approval 12-5-05)
5. Z-05-119 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Value Place LLC, on behalf of
Noland Properties, Inc., requesting a Special Exception to establish an extended stay
hotel per Section 22-2 (d) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County affecting property known as 2115 & 2117 Noland Connector and
containing approximately 2.9 acres. (Tax Map 68 Parcels 139 & 140) DISTRICT 5
6. Z-05-120 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that the property be fenced
on all four sides and the fence be locked when property not in use; a petition by
Lakemont Presbyterian Church requesting a Special Exception to utilize a residence
for church related activities per Section 26-1(a) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property known as 1001
Bluebird Road and containing .46 acres. (Tax Map 19-4 Parcel 104) DISTRICT 7
7. Z-05-121 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Marilyn Robinson requesting a
Special Exception to establish a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (F) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 2714 Cardigan Court and containing .25 acres. (Tax Map 141
Parcel 327) DISTRICT 4
8. Z-05-123 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Ingenium Consulting, on behalf of
JWS Investment Properties, requesting a Special Exception to establish a public
7
parking area per Section 8-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1021 Moore Avenue and
containing .16 acres. (Tax map 45-2 Parcel 242) DISTRICT 1
PUBLIC SERVICES
9. Motion to approve a request by James C. Young for an on-premise
consumption Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with Cuz's located at
1979 Tobacco Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee December 12, 2005)
10. Motion to approve a request by Ju Yun Bell for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Super Mini Mart located at 1812
Lumpkin Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 12, 2005)
11. Motion to approve a request by Anara Confer for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with The
Flamingo located at 2320 Gordon Hwy. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee December 12, 2005)
12. Motion to approve a request by Binal Patel for a retail package Beer & Wine
license to be used in connection with Richmond Hill Enterprises, Inc. DBA
Richmond Hill Market located at 512 Richmond Hill Rd West. District 2. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 12, 2005)
13. Motion to approve a request by Harish B. Mistry for a retail package Liquor,
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Kam & Harry's Booz Market
located at 1889 Gordon Hwy. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee December 12, 2005)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
14. Motion to approve a request from Ms. Mary Crawford, Director of
Communities In Schools - Augusta-Richmond County to amend their 2005
agreement to reflect a change in the budget to include van insurance. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee December 12, 2005)
15. Approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and
uninhabitable structures in the Turpin Hill Neighborhood: 1720 ½ Luckey Street;
1722 ½ Luckey Street; 1726 1/2 Luckey Street; 1655 Luckey Street, 1925 Steiner
Avenue, 1410 Post Lane, 1710 Franklin Street, (District 2, Super District 9);
Bethlehem Neighborhood: 1426 Lee Beard Way, 1592 Linden Street, 1562 Linden
Street (District 2, Super District 9); Albion Acres: 2029 Shirley Avenue, (District 2,
Super District 9); Sand Hills Neighborhood: 2626 Royal Street, 532 Fleming
Avenue, 534 Fleming Avenue, 710 Weed Street, (District 1, Super District 9) AND
WAIVE 2ND READING.
16. Deleted from the consent agenda.
17. Motion to approve recommendation of AHEDD on the New Savannah Road
Social Services, Inc. Police Sub-station Project. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee December 12, 2005)
18. Deleted from the consent agenda.
8
PUBLIC SAFETY
19. Motion to approve 9-1-1 Policy for transferring Emergency Medical Calls.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee December 12, 2005)
20. Motion to approve Private Probation Services Contract with Sentinel for one
year. (Approved by Public Safety Committee December 12, 2005
21. Motion to approve purchase of replacement Cisco VoIP Call Manager and
Unity servers. (Approved by Public Safety Committee December 12, 2005)
22. Motion to approve the transfer of funds to Communication Equipment
Rental. (Approved by Public Safety Committee December 12, 2005)
FINANCE
23. Motion to approve bid and award contract to the lowest bidder, Empire Tree
and Turf, in the amount of $22,075.00 to perform a class II pruning on 80 trees and
the removal of 5 trees located on public right-of-ways throughout Augusta
Richmond County. (Approved by Finance Committee December 12, 2005)
24. Motion to approve tasking the administrator to identify a funding source
from recaptured SPLOST funding for repairs to air conditioning unit at the
Augusta Museum of History. (Approved by Finance Committee December 12, 2005)
25. Motion to approve the solicitation of RFP for a financial advisor and bond
counsel for the $44 million bond issue passed for SPLOST V. (Approved by Finance
Committee December 12, 2005)
26. Motion to authorize the transfer of funds for the Public Defender building to
Capital Outlay Fund for use in 2006. (Approved by Finance Committee December
12, 2005)
27. Motion to approve a request from the NAACP regarding the purchase of
tickets for the 32nd Annual Freedom Fund Banquet. (Approved by Finance
Committee December 12, 2005)
28. Motion to approve the acquisition of 2 flex wing mowers for the Public
Services Department-Maintenance Division from Burke Truck and Tractor
Company of Waynesboro, Georgia for $9,880.00 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 05-
145). (Approved by Finance Committee December 12, 2005)
29. Motion to approve the acquisition of 2 skid steer loaders for the Public
Services Department – Maintenance Division from Augusta Turf and Tractor
Company for $22,341 each (lowest bid offer on bid 05-148). (Approved by Finance
Committee December 12, 2005)
30. Motion to approve the acquisition of 1 diesel powered slope mower for the
Utilities Department- Water Production Division – Hicks Filter Plant. The cost of
the mower is $40,622.20 from Kut Kwick Corporation of Brunswick, Georgia
(lowest bid offer on bid 05-150). (Approved by Finance Committee December 12,
2005)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
31. Deleted from the consent agenda.
32. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Property #048-3-073-03-0
Sand Bar Ferry Road, which is owned by the John W. Gibbs, III for 0.056 acre
(2,4244.81 sq. ft.) of Right-of-Way. Public Works Project: East Boundary Street and
9
Drainage Improvements Project (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
December 12, 2005)
33. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Property #048-3-048-01-0
417 East Boundary Street, which is owned by Myrtis G. Madison for 0.005 acre
(201.45 sq. ft.) of Right-of-Way. Public Works Project: East Boundary Street and
Drainage Improvements Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
December 12, 2005)
34. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Property # 128-0-076-00-0
3615 Karleen Road, which is owned by Van Johnson for 4,961 Sq. Feet for a
Permanent Easement and 2,552 Sq. Feet of Temporary Easement. AUD Project:
Horsepen Sanitary Sewer, Phase 2. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
December 12, 2005)
35. Motion to approve the definition of a unit for the 2006 solid waste collections
contract. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 12, 2005)
36. Motion to approve to proceed with the project relative to the Gordon
Highway Median Barrier Project, CPB#323-04-299823547. This will replace the
existing center guardrail barrier on Gordon Highway from Peach Orchard Road to
Walton Way with a concrete median barrier. (Approved by Engineering Service
Committee December 12, 2005)
37. Motion to award contract to Advanced Disposal for commercial garbage
collection for services provided to various departments within Augusta-Richmond
County in an amount not to exceed $435,138.00. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee December 12, 2005)
38. Deleted from consent agenda.
39. Motion to authorize Utilities to Proceed with Billing Software Upgrade and
Reporting Enhancements and Approve 2005 Budgeted Funds to be Carried
Forward to 2006. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 12,
2005)
40. Motion to approve Supplemental Agreement Number One (1) with Jordan,
Jones & Goulding (JJ&G) in the amount of $79,844 to provide street lighting plans
for the Windsor Spring Road Improvement Projects, Phase IV & Phase V (CPB#
323-04-299823766 & 323-04-299823786) as requested by the Engineering
Department. Funds are available (in SPLOST Phase IV) in the project engineering
accounts and will be funded from each project in the amount of $39,922 each.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 12, 2005)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
41. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held December 5, 2005 and Special Called Meeting held December 13, 2005.
APPOINTMENT(S)
42. Motion to approve the appointment of Ralph Jonah Simons Jr. to the ARC
Planning Commission to fill the unexpired term of Jerry Brigham representing
District 3. (Requested by Commissioner Barbara Sims)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
10
49. Motion to approve Georgia Department of Community Affairs Local
Assistance pass-through grant in the amount of $250,000 for Augusta-Richmond
County to provide funding to the Augusta Burn Center for indigent care subject to
the approval of the Attorney and Administrator.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: There are a lot of people in the Chambers here today that have come
for certain items that are on the agenda. With that in mind I’m going to go ahead and
address the other business items first. That would be in the following order: item
number 53, item number 57, item number 59, agenda item number 56, agenda item
number 55, agenda item number 58, and agenda item number 54. And we will recognize
with regards to some of these issues—I know some of you have come to speak on these.
With the pertinent issue I will ask the people that are scheduled to speak, the delegations,
to come forward and speak on those issues. That being said, we will start with item
number 53.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I asked the Attorney to draw up—this is an
item that can be addressed by local ordinance.
Mr. Mayor: Hold on one second.
Mr. Cheek, Ms. Sims, Mr. Rearden, Mr. Grantham and Mr. Smith vote No. Motion fails
4-5.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS
53. Discuss hire/fire power for the City Administrator. (Requested by
Commissioner Andy Cheek)
Mr. Cheek: That being part of the record, Mr. Mayor, I will continue. Sorry for
the interruption. I asked the City Attorney to draw up an ordinance reflecting of
changing the manner in which the department heads for the City of Augusta Richmond
County are selected. Each year we as a Commission task our Administrator to go forth to
manage this city, to make the government run in an effective and efficient way. Each
year as time passes we are asked to select different administrative personnel to run our
departments. These department heads manage as many as 300 to 400 people, sometimes
more. While those of us here sitting on the Commission ultimately must hold the
Administrator responsible for managing the City, we technically—and each one of us
have different skills and backgrounds that we come from—do not have the administrative
background generally in the managing of a large organization of 2700 people and an over
a $100 million budget annually. Therefore, I propose, and this is also something that has
11
been brought up more than once, about six months and a year or so ago by a citizens
committee, it’s been widely discussed across the city and across the state and may in fact
be dropped as a state amendment by our Legislative Delegation this coming year. But if I
could get the Attorney to read the resolution changing, the ordinance changing the
responsibilities of the Administrator, then I’ll make a motion to approve said changes.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I could? I think it would be helpful, Mr. Mayor,
members of the Commission, to look at the Administrator’s duties under the Code at the
present time. And I have passed out two sheets, one discussing the Administrator as his
powers presently are conferred and the ones that would confer a new policy and a new
ordinance which would confer additional power on the Administrator. If you look on the
handout that’s from the present Code you will see that the Administrator’s duties under §
1-2-36 are stated in subsection (a) to recommend for appointment or removal all Augusta
Richmond County department heads subject to the approval of the Commission. That’s
with the exception of the Augusta Richmond County Attorney, the Clerk of Commission,
the Equal Opportunity Officer, the Internal Auditor, all of whom shall be appointed and
discharged directly by the Commission. So my attempt at drafting something here for
you to look at to implement the suggestion of Commissioner Cheek is captioned as an
ordinance and it is an ordinance to amend and restate our Code at § 1-2-36(a) so as to
provide for the appointment and removal of department heads by the Administrator and
to provide an appeal that decision to remove and to provide for an effective date. The
version that I had in front of you is § 1-2-36(a) and it states to appoint and remove all
Augusta Richmond County department heads. I have simply removed the recommending
authority and conferred that authority on him to appoint and remove. The appointment of
the department head shall be finally decided by the Administrator. And the removal is
left to the Administrator or you could have a variation there that the removal of the
department head shall be subject to the approval of the Commission. The Augusta
Richmond County Attorney, the Clerk of Commission, the Equal Opportunity Officer,
and the Internal Auditor shall be appointed and discharged directly by the Commission.
So the ordinance as recommended has two variation, one of which has appointing and
removal authority solely in the Administrator. The second would be to appoint the
department heads and the removal would be still subject to the Commission’s approval.
Now, you can choose between those but it would be my opinion that under the home rule
ordinances—and since this is already a part of the ordinances of Augusta, since it is a
Code section, that this could be done. It would be done as an ordinance and it would
require two readings. Those are the variations that I have put before you today, Mr.
Cheek.
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to recognize Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m in opposition of changing the
Administrator’s duties. The Administrator already has the power to hire everybody up
department head level. The department head level then have to be brought back to this
body of Commissioners. He is tasked to narrow the selection process down for
department head down to three and then recommend to this body, which is similar to
what Mr. Shepard has said about discharging that person being recommended to this
12
body. This city charter, city government is set up with an administrative style of
government, meaning that we do not have the management style. And there are two
styles. There are management and manager has the opportunity to hire and fire. But this
city has selected through no input from me or anybody on this panel, I don’t think, but
the way this government is set up is that we have the Administrator to have the authority
to do all of the hiring and firing except for the Commission Clerk, the City Attorney, and
the, the DBE person, I believe it is. But—and the Internal Auditor. But that’s a process
that’s already in place. If we going to change that, Mr. Mayor, just to have the authority
to dismiss a person, I really don’t see the significance of it. I’m in opposition of that. We
had an ordinance that already drawn up by the Attorney but what benefit, I guess, is it?
What benefit is that going to do for us here as a local government? I mean why is that
necessary? That’s one of the changes that’s been on this resolution we been talking
about. But what benefit? Maybe if somebody can enlighten me with that I may be able
to change my mind to agree. Mr. Shepard, if he can give me the pros and the cons or
benefits or way against, the non-benefits.
Mr. Shepard: Well—
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: I think that the benefits would be a more—an organization that
functions more here like a board of directors and it would be conferring management,
more management powers, more entrustment, expansion of that Code section, the party,
the Administrator. The benefits would be that there would be a more disciplined
organization. The board would have a role that would be more policy setting. And some
of you may not view that as a benefit. What I may view as a benefit you might not view
as a benefit. But that would lead, I think, to an organization that runs more efficiently.
I’m of course not privy to all of Mr. Cheek’s thinking on this and I see he’s raised his
hand, but those are just some of the benefits. Here again, you may not regard those as
benefits. If you look at the same thing—that’s one of the few things I think we could do
under the home rule power.
Mr. Williams: If I can respond, Mr. Mayor, to that?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: Thank you. We are a diverse community, Mr. Shepard, and we
have had a history of this town or this city and that’s what it ought to be called, a city, not
a town, but we got a history in this city of things not being done fairly. So by giving that
weight or that power to any one person would give us the sense of going back to what we
were hundreds of years ago. But to have that, to have any Administrator recommend to
this body three people and we as elected official, whether this group here or another
group, would be a fair process. Would you not think that would be fairer than having one
person to decide who gets whatever position in this government, out of all the employees,
all the department heads that we have? Wouldn’t it not be a more fair process to do it the
13
way this government is set up already to do and the way we have been doing, doing those
things?
Mr. Mayor: I was going to say, let me go ahead and recognize Mr. Cheek, as it is
his resolution.
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible]
Mr. Cheek: The original question before we got to the second line of inquiry was
why this would be of benefit, and I would like to address those if possible. The bottom
line is [unintelligible] the ultimate fairness, is delivery of services to the people of this
city in an effective and efficient manner. We in fact are somewhat of a business where
we have revenue and expenses in the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
To have an administrative staff composed of an administrator and department heads who
answer to eleven or twelve individuals, thirteen or fourteen if you count the deputies, is
ineffective and it causes confusion in the management structure, which is exactly the
case. Because as we have it today, many of us continue to go not just to seek information
but to discuss operations and make suggestions, too, and when there is no clear cut chain
of command with one ultimate authority responsible to this body as a board of directors,
which it should be, which is the pattern by which all major Fortune 500 companies are
modeled, then we have confusion and inefficiency and a lack of fairness. There are those
that are protected, there are those that are wrongly chastised. The bottom line is the
business of the city suffers. This in fact is not taking the city back one hundred years but
is in fact moving it into the current operational structure enjoyed by many Fortune 500
companies across the world today. The choice before us is whether we want to continue
to have a government run by committee or a government run by professional managers.
Our Administrator is the sole head professional manager employed by us to operate the
government. By ordinance he is responsible for presenting the budget, for managing and
operating the City in a safe and effective manner, delivering the most services for the tax
dollars brought into this city as possible. We, all of us, some of us do manage people,
some of us have various size businesses we are involved in, but none of us are
professional managers of the caliber that our Administrator is. This is an effort to
streamline the chair of command, to provide an ultimate chain of authority, and to
provide one person that is accountable to us that will be responsible for running the
government. Yes, it will be strengthening the Administrator’s position. But the bottom
line is, if you have eleven bosses—and I ask anybody to answer this question, and
honestly if you think about it, if you have eleven bosses telling you how to do your day-
to-day business are you going to know exactly what to do? Because you’ll have eleven
different ideas, directives on the same subject. So what this will do is bring us in line and
consistent with other cities that are successful. Waynesboro. North Augusta. The
problem that we face here in Augusta today is not that we’re not capable of becoming
more effective and more efficient but we can continue to hold on to the inefficiencies.
The consolidation bill was written as a good starting point. Any document, any house
plan, any design over time must evolve to maintain its efficiency, it must be repaired and
improved upon in order to stay competitive. This is step one toward staying competitive
and improving our operational structure.
14
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, I’d ask that—and all the rest of the Commissioners—
let’s try to stick to the two minute rule. I recognize Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, thank you. One of the things I think my colleagues
need to understand is that this is not 500 Fortune company. It is government. Number
one, the process is there, and if the process would work, I don’t think we’d be sitting here
talking about changing the government. There is a process in place where each person in
this government should have a supervisor. That supervisor is responsible for someone
else. If supervision was taking place in this government I don’t think we’d have the
Administrator talking to ten bosses. I don’t think the Administrator would have to fire
anybody. I think the process is already in place. I think the process is not working. I
look at an ordinance here saying that giving someone the authority to hire and fire. No
one is saying what the process would be. In any government—I’ve worked for the
government for thirty-some-odd years and we’ve had bosses on top of bosses, but the
process of supervision was in place where if I was not doing my job I had a supervisor
who would meet with me on a weekly basis and set up a plan. I don’t think we need to
change the government or give anybody more hire and fire power. I think what we need
to do is increase what we already have on the books. I think there is a process here. It’s
in the manual. It’s in ordinances. I think it’s just not being used.
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to recognize Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: My first question is if the Administrator requested this?
Mr. Russell: No, ma’am, I haven’t. I knew the rules when I got here and what
that process was. I have not requested a change in that process and feel that I can work
with either way that you want to do that. It’s a policy decision and I’d be more than
happy to work—well, thank you for the job. I’d be more than happy to work either way.
That’s a policy decision this body needs to make and I feel capable of handling the
situation either way.
Ms. Beard: Well, thank you. You’ve answered my question. I must say this, Mr.
Mayor, I’ve enjoyed working with him.
Mr. Mayor: Great. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I understand the two minute rule, Mr.
Mayor, but let me say that with the number of people that we represent here, it’s going to
be almost impossible to limit the Commission to two minutes. Now, I understand we
can’t talk all day and we’ve been accused of that but there’s a lot to be talked about.
Now, Mr. Cheek mentioned about ten bosses and there’s no such thing. The Commission
got a six vote rule. If you can count to six, Calvin Holland, you going to be all right. Six
votes is all you got to do. Once six votes decide on anything that’s the law here. And
once we do six votes for department head or anybody else—the Administrator carries out
those things that we have tasked him to carry out with those six votes. Now, he don’t
15
have to answer to ten different people. He only have to answer to six votes. Now, Mr.
Cheek, myself been accused of micromanaging. I never told any department head to do
anything. I never pulled anybody off of any job, even though I was accused of that, as
well as you, Mr. Cheek. But that just a tactic to tear down what we do have and already
in place. Now, we can keep changing and changing and changing then what we going to
end up with? Mr. Mayor, all I’m saying is that I think the process is there to work for
what this government has been set up to work, with an administrative style of
government, we need to keep that. We need to hold him accountable, just like we hold
ourselves. When we task things to do, when six votes say do those things, those things
need to be done, Mr. Mayor. And I’m going to make a motion that we deny this and get
on with the rest of the city’s business.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I’ve got to hold everybody accountable to that two minute
rule, though, too.
Mr. Williams: I understand, Mr. Mayor, but I’m saying two minutes is good
but—
Ms. Beard: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: There’s going to be other two minutes that come along behind that.
That’s all I’m saying.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I feel that 2700 employees, this man has got a
tremendous responsibility and I really feel that it would be in order for him to make these
decisions, to keep it out of politics if nothing else. Keep it away from us on this board.
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Rearden?
Mr. Rearden: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d just like to say that this is a business.
Any time you spend $665 million that you take from someone, whether by taxes or they
choose to spend it with you, that makes a business out of it. A business needs a chief
executive officer and a board of directors. Our manager should be our chief executive
officer. He should have all the powers that a chief executive officer of a large
corporation has, subject to guidance by the board of directors. And in terms of the six
votes, that’s all it would take to turn the Administrator out on the street is six votes. So
therefore, it is necessary that this government have a chief executive officer so that the
day-to-day operations of this government is run in a streamlined, efficient and cost
effective manner. That’s all I have.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion?
16
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, point of order. I don’t know if I got a second yet or not
so I’m just going to—
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Cheek: Mine will come in order. Primary motion, in order of the day, mine
would be the substitute motion to approve and then we’ll vote on the Mayor Pro Tem’s
motion; is that okay?
Mr. Mayor: Do you have Mr. cheek’s substitute motion?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The substitute motion by Mr. Cheek and seconded by Ms.
Sims was to approve the resolution giving hire and fire power to the Administrator. The
original motion by Mr. Williams and seconded by Ms. Beard was to deny the resolution.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ll be brief. On the substitute motion I urge support. I
for one as a resident and representative in this city believe it can do better, believes
consistent with government and industrial practices that all organizations and operational
structures need to be tuned up from time to time. To say that this or no other change is
necessary is to ignore one of the common principles of thermal dynamics, is things to go
from order to disorder and the longer we ride a broken piece of legislation the worse it’s
going to get. This is a chance to start tuning it up for the future.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any more discussion.
Mr. Grantham: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: I’d like for the question. All Commissioners will now vote by the
usual sign. Substitute.
The Clerk: We’ve voting on the substitute motion, is to approve the resolution.
Mr. Colclough, Ms. Beard, Ms. Williams and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion fails 5-4.
Mr. Mayor: I was just going to say, due to the motion failing do we need to go
ahead and vote on the—
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: The main motion.
The Clerk: The main motion is to deny the resolution.
17
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? Call the question and all Commissioners now vote
by the usual sign.
Mr. Cheek, Ms. Sims, Mr. Rearden, Mr. Grantham and Mr. Smith vote No.
Motion fails 4-5.
Mr. Mayor: I guess we’re 0-2 so far today. Okay, the next agenda item is agenda
item number 57.
The Clerk:
57. Resolution requesting the change to governing legislation to majority vote for
the City of Augusta by the Legislative Delegation. (Requested by Commissioner
Andy Cheek)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will be as brief as possible within the two
minute rule. Majority voting legislation is currently being enjoyed by our School Board.
What I’m asking today is—and I will put forth in the form of a motion that we send forth
to the Legislative Delegation to put forth before the people a referendum suggesting that
the Augusta Commission voting structure be changed to majority voting for a majority of
those present voting, that abstentions be treated as present and that the total number of
votes for or against be the ones that carry the initiative, that win the day. This is
consistent with what is being done at the School Board and has been done for years. Mr.
Mayor, this would give a chance for the people vote in this coming year, and I think as
you suggested, that it not take effect until the following election, which would be the next
Mayor's election so we could have a change, perhaps, of the Mayor, maybe not, I don’t
know, but that would give a change for this coming year for the people to vote and for it
to take effect the following year, which would be the ’07 year, for it to take effect. But I
make that in the form of a motion and I will issue this challenge. That I have heard a lot
of “fors” and “againsts” on this one, that this is done successfully on the School Board,
has been done for a number of years, so I would certainly expect anyone in opposition to
this hear today to standly strong—mush mouth here, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Strongly stand.
Mr. Cheek: Strongly stand—how about stand strongly against what’s done in the
interest of fairness that either we get consistent with what the School Board is doing or
they get consistent with what may be considered right. So in event, one set of rules for
all people in the eyes of fairness, want to make that happen, so the motion is as I stated,
in not quite as many words, Mr. Mayor.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Williams?
18
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve been very opposed to this. I was
looking through the audience and I see Rev. Irvin who is with the SCLC and others who
fought to make sure that this government would be [unintelligible] fairly. Fairly I said.
We have a group of Commissioners who forced—and that’s a good word in this case, Mr.
Mayor—who forced to work together. I mean we’ve got to communicate, we’ve got to
talk to each other now, and this simple majority, all over the world the majority rules.
But in Augusta we going to change to the simple majority. Those we can get to show up.
But the democratic process has always worked all over the world, even to this last
election, even to the President of these United States, but we going to change to the
simple majority so it be fair. How in the world can that be fair? I mean that—in fact, I’m
embarrassed to have that brought forth to say that that’s a fair way of doing things when
we are in a position now where we have to, we have to communicate with each other.
We’ve got to. We represent different areas, different neighborhood, different
constituents. We’ve got different problems. But if we get a situation like being proposed
here today—and this another trick to try and decipher what’s fair in this government.
You ain’t got to like this government. I really didn’t want the consolidation myself, Mr.
Mayor. I wasn’t in support of it. But it’s here now. And it’s here and it’s set up so we
have got to work together. We still are our brother’s keepers. Whether we like those
brothers or not we still are their keepers. And this government is set up as far as it
possibly can. Now, do it work all the time? No, sir, it do not. But if it doesn’t work now
it certainly not going to work if we go to a simple majority. So I’m going to make a
substitute motion that we just deny this, Mr. Mayor, for any resolution going from this
body to the Legislature or anywhere else saying that we are in agreement. Cause we—
and that’s more than one—are not in agreement with doing this. That’s my motion, Mr.
Mayor, that we deny this resolution as well.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognize Mr. Cheek.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think even—I’m not even going to say it.
Majority vote is majority vote of those present. Call it simple, call it majority vote, it’s
the same thing. So you just basically reaffirm the fact that majority vote is done
everywhere else but it’s not done here. It’s done on the School Board so I expect to see
everybody that’s here in opposition lined up at the School Board beating the doors down
because that is totally wrong, too. It’s either right or wrong. [unintelligible] we’re
dealing with millions of dollars and we’re dealing with right and wrong, which is the
bottom line.
Mr. Mayor: Please address the Commissioners through the Chair.
Mr. Cheek: Well, in any event, Mr. Mayor, over the course of the last five years
my voting record is well established as being a person who would walk across the aisle to
create unity and work on issues that I thought were right—not black or white, but right. I
have been on my occasions called the sixth black Commissioner. In fact, that was what I
19
was called up until just recently by people that looked like me. I don’t have a problem
with that. Never have had a problem with it. I haven’t voted and had to go across the
aisle. I worked with people that were right on the issues and I worked with them. Unless
we go about and get into a process of changing the things, the way we vote and the way
we hang people out to dry that cross the aisle, that work together, then nobody is going to
cross the aisle because certainly my family and other Commissioners on this board have
suffered long and hard because they’ve been willing to work together. Mr. Mayor, there
is nothing wrong with this and anybody out here that wants to [unintelligible] about right
and wrong or anything else, the bottom line is if it’s right for government which oversees
the people, all of the people, on a fair and equal basis, then it’s right in each body of
government. There is no discernment between the two because of where the dollars
come from or who the age of the people they oversee. If fair is fair, then fair is fair for all
people, no matter what they look like. That’s either true or not. We have got to stand
united for equality and fairness, which is what I’ve done since I’ve been here. And to
imply anything different, it’s just not true and the record doesn’t substantiate that. The
bottom line on all of it is when you get down to government, majority legislation works
locally. It works, it has worked for years. It’s not an issue with the community. So why
is it an issue here? Is it because we as individuals have some predetermined prejudice
towards other people? And is it right? No, it’s not right. It’s not right. We’re either
going to get on with the business of Augusta and become one Augusta or we’re going to
continue to walk in this same circle over and over again.
Mr. Mayor: Well said. I’d like to recognize Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to try to be brief with this.
Commissioner Cheek brought up a good point that I want to remind people. He said if
it’s the same thing, simple majority, it’s the same thing as majority, then why are we even
talking about changing something that is already the same thing? That’s the first thing
that don’t make sense to me. The next thing is these Chambers are filled this afternoon
with people who are concerned about just this issue here, and not only this, but this is one
of them. This just a cry to let people know that we need to get forget about the color line.
Commissioner Cheek, I’m going to commend you. You have crossed that line several
times. But you got criticized to the max for voting on right issues, not black issues. You
got criticized as much as a man can tolerate for voting on right issues. And we said it
many, many times in this Chambers about bring brothers, about being twins. Nobody in
my six years of Commissioner ever said to me one time you shouldn’t be calling Andy
Cheek your brother. But you can’t name, you can’t name and especially in this public
crowd here, congregation there, the things that people said to you about calling me your
brother. So fair is fair when it’s level. You’re not going to lean to one time and expect to
be fair. We’re going to call it what it is. We got six Commissioners, we got ten
Commissioners, it takes six votes, that means we have got to cross the aisle to work
together. Hand in hand. Veto power, anything else is going to cripple this government to
a point that we are going to be at a disadvantage all over this city of Augusta and I don’t
think it’s fair. Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. I think I got a second to my motion,
Madame Clerk. If I didn’t, I’d like to know—
20
Mr. Mayor: I don’t believe—there is a second?
The Clerk: Ms. Beard seconded it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a substitute motion. Could you please read it?
The Clerk: The substitute motion by Mr. Williams and seconded by Ms. Beard
was to deny the main motion by Mr. Cheek and seconded by Ms. Sims, is to approve the
request, the resolution.
Mr. Mayor: All Commissioner will now vote, the substitute.
The Clerk: Voting on the substitute motion. To deny. To deny.
Mr. Cheek, Mr. Rearden, Mr. Smith, Mr. Grantham and Ms. Sims vote No.
Motion fails 4-5.
The Clerk: The main motion is to approve the resolution.
Mr. Mayor: Call for the question. All Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Ms. Beard, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion fails 5-4.
The Clerk: No action.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk:
59. Resolution requesting the change to governing legislation from the
Legislative Delegation to grant veto power to the Mayor of Augusta. (Requested by
Commissioner Andy Cheek)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor—
Mr. Mayor: Here we go again.
Mr. Cheek: Although it is consistent with the Congress of the United States that
the President be given veto power over Congress and Congress be given the authority to
override said veto, I have my fears for this legislation here in Augusta today. But the
proposal today is to grant veto power to the Mayor’s office, to be overridden by seven
votes of this Commission, which is one over the six vote current requirement. I remind
21
all the Commission that the Mayor’s office, just like all these seats, changes from year to
year. This is something that would be carried off into perpetuity, which would take the
six vote initiatives and require the Commission to come back and work together with
more than just one person crossing the aisle, which would be in the best interests of the
city, and help everyone to pull together over issues, to come to better compromise and
better legislation to override the veto. Again, it is consistent with the legislation in
Congress, as pertains to the Legislative and Executive branch and it would give the
Mayor’s Office more authority. The Mayor is the only elected official here elected to
serve on a full time basis. So I make that in the form of a motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Rearden: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t plan to run for any other seat, but
if I run for Congress and it’s set up that way I’m going to respect the way the Legislature
have got it set up. But I ran for a Commissioner’s seat that is not set up with a Mayor
with a veto power. And I said before that if we changed this government in any form we
going to be one sided. Now, y’all don’t like to talk about black and white. But let’s talk
about green. If the Mayor was green and you had five green Commissioners that’s going
to be one sided. That’s going to be a one sided situation. We need to understand that we
have got a Mayor who able to break ties if there is a tie. He is the full time employee of
this government and I don’t how much more you can get full time, Mr. Mayor, than this
Commission job, but the point is we’ve got a Mayor who can stay neutral and help both
sides pull together by coming together with these people and talking with them and
building a coalition to be able to get some things done. But we give anybody, a green,
blue, purple, any other Mayor veto power and there’s matching Commissioners that fit
that description, it’s going to be one sided in this city of Augusta. So we don’t want to
start, we don’t want to create any more discord in this community than we already have.
We need to leave the situation where it is, Mr. Mayor. My substitute motion is to deny
the veto power for the Mayor or anybody else that want to veto anything and let’s get on
with the city’s business.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All of us sitting up here are represented by
Districts. And the only people that elected us are the people in that District. The Mayor
is elected by all people of Augusta Richmond County and he got a lot more votes than
any one of us. And I truly feel that he should have some type of vote.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Rearden?
Mr. Rearden: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There have been some things that have
been passed by this Commission with six votes that were not necessarily good for the
city. There have been things that have failed that have not been necessarily good for the
city. And there have been things that have failed that were good for the city and things
22
that have passed that were good for the city. But we need to empower the leader of this
Commission with a veto, a seven vote override, green, purple, blue, orange, whatever the
color of the Commissioners, it takes seven to override the veto, and it can be done. This
city needs one person to stand up for its entire citizens and that person should be the one
who is elected by the entire citizenry of this city.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? And we have a substitute motion on the
floor. Lena, could you please read that out?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The substitute motion by Mr. Williams, seconded by Ms.
Beard, is to deny the resolution granting veto power to the Mayor. The main motion, Mr.
Cheek, seconded by Mr. Rearden, was to approve the resolution requesting the change for
veto power.
Mr. Mayor: All Commissioners will vote on the substitute motion first, by the
substitute sign.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think there is some confusion. What’s the—
The Clerk: The substitute motion, Mr. Williams, is to deny. And that’s what
we’re voting on now, to deny.
Ms. Beard, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion fails 5-4.
The Clerk: The original motion is to approve the resolution requesting to grant
veto power, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Rearden.
Mr. Mayor: All Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Cheek, Mr. Rearden, Mr. Smith, Ms. Sims and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Motion fails 4-5.
Mr. Mayor: Can I just go on the record as saying something? I hadn’t said and
introduced a compromise on this issue and obviously all of these things failed but
ultimately I do think that we need to put these questions to the people and just please let
the record show that. By the way, anybody that had an item on the Planning items on the
consent agenda, that has been taken care of and you—if you’ve got no further business
you can go home. The next agenda item is agenda item number 56. And I would like to
recognize, due the fact that it’s pertinent to this agenda, Ms. Debra McCord.
The Clerk: On 56?
Mr. Mayor: Is Debra here? Okay. And please keep it to five minutes.
E. Ms. Debra McCord.
23
RE: Fire Chief position.
Ms. McCord: Good afternoon. Good afternoon to Mayor Copenhaver, ladies and
gentlemen of the Commission, I come before you this afternoon as a concerned taxpayer
to speak about the Fire Chief’s position. I acknowledge the Fire Department this
afternoon. You all are doing a great job. However, I ask that you please do not waive the
education requirements for this or any other position. Perhaps you can tell us, the
taxpayers of Augusta, the reason why the requirement was put in place in the first place.
Your actions today may be a possible financial risk that may be detrimental to the
taxpayers of Augusta for years to come. Before you begin picking and choosing who you
want to abide by the policies and procedures, please ask yourselves: is it a position or is
it the person? How will present and potential employees feel about applying for future
positions in Augusta? Will we travel the same path as to rewrite the requirements again
once this position reopens? These are the kinds of actions that weld distrust in our
government. I ask the question: are you really truly trying to earn the taxpayers of
Augusta’s truth? Taxpayers paid for a search for the Fire Chief’s position. And we were
told that there were three qualified finalists out of many. Those three traveled to Augusta
at taxpayer expense to be interviewed. You rejected qualified applicants at that time.
What is the final report on all three applicants? Was the search just a formality or was it
that the person that is now being considered in the process alone? Who is responsible for
the decision not to hire the finalists? What was wrong with them? Yes, it is taxpayers’
business. How can you ask employees to follow your policies and procedures when you
don’t follow your own? Many employees have been fired and many citizens have been
penalized for not following your commands? How about employee morale? My next
question is how and who will decide and be responsible when present employees come
forward and ask that their years of experience be counted as college credits as well? Are
they worthy of the same special treatment? Recently the Sheriff requested a pay raise for
his employees. It was stated that low morale, low pay and employee migrations were
some concerns. They were told that no money was available. Subsequently they were
awarded pay raises. The Fire Department came next, asked for the same treatment. Then
the Utility Department. When it appeared that it was a never-ending request, all
employees ultimately received pay increases. All of our government employees should
feel equally needed and appreciated for their contributions to Augusta government. The
consolidated government saw the need to initiate the college degree requirements. At
that time the citizens of Augusta were told that this requirement was necessary in order to
operate a more efficient government. This policy does not follow—allow us for years of
experience as substitution for college degrees. Because of this requirement present
employees are unable to obtain higher positions. Who is going to judge whether the
present staff is privileged with the same treatment? Some potential applicants have been
discouraged from applying for jobs that require a college education, although they have
many years of experience in many different professions. Why is the Fire Chief’s position
more worthy of this treatment? Recently there was an open position as Customer Service
Office Manager in the Utilities Customer Service Division. An associate degree in a
related operational field of study and five years in similar positions or sufficient
experience was required. Although I have 30+ extensive years of experience in customer
service and office management, does this mean that I can have and ask one of our
24
[unintelligible] Commissioners to recommend that the criteria for that position be waived
for my benefit? Wouldn’t this process be called micromanaging? Is this something that
we are supposed to be getting away from? Tell me why is there an employee already in
position that has lesser education requirements but the necessary experience who acted as
Interim Fire Chief, not being considered for this position; what’s wrong with him? Mr.
Attorney, I would like to know if there is any way the citizens of Augusta can reject
payment in the event a potential lawsuit may occur from this intentional financial risk
that may be leveled upon us. Again, this is a possible financial risk and it may be
detrimental to the citizens of Augusta for a very long time. And I’m here to say I am a
concerned citizen. I am a life long resident of Augusta, I love it here, I plan to go
nowhere, but I do not—and I refuse to pay taxes for such actions.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Discussion on agenda item 56?
56. The appointment of Interim Chief Willis as Fire Chief. (Requested by
Commissioner Andy Cheek)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I believe Mr. Hankerson had his hand up. I’ll yield to him.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As being Administrative Service
Chairman, a couple of months ago I tasked the Human—Ms. Pelaez the opportunity to
ask her to go back and look throughout the City of Augusta to look at positions that we
could substitute years of experience for years of college and that was like 4 to 1. We
brought back one report and we were still looking for a full report of that, because as Ms.
McCoy said, I am fully aware of an employee that spoke to that, the effect that maybe
had eighteen years and someone else came in and she was not qualified to move in that
supervisory level but she had been working during the absence, the vacancy of that
position. I actually believe that not in all positions, but in many positions you can
substitute years of experience for college. I returned from state government from 31
years of service and they use that criteria across the state of Georgia. It’s advertised in
the Georgia Municipal Association’s newspaper and also the Association for County
Commissioners that they use the same criteria of substituting. It doesn’t mean that you
have to do one or the other, but it gives flexibility for a employee that has worked a long,
long time and has longevity in the department. And never have the opportunity to move
any higher because they at the end of the scale. I think that that privilege ought to be 4 to
1. Sixteen years of experience versus a person with a B.S. degree or a B.A. or whatever
the job requires or associate degree. I started believing in that because of the fact that I
worked as I said many years and in my job I train professional people, students that came
from MCG and the medical field asked for me over a registered RPT. But I had
experience. I had worked. I knew the job. But I never could get the pay. I did the job
well. And I think that we do have some employees need to have that same privilege, not
only for the Fire Chief but for the entire employees of Augusta, for all of them. That’s
25
my position on that and I hope that the Commission will still ask our Personnel
Department to come back and do that and make sure that that is done, and not just for an
individual. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I was against waiving the
educational requirements because we did put structure in place and we asked for those
requirements and we had three qualified applicants to make it to the finalists. One who
after checking the background didn’t have all the requirements that we wanted. The next
one elected to stay where they was for a period of [unintelligible] move up in that same
position. But we had a qualified applicant to stand before us here to have the job as the
Fire Chief with all the requirements. So I was against waiving those once we had a
person to come with those requirements. You know, I figured well, it almost automatic
because if the other two eliminated themselves and this next person would automatically
get the job, I thought. But the Commission elect not to hire this person with all the
educational requirements. And then six to eight months later we want to waive them and
give it to it person. Now that’s where my problem comes in at. If we going to be crazy
enough to waive those requirements we ought to have enough sense to at least let those
employees with the minimum education requirements that we put up on them now apply
for the job. If we give it to any one person we going to be setting ourselves up against for
that lawsuit that Ms. McCoy talked about. If we just designate somebody and give it to a
person. Now, if we going to waive them, I got a problem. But I got a lot of them. That
just one of my problems. But if we going, if we going do anything, look like what we
would do was to be fair about it, would let whoever with those minimum requirements
that we asked for apply for the job. And then we select from that group. But when we
waive the requirements and designated a person to give the job to, then we are really
taking advantage of the taxpayers. Cause the money ain’t going to come out just directly
of just the pocket of the men and women up here. It’s going to come out of all the
taxpayers’ money. And I don’t need my Attorney to step in and tell me that’s not a
lawsuit, cause that is a lawsuit. When you got somebody who stood in front of us and
met those requirements that we wanted. Now, if we hadn’t found anybody and then we
looked all over the world and under every rock, we could say we can [unintelligible]
because there is nobody out there that fit those standards, we had them too high. But we
did not have them too high. We had a young man who came before us and I remember
the exact words of the Administrator. Mr. Mayor, you wasn’t here but just let me just
refresh your mind a little bit. The Administrator said to us if we think this man can be the
kind of Fire Chief we want in Augusta, we can hire him. I can repeat it. But they voted
not to hire this young man. Now, if we going to waive the educational requirements I
still got a problem with it. But let’s be fair. Let’s be open minded. We just talked about
we got to work together. Let’s all these employees that got the minimum requirements at
least apply for the job. Let’s don’t just give it to a person. Mr. Mayor, my motion is to
deny giving this position to anybody. Now, y’all already got your six votes to waive
them. But if you want to do that let’s be at least give the perception that we are fair. We
may not be fair but let’s at least put it out there like we fair.
26
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a motion. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to try to keep this brief again. If a
city anywhere in the United States or in the world had a request out they would want a
fire chief that could handle national disaster and manage seven to ten state, federal and
local agencies without a loss of life or an injury on the job, the would want someone that
could come in and manager the emergency management agency of their city or have a
working knowledge of that and the sheriff’s department. They would want someone that
had a working knowledge of the government and ownership in the success of the
community that they had. They’d also probably look again, which may indeed be foreign
to Augusta, but at the requirements of the companies and the credit that other companies,
other institutions, and/or national laboratories give people for years of service. College
credit for years of service. It’s a very common thing to do. It’s not foreign. It’s done in
this city. It’s done in other cities. It’s done in this state. It’s done in this nation. It’s
done in foreign countries. If you had someone come—in fact, one of the three candidates
that came even mentioned why in the heck are you even identifying me, you’ve got
Bubba Willis here. Now, we can talk about wasting taxpayers’ money but let us see if in
fact any candidate—Mr. Administrator, did any candidate that came here receive a
majority vote of this Commission in the past?
Mr. Russell: No, sir, they didn’t.
Mr. Cheek: And were they in fact—that is an at will position that we as a body
can choose the candidate that best fits the needs?
Mr. Russell: The procedure is that I present recommendations and you choose,
yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: Has every candidate that’s served—and you may or may not know
this—that’s served in the past as Fire Chief of this city had a B.S. degree?
Mr. Russell: I do not know the answer to that.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Attorney, do you know?
Mr. Shepard: I do, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: With just a yes or a no, have they all had B.S. degrees?
Mr. Shepard: They all have not had degrees, sir.
Mr. Cheek:
Okay, they all haven’t had B.S. degrees, but now it’s an issue? Mr.
Mayor, we can kick around the fact that we’re picking and choosing but we’ve got people
in this government at other levels, in Engineering and other different departments that are
27
doing excellent work but they don’t have the degree, but they are in fact doing the work.
We should encourage the work ethic of you work hard and you get a chance to get ahead.
Of all the 275+ fire fighters, never have I heard so much support behind one particular
man, nor have I seen any one man—and though we have many great fire fighters in this
country—that has distinguished themselves in the line of fire as Chief Willis did when he
managed the Graniteville haz-mat scene, which included more than seven state and local
agencies, with no loss of life to the rescuers. He coordinated and worked with FEMA
and South Carolina’s equivalent to FEMA. The railroads. And all the other agencies that
other cities the size of Atlanta don’t have people that have been proven under that kind of
fire. And yet we would consider ourselves smart if we walked away and threw up some
type of prerequisite that hasn’t been followed in the past. We talk about saving money,
let’s get somebody that’s going to stay here and not rotate out every two years to go to a
bigger city to get paid more, which has been the case in the past. Irregardless of
personalities that is the case, because Augusta is a transitional city. Let’s find somebody
I’m going to
that has a stake in the success, a long term success of this city. Mr. Mayor,
make a substitute motion that we—and we’ve already waived the requirements at
the last meeting, and the fourteen days that elapsed—that we appoint Chief Howard
Willis as Fire Chief of Augusta Richmond County.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to recognize Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, just briefly, Mr. Mayor. A discussion was made about the
candidates that we interviewed. As Administrative Service Chairman, I did go through
the process, I did interview with every candidate that came forward. And yes, Mr. Niles
Ford came forward. He was well qualified for the job. Yes, that’s true. And yes, I want
it to go on record that I did vote for Mr. Niles Ford to be Fire Chief but we didn’t get five
more votes. So I was one of the ones that voted for the candidate that came forward. So
let’s make the record clear, that everybody have a understanding that I did not deny Mr.
Niles Ford. And that process now has ended. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to recognize Mr. Rearden.
Mr. Rearden: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t understand what we’re arguing
about really, because when that fire truck pulls up to my house or your house, you want a
chief leading that department that knows fire arts and not fine arts. Just remember that.
Your house will not be burned down by a painting. It will be burned down by a fire and
we need the most qualified people. We’re setting a precedent of beginning to promote
the people who have worked for this government, who have made a lifetime contribution
to this government. I hope that long after all of us are gone off of this Commission that
that is what will stay with us, is that we are a government that values our employees, sees
to their welfare, and elevates them when the opening and the qualifications fit. Thank
you.
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to recognize Ms. Beard.
28
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to bring the following to your attention, and it
comes from the Augusta, Georgia employee handbook. And as I listened to Mr.
Hankerson, it is my understanding that nothing has been changed there at this point. On
the job application for any job that is offered in the Augusta government there is the
statement that Augusta is an equal opportunity employer. On page sixteen of the
Augusta, Georgia employee handbook under the heading 1N – Equal Opportunity it
states—this is our handbook: all applicants for positions and all employees of Augusta
shall be assured of fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel administration,
including hiring, working conditions, training, promotion and disciplinary action, without
regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability,
and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights as citizens. Now, the
question is this. Since we’ve ended a fair and equitable hiring practice seeking a Fire
Department Chief and rejected the final qualified candidate and thereafter revised the
educational standards for the position, are we in violation of this policy if we just appoint
the Interim Chief to the position without giving other employees a fair and equal
opportunity to apply for the position? Question: Do we need to rescind the equal
opportunity policy in order to promote this person? The report made on October 24,
2005 from the Human Resource Director states: the Augusta Commission has engaged in
lengthy discussions regarding bachelor degree requirements. This degree requirement
discussion arose during the selection process for the Augusta Fire Chief vacancy. Several
internal employees applied for this position and their applications were not forwarded due
to their not meeting the minimum education requirement for the position. Question: Is
this fair and equitable treatment to the employees who showed interest in the position but
are not given an equal opportunity to apply now that they meet the required educational
requirements along with our Interim Chief? On page sixteen under the heading of
Publicity, the employee handbook states: the Human Resource Director shall see that
information about job opportunities and equal employment policies is readily available to
all citizens of Augusta and especially to all potential job applicants. Question: Are we in
violation of this policy by not advertising the position after we have revised the
educational requirements? Question: Would this policy have to be rescinded if we
appoint the Interim Chief without advertising the position first? As a Commissioner I
would like to make an informed decision as it relates to hiring and the best qualified
candidate for this position. I would like for us to look at more than one candidate to
assure that we are hiring the best qualified person. I know that it has been said that our
Interim Chief is the best candidate. But how do we know if we have not looked at any of
the other candidates? Question: Does this candidate possess the levels of certification
currently mandated by the Augusta Fire Department? Have we terminated and demoted
several Augusta fire fighters for not acquiring their EMT certification? And in every job
description you find that. Question: Does the Interim Chief or any other applicants meet
this certification? We will not know without conducting a fair and equitable hiring
process. Question—
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
29
Ms. Beard: And I’m almost through. Does this candidate have a plan to move the
Fire Department forward? If so, we have not heard. Does the candidate have a plan to
develop a diverse department? Was the candidate on the cutting edge of the fire
industry? We won’t have answers to these questions without conducting a fair and
equitable process that give all interested parties an opportunity to present their plan.
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: I would like to remind the Commissioners to please try to stick to the
two minute rule. It is the holiday season. I want these people to be home spending time
with their families. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to try my best to get them home
before the holidays. Let me, let me, let me just go ahead if I can. Commissioner Cheek
brought some very interesting points and I want to say again to my friend Chief Howard
Willis that I think he’s a great man. I think he’s a great fire chief and I think he’s doing a
good job. But it’s not about him. It’s about the process for the people of Augusta
Richmond County to know that everybody can have an opportunity. But if you going to
limit that by giving it to any one person then you doing exactly what Ms. Beard had just
explained to us. But you talking about emergency management. That’s a whole different
process from the Fire Chief. The Fire Department and the national disaster that happened
over in Aiken. Every train that leaves the port, Mr. Mayor, has got documents on the
train. The conductor’s job is to find the fire chief, whoever he or she may be, and give
them those documents so they’ll know what’s in the consents, that’s in the train lineup,
what’s in there. So anybody with those documents ought to be able to discern what ought
to be done or what not ought to be done. That’s still no knock on my friend. I think he
did a great job. But that was one incident. Commissioner Cheek asked about the
educational requirements for previous fire chiefs. Let me give him just a little bit of
history, Mr. Mayor. This won’t take long. In 1968 I was on the fire department and the
fire chief came from the city stables to the fire department and then out of that he made
fire chief. We didn’t have no requirements. We didn’t have no educational requirements
at all at that time. I served under three of those chiefs down there. But my point is now
here we are in the year 2000—almost 2006, never thought I’d even live to see 2000
anything. I thought I was be a 19-something all my life. But here we are in the year of
everything is just automated and we are still thinking in the 1960s. Mr. Mayor, I don’t
have no problem if we go ahead and let those qualified people apply for the job. Chief
Willis may still win the position. But we at least appear that we was fair to everybody
that wanted to apply for the job and we’ll feel assured that we selected the best man for it.
So I urge the Commission not to make that decision today, to go ahead and let those
people apply for the job and let us get the best qualified person with the educational
requirements that I wasn’t in agreement being waived and being dropped to the minimum
standards, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. After being in a small business and running it
for over fifty years, I had much rather have a man with twenty-five years’ experience
30
than a man just out of school regardless of diploma that he has. I’m for experience and I
believe this man has got it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, and let’s move it along.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to move it along. My twin brother dates himself with his
lack of knowledge of integration of EMA and the Fire Department. Yes, they carry a
manifest with the train. And the conductor, if it was carrying a conductor, could have
probably held his breath long enough to run through the cloud of chlorine with that
package that he picked up from the wrecked train. But then again there is [unintelligible]
and making the phone call to alert the emergency people to evacuate the city, to get the
5,800 people out of Graniteville before the cloud spread down the creek bed and killed
everybody in town. Not a thing to do with emergency management. The bottom line is,
ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, we’ve got somebody here that has managed a
national scene. Yes, we have got some fine fire fighters in this city. I’ve seen them
[unintelligible] we may not know who performs best is adequate evidence that we as a
Commission haven’t been involved with watching our personnel perform under fire, or
even going out to our haz-mat facilities and noticing what it takes to put on a bubble suit,
an acid suit, and go in the middle of some of these toxic fumes where one or two parts per
billion can kill you and the entire neighborhood. Nothing to do with fire fighting. I’ve
seen, I’ve been there, I’ve seen the candidates. We’ve got some fine guys and I hope
every one of them from Augusta rises to a point where every other city in this state wants
them, whether they’ve got a college degree or not. But we’ve got a man on the job that
knows fire science, he knows emergency management. They go hand in hand. We can
turn our back on somebody that other cities would envy and call ourselves smart but that
would make us not really smart. I’ve got my motion on the book. Is there a motion,
Madame Clerk? It’s been a long time.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. We didn’t get a second.
Mr. Grantham: Yes, we did.
Mr. Cheek: Move to call the question.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard, I’ll recognize you, and then there is a move to call the
question.
Ms. Beard: Okay. I’d like to pose a question to our lawyer. I’m wondering if
this is legal and if there will be no repercussions when we do this. And I would like your
professional opinion, not personal.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Ms. Beard, you’re going
to get my professional opinion. And that opinion is that this Commission can appoint this
individual. I do not think we are violating the EEO policy. Do I think it’s fair to the
other employees? Yes, because I think that to conduct the process that Mr. Williams
suggests would be perceived as being fair, but that’s what I’ve sort of feared all along,
31
that this would be a sham process. And this vote really needs to be taken in this situation
on this individual at this time today. You were quoting from the same handbook, we’re
reading out of the same book, Ms. Beard. And I have to put on my glasses, but the
benefits policies and procedures of Augusta contained in this book—which you read—
are subject to revocation or modification by this Commission. And any official action
taken by this Commission will supercede the contents of this handbook. This doesn’t
mean that we are violating the equal opportunity employment policy. It doesn’t mean
that it’s unfair to other employees. I think it’s fair because it discloses the attention that
this Commission has given for this particular candidate and his outstanding
qualifications. I think you can’t divorce his experience and his outstanding record across
the river in managing that train wreck, and it was a train wreck, from his consideration.
And I think that’s been brought forward and it could be done if this Commission is of the
opinion that it should be done. Can I say that it will not be challenged? I cannot say that.
But do I think that you have a legal basis on which to proceed with this candidate at this
time? The answer is yes. You may disagree with me. But this Commission has
flexibility written into the very first article in the employee handbook. The same edition
you’re reading from, June 6, 2000. And I would suggest that we take this vote in order to
be fair. I don’t know how this vote is going to come out. But it should be taken to
remove the fact that if we are going to invite other people down here or invite them from
the classified service—I mean there are two procedures in our book, one called open
recruitment and open competitive appointment, I think, and there’s another called
promote from within. If we choose to go down either route we need to be fair to those
other applicants and let them know now through your vote that Chief Willis is or is not
the preferred candidate of this board. I think there has been experience and there has
been factors that have come about here that may not ever present themselves again. But
this should let these other people know whether we have a preference for this individual
or not. Let’s just not hide our preferences, let’s—I think we can safely vote it under this
part of the Code. We will not be violating any other part of the Code. But that is my
opinion and I will be defending it if that is the will of the body.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, one clarification, pleases, sir.
Ms. Beard: I’d like to
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek has called for the question.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, but I need a point of clarification, Mr. Mayor. The
question been called and I understand that but I got a question I need a answer to before I
be ready to vote. I can’t vote. The Attorney was speaking. I need some clarification
from the Attorney.
Mr. Mayor: Please try to keep it to two minutes.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Mr. Attorney, Ms. Beard asked a question. You said we
could do it if we selected. My question, her question to you was whether it’s legal. Now,
32
I understand you going to defend whatever we have to do here, but the question was was
this legal or not.
Mr. Shepard: And my answer was yes.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Ms. Beard: And I would like—
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard, please address the Chair. Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m trying to then—there was a recommendation from
the Human Resources Department, and does it have anything to say in reference to their
recommendation, which is totally—which was that we should remain with what we have?
Mr. Shepard: As I understood what Mr. Hankerson said, is that the Human
Resources Department had developed this four years for one year of college education
substantial equivalency. That’s what—
Ms. Beard: No, that is not what he said. He said they were working on it.
Mr. Shepard: That is what this Commission—I mean the Commission took a staff
idea and adopted it in a resolution in the previous meeting, Ms. Beard, so that’s—
Ms. Beard: No, no, I don’t think so. I think we took it and ran with it.
Mr. Shepard: I think we adopted it. If we go back and get the minutes. I don’t
know if they’re available but be happy to go back and get the minutes.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called for. Ms. Clerk, can you read the
substitute motion?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The substitute motion, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Grantham, was to
appoint the Interim Fire Chief, Howard Willis, as the Augusta Fire Chief. The original
motion, Mr. Williams, seconded by Ms. Beard, was to deny the appointment of Chief
Willis as the Augusta Fire Chief.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote on the substitute motion using the
substitute sign.
Ms. Beard, Mr. Colclough and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to recognize Mr. Colclough.
33
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to put on the agenda, our next agenda for Mr.
Robert Oliver to be brought up for upgrading.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: Put forward and seconded.
Mr. Cheek: Seconded with pride.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Please add that to the agenda. Moving on, we will now move
on to agenda item number 55.
The Clerk:
55. Discuss and dismiss the Director of Engineering Department. (Requested by
Commissioners Don Grantham and Jimmy Smith)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have been on the Engineering Services
Committee for the last couple of years. I and some of my colleagues feel that we would
I’d like to make a motion to
like to see this department changed in the new year, and
terminate Ms. Smith as Director of Engineering Services, placing her on
administrative leave with pay, and further direct the Administrator to develop a
severance package to be approved at the next Commission meeting.
[unintelligible]
December 19, 2005.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Better get your watch out this time.
Mr. Mayor: It’s sitting right here.
Mr. Williams: It’s going to be longer than a two minute conversation. I can
guarantee you that. First of all, we have been, we have been dealing with this situation
for quite some time and I’m going back now, Mr. Mayor, and I got to take a little time
cause there’s some history you need to brought abreast of. Mr. Jimmy Smith was put as a
subcommittee chairman to investigate, to look at that department. And before he ever
had the very first meeting he came to me, who sat on that committee, and asked that we
divide her department. And I said to him, Mr. Smith, how can we divide her department
when we hadn’t had the first meeting yet? We don’t know what the problem is yet. How
can we divide it? Well, long story short, Mr. Mayor, previous to that Mr. Grantham and
Mr. Young, who was the Mayor at that time, met with me to cut a deal to fire Ms. Smith.
And I told them I wouldn’t be a part of any deal cutting to fire anybody. I asked the
question what has she done? What’s in her file? And they said to me that she had been
promoted. And I said you want to fire a black female department head for being
34
promoted? Now, we went further than that, Mr. Mayor. We went so far as to divide her
department and give two white males a $10,000 raise to divide her department. And the
question was, what was her problem? Well, the answer I got back that she worked too
long. She came in too early. She had too much ethics and she had too much on her plate
so we going to take some of that off her plate. We had a young man in here. He ain’t so
young but I like to use that because I like to be referenced to me that way. But we had a
man working for her that cost this city a bunch of money that our previous Attorney
recommended we should fire him. But we didn’t fire him. Cost us over $30,000 for one
event that he instrumented to tell the construction people to do. And they did it. Then it
going to cost us another $30,000 to rectify that. So, Mr. Mayor, this was a plan from day
one. I’m really embarrassed. I been embarrassed up here today but I’m really
embarrassed now that we could have the fortitude to come and recommend that a loyal
and good, hardworking employee—is she perfect? No, ma’am. No, sir. She’s not. She
got some problems? All of us have got some. But in her file there is nothing. Not one
negative thing in her file. Her last evaluation, her last three, all of her evaluations is to
the top. Now, what basis—and I ain’t through, Mr. Mayor, but I want to know what basis
are we going to fire this person on? Is it the way she look, is it the way she—the red she
got on? I want to know what basis can we as a government sit here and say we can
legally vote to fire this person. And if she needs to be fired, Mr. Mayor, then the
Administrator who is her immediate supervisor needs to be fired as well. Because he
supervised her. And we going to disrupt her life, her job, her career, her background.
His need to be right beside hers. In fact, I’m going to make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we
fire Ms. Smith but also fire the Administrator, Fred, Russell, with her, all together.
That’s in the form of a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Like to recognize Mr. Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Williams, I’ve always owned up to
what I said and what I did and when I met with you and I had to correct the first day that
you came out with that because you did not mention my name, but I told you that’s who
it was and I told the public that’s who it was. But I don’t ever recall and I don’t think you
do either of the time that I said she should go because she was promoted. Now, you just
made that statement a moment ago. And if we going to speak the facts, let’s speak the
facts accurate.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I’m with you. I’m with you.
Mr. Grantham: That’s exactly what I want to do.
Mr. Williams: Let me clarify. I apologize to Mr. Grantham.
Mr. Mayor: Address the Chair.
Mr. Williams: I don’t want him to get the wrong understanding, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible]
35
Mr. Williams: I don’t want him to get the wrong understanding. I apologize. He
did not say—
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham has the floor. Mr. Grantham has the floor. Please let
him finish.
Mr. Williams: I just want to apologize. Is the Marshal downstairs? Is the
Marshal downstairs? We need somebody to keep—your job is up here. But we need
somebody to keep the order downstairs. The Marshal need to do that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, but please keep the order up here and the decorum. Mr.
Grantham still has the floor.
Mr. Grantham: So what I was doing, Mr. Mayor, was clarifying the comments
and the meeting that was held between Mr. Young, Mr. Williams and myself. And as to
the responsibility of this job, yes, it was split up. It was split up because we had on
several occasions many of the contractors, many of the engineers, many of the people
here in Augusta that came down to meetings that we had indicating the lateness and the
unprofessional and the unmanageable department that we had as far as our Engineering
Services Department goes. This just didn’t start yesterday. It just didn’t start in 2004. It
started several years ago. So my point is that we need to move forward. Augusta has to
grow and in order to grow we are going to have to have an Engineering Department that’s
willing and ready to do the work and perform the duties that are in that department, and I
second that motion that Mr. Smith made.
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible], Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Let me apologize to Mr. Grantham because he did
not say anything about her being, having anything in her file. I asked that question. Mr.
Grantham and Mr. Young met with me and said they had a solution to my problem. And
I asked them what was my problem. They said well, you want us to get rid of Mr. Kolb.
I said well, y’all know Mr. Kolb needs to go. He said if you will vote to fire Teresa we
got the votes to fire Mr. Kolb. And I said to them I’m not going to have a sacrificial
lamb, meaning if she’s done something show me what she’s done. My question to them
was what was in her file? There response was nothing except she’s been promoted. And
I said to them, well, I’m not going to vote to fire a black female department head for
being promoted. And that’s how we got to this point. Now, he didn’t deny the fact of
meeting with me and making that agreement, but he denied the fact that I said about
being promoted. So he didn’t mention about letting her go because she been promoted.
In her file had Ms. Smith or any other employee had the background to substantiate the
charges or the reason to get rid of her, I would have take the lead. But how can you fire
somebody who the Administrator nor the Commission have ever written up? Not one
time. Now, if my child go to school and at the end of that school year you fail that child
36
and there is no report card to relate to what happened, you going to have some problems.
That’s the same thing with Ms. Smith or any other department head. There ought to been
some documents, there ought to been some kind of paper trail to show where she wasn’t
doing, hadn’t done her job. Now, here Mr. Grantham talking about the engineers, the
builders and all these other folks got a problem. Well, if they got a problem with Ms.
Smith they don’t need to call the Commissioners, they need to come before you, Mr.
Mayor. They need to come down here and say there is a problem in Utilities or Public
Works or wherever the problem is. They don’t specify who ought to work with this
government or who shouldn’t work with this government. And there’s been a charge,
there’s been an attack ever since some Commissioners got on this table to get her out of
that position. Now, if she wasn’t doing her job, Mr. Mayor, I’d take the lead, I would be
the first one. And if you can show me the documents I’ll take the lead today. But I think
it’s unfair. I think it’s low down and dirty for us to sit here and act like we don’t know
what’s going on. We want to go back to the old good old boy system we had forty years
ago.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Russell, was there a process put in place in Ms.
Smith’s records or is there some documentation on her performance evaluation forms that
says that she had not been performing her duties? Or does Ms. Pelaez know, or her
supervisor know?
Mr. Russell: No, sir, I did her last evaluation and her evaluation was above
average.
Mr. Colclough: Above average.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any more discussion? Mr. Rearden?
Mr. Rearden: I guess that I will end my service with you folks on the two words
that I started it with, and this is the reason we need to take this action—for the residents
th
of the 7 District—it’s Warren Road. It’s a continual nightmare and embarrassment for
this city that this administration—regardless of who—that this administration has failed
its citizen in this regard. That falls back on Ms. Smith’s shoulders. It’s her department.
And this is an action that needs to be taken. Thank you.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, please make it brief and let’s move on.
Mr. Williams: Let me, let me enlighten Mr. Rearden. I don’t live on Warren
Road. I go through there sometimes but I don’t have a residence or any reason to visit.
But let me tell you about Warren Road, just a little bit through this Commission before
you got here, Mr. Rearden. We have been bombarded with proposals from utilities, to
move the utilities. The young man—and I referred to him as a young man—he’s an old
37
man, but the old man that was in that department gave direction to build a wall, that same
wall you look at on Warren Road cost this city over $30,000. And when I checked into
it, Mr. Rearden, cause I, I, I, I, I, I try to commission Warren Road, too. I ain’t just a
District 2 Commissioner, I’m a city Commissioner. But I tried to check into that. When
I found out that the direction wasn’t given to Ms. Smith, was brought to this body, do you
know the young man—and I still refer to him as a young man—that the person that gave
that action, that direction, we act like he did nothing wrong at all? We never questioned,
we never brought him in. Now, Ms. Smith can’t control people’s mouths. She can’t
make people speak or not speak. She’s over the department but you got other folks out
there who been trying to run the department. I hear people say well, we can’t get along
with her. Well, if I had many knives thrown at me—I got that many, Ms. Smith—but if I
was making the money you making and had knives thrown at me like she’s making, I
think she doing an excellent job. But that same wall is still up there, going to cost us
$30,000 more to get it down. But it wasn’t Ms. Smith’s direction, now. We over here on
Fuller Street, we had some construction work going on. It cost the city a bunch of money
because the same man gave the directive to do some stuff that Ms. Smith didn’t give.
When we brought it to this body we turned our heads on it. I asked the question but the
rest of them acted like it wasn’t nothing, it was just $30,000, it just taxpayers’ money.
What the heck? Spend another $30,000. It don’t make no difference. But we going to
fire a woman who has tried to do what the rules say, who holds them to the rules that we
set in place. Six votes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Williams: We set those rules in place, Mr. Mayor. I’m about finished. But
she carried out the things that we asked her to carry out. Now, if you going to assassinate
her, go ahead and assassinate her but don’t sit here and hide behind anything else but
what the truth is. The truth is we don’t want her to have that position. Even when she
got the position she was written up in the paper as going by Commissioner Mays, who
was the Super District Commissioner, sitting around the funeral home, looking for a
raise, trying to get the position. We ain’t got nobody in this government that’s as
qualified as she is. Not nobody. Not even the Administrator. The Administrator don’t
have the guidelines he supposed to have either, but we got him in office. And I think he
doing a good job.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a question. If we have a department
head who is supposed to be over that department and over the people that work in that
department, how on earth did a wall get constructed without that department head’s
knowledge?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, can I—
Ms. Sims: Mr. Mayor, I’m directing my question to you, Mr. Mayor.
38
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams—
Mr. Williams: I was going to ask that you ask Ms. Smith to finally tell the truth
and tell what happened, please, Mr. Mayor, just since we got it on the table let’s lay it all
out. I think Ms. Smith can answer that question. Will you let her come and answer that
question, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Parliamentarian, what is the proper procedure in this?
Mr. Shepard: I think it would be appropriate to hear from Ms. Smith.
Mr. Mayor: I would call Ms. Smith.
Ms. Smith: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, during the particular
incident that is in question, the contractor was communicating directly with the assistant
preconstruction engineer who is charged with overseeing construction activities. It was
apparently based on email messages sent by the property owner brought to his attention
that the wall was being incorrectly constructed. No information was provided to me by
the assistant preconstruction engineer that there was an issue on the wall, nor was there
any information provided that there was a possibility that there was an error with the
construction of that wall. Once it was determined that there was an error, that
information was brought to the Commission. I was not party to the conversation that
took place out in the field on the wall, nor have I been party to all of the conversations
that have taken place with my employees at the assistant preconstruction engineer level
by several Commissioners in the field on other jobs. So I am not necessarily privy to all
of the conversations that take place, nor am I always a part of those conversations or that
direction that is given to my employees by members of the Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any further discussion? I believe we have—Lena, do
we have two separate motions on the floor?
The Clerk: Mr. Williams didn’t get a second to his substitute motion, which was
to fire Ms. Smith and Mr. Russell.
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it.
The Clerk: You’ll second it. Okay. The original motion by Mr. Smith and
seconded by Mr. Grantham was to terminate Ms. Smith as director of Engineering
Department and that she be placed on administrative leave with pay and that the
Administrator develop a severance package to be presented at the next Commission
meeting for approval.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote on the substitute motion with the
substitute sign.
The Clerk: The substitute motion was to fire Ms. Smith and Mr. Russell.
39
Mr. Mayor: That was Commissioner Williams’ substitute. Commissioner
Colclough seconded.
Mr. Cheek, Mr. Rearden, Mr. Smith, Ms. Sims, Mr. Grantham and Mr. Hankerson vote
No.
Ms. Beard abstains.
Motion fails 2-6-1.
Mr. Mayor: Could you re-read the original motion?
The Clerk: The original motion is to terminate Ms. Teresa Smith as director of
the—
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, a point if personal privilege please.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I feel it incumbent upon me as Chairman of
Engineering Services just to make the following comments. I have in my tenure here
been one of the Commissioners here that selected the first professional engineer to run
our Public Works Department. I have also served as Engineering Services Chairman for a
number of years. The performance or lack thereof of the Engineering Division and the
lack of progress made across the board in filling positions and staffing personnel has been
visited on numbers of occasions, probably well over twenty or so work sessions and
hours, work sessions that included progress, milestones, and other goals and
achievements that [unintelligible] while the hours were spent by many department head
personnel probably are not thoroughly documented, but the goals were set to incorporate
certain performance milestones and so forth. In Ms. Smith we do have one of the finest
engineers that someone could find. But the bottom line is filling the positions and
managing the department to the next level. I bear the responsibility for that not
occurring. I take that responsibility and therefore I must say that we are not where we
need to be. While it is one thing to be an engineer, it is quite another to be a manager.
Those are two different skill sets and while again I do respect the engineering talents and
skills, my expectations for where we should be versus where we are will determine my
vote this day.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioners will now vote on the original motion by
the usual sign.
Mr. Williams, Mr. Colclough and Ms. Beard vote No.
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Williams: Point of clarification, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
40
Mr. Williams: Point of clarification. Mr. Attorney, I need your legal opinion on
whether or not we just set this city up for a lawsuit or not. I know what we can do, cause
we already done it. I don’t want to know that. I want to know have we set it up for a
lawsuit?
Mr. Shepard: My professional—thank you. Mr. Mayor, members of the
Commission, the department directors are at will employees.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Shepard, I don’t want to hear that. I know who is at will. I
want to know have we set it up for a lawsuit or not. Simple yes or no.
Mr. Shepard: No.
Mr. Williams: Okay, that’s all I want to hear from you. Now, I don’t want to pay
you to defend this city when it comes down to something now. You said in professional
it not. So that’s one thing you won’t get paid for.
Mr. Mayor: Moving on. Moving on to agenda item number 58.
The Clerk:
58. Approve appointments to the Board of Tax Assessors. (Requested by
Commissioner Barbara Sims)
Ms. Sims: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to withdraw that, please. I’d like to withdraw that
approve to appoint.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any discussion of Ms. Sims’ request that that be withdrawn?
Okay. Please withdraw item number 58 for approval. And we will move on to item
number 54.
54. Discuss the revisions to the rules of procedure for the Augusta Commission.
(Requested by Commissioner Roy Rearden)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Rearden?
Mr. Rearden:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. When I came on to the Commission, I
asked the Clerk for a copy of the rules of the Commission and she provided me very
graciously with a copy and the first thing I noticed is they are ten years old. These have
not been changed, looked at, voted on for the last ten years and there are a number of
typographical errors, there have been a number of procedural changes that are not called
I would make a motion that the Mayor appoint a
for in the rules, so at this point
committee of two commissioners, two citizens and the County Attorney to review
the Rules of Procedures for the Commission, to present it back for the adoption as
41
called for in Section 7 by the full Commission and that these rules be updated and
revoted on and reinstated at the first meeting of every year.
Ms. Sims: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Any more discussion? We have a motion and a second. Lena, could
you please read the motion?
The Clerk: The motion is that the Mayor appoint a subcommittee consisting of
two members of the Commission, two citizens, the County Attorney to review and update
the rules and procedures of the Commission and that they be approved at the first meeting
of the year.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor: We are now going to move on—and I realize that some of the
delegations that were to be recognized have already—their issues have already been
addressed, but I’d like to move on to recognizing Shiu-Lian Chike regarding property
encroachment and boundary.
DELEGATIONS
B. Shiu-Lian Chike, regarding property encroachment and boundary dispute.
Mr. Mayor: Please keep your presentation to five minutes.
Ms. Speaker: We will do our very best. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am.
Ms. Speaker: Mr. Mayor, our problem—Mr. Grantham I think has been well
aware of what’s going on. Shiu-Lian Chike purchased her property in 1983, lost her
husband in 1985. Then Kelley Tire Company in 1976 put up a fence. That fence
remained until 1999. No one knew that it was going to be torn down. The Double Eagle
Club come in and took and fence down, destroying everything that she had put in there.
All of the trees were cut, everything was disturbed, and they took a little more than 5’.
And now there is a fence up there that we want to take down. And it’s on her property.
And will go back to the original plat that she bought from, which was 1940. And all she
is wanting is to get her property back and to find a surveyor. No surveyor in Augusta
will come in and go back to the original plat or the original [unintelligible].
Ms. Speaker: [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am. Mr. Colclough?
42
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, ma’am, who owns the fence and who puts the fence
up that you want to take down?
Ms. Speaker: Kelley Tire put up the first one in 1976.
Mr. Colclough: Okay.
Ms. Speaker: And now the Augusta National or the Double Eagle Club
[unintelligible] 1999. We have pictures here that show that—
Mr. Colclough: What does she want to do?
Ms. Speaker: Sir?
Mr. Colclough: What is her request from us?
Ms. Speaker: [unintelligible]
Ms. Speaker: [unintelligible]
Mr. Colclough: So the Double Eagle Club took some of your property?
Ms. Speaker: Yes.
Ms. Speaker: Correct. [unintelligible]
Mr. Colclough: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to recognize Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I did visit over there and went and
looked at the property. And you can plainly see where the trees used to stand and you
can see where the driveway used to be. And it’s certainly outside of the fence line as to
what they claim to be the old property line. As to surveying, I don’t know exactly what
we can do in making that survey or either going back to the old lines, other than the fact
of you obtaining your own surveyor. And of course that’s when I came over and looked
at it with y’all that day.
Ms. Speaker: Correct.
Mr. Grantham: And I agreed with you that’s the appearance that I get. But for us
to go and charge someone else of doing a wrongdoing would be like the government
making claim against them, but it’s up to you to make the claim against them. Steve, is
that correct?
43
Mr. Shepard: I would think it’s a private dispute, Mr. Mayor, members of the
Commission.
Mr. Grantham: I think we can support them and we can do whatever we can, Mr.
Mayor, to help them, but for us to get into the dispute I don’t feel like we need to be
involved in that part of the issue.
Ms. Speaker: Well, tell us who we can get in Richmond County. That’s the
thing. I mean nobody wants to go against the Augusta National, as you well know. I
mean they’re strong, they’re—of course they give a lot of money to the city of Augusta
and that’s why you cannot get anybody. You can’t even get an attorney unless you want
to go outside of here, go to Atlanta or Columbia maybe.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am, I’ll tell you that Legal has said that it is a private matter
and I understand completely that you’re in a difficult situation. Maybe Mr. Shepard can
help guide you to some good lawyers out of town.
Ms. Speaker: They’ll have to come from out of town because no one here in
Augusta wants to touch it. We’ve gone to numerous of them and nobody wants to bother
it.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am. And I agree with Mr. Grantham right now. I can
understand your issue but I’m not exactly certain what this body could do other than
support you. I understand that Mr. Grantham has come out to take a look at the situation.
Ms. Speaker: We also want to know where can we go that we can find out about
all of these assessments that the county is putting on this property? Like it moves from 5’
to 15’. It says utility assessment. We want to know where can we go, whom can we talk
to that can tell us why it is a different amount. Each time you get something it’s
different. Why?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I’ll be happy to refer her to some attorneys out of town and I will
be happy to talk to her about the assessments. Is it tax assessments, ma’am?
Ms. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: If you’ll bring me the tax assessments I’ll bring them and report
back to the body.
Ms. Speaker: It’s not necessarily that, well, some of it is. But it’s mainly like the
utilities and the sewer system and all this comes in. It says 5’, then the next piece of
paper you get from the county says 15’. Now, which is it, 5’ or 15’?
44
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, if she will bring me those
paperwork items, I’ll look it over. I still feel it’s a private dispute but I can send a copy to
your office and to Mr. Grantham.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. If you can just talk to Mr. Shepard.
Ms. Speaker: Make an appointment with Mr. Shepard and go talk to him?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Speaker: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am. The second delegation, who may have already left the
building—is Charlie Hannah here?
C. Mr. Charlie Hannah, President, Moderate Policy Action Council requesting
to address the Commission relative to the restructuring of the local government.
Mr. Colclough: That’s Charlie.
Mr. Mayor: Excuse me. Like to recognize Charlie Hannah.
Mr. Hannah: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Mr. Mayor. Frankly, everyone
has already addressed the issue that I’m here for. I’m glad for the decision you have
made in reference to the vote and veto. Nothing personal against you and I wish you
well.
Mr. Mayor: Thanks.
Mr. Hannah: Okay. I just believe that the decision that was made today should
stay as an example that we can do thing in a unified manner and I was seriously
concerned about racial strife. There [unintelligible] issues with so I appreciate the
decision that the Commission made today. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thanks for your comments.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a quick question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Does that mean that we’re going to correct the problems with the
School Board that has an inappropriate voting pattern?
Mr. Hannah: Well, frankly—
Mr. Cheek: A straight face, now.
45
Mr. Hannah: I think different bodies have different measures and we just respect
each one of them.
Mr. Cheek: Different measurements for different people is fair? Thank you,
Charlie.
Mr. Hannah: Okay. All right. Appreciate it.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move along.
Mr. Cheek: [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: Like to recognize a representative from the House of Abraham.
D. The House of Abraham
RE: Waiver of property taxes at 2023 Grand Blvd.
Ms. English: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, my name is Rosa English. And
Mildred Bussey. We are from the Hammond Grove Baptist Church, owners, located at
2023 Grand Boulevard, Augusta, Georgia. We are using this location known as the
House of Abraham for our community outreach ministry, Bible study, religious
workshop, and community activities by senior citizens and youth. We are also a
[unintelligible] for the Weed and Seed Program in Turpin Hill. We were granted a
special exemption by the Commission on July 26, 2005. We thought we were also
exempted from property tax at this time. We are asking you to grant us a tax exemption
for 2005. All taxes were paid prior to 2005. Thank you for all consideration given to us
at this time.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do recall when we had that subject to
come up back in July and we discussed that and it was my impression—I’ve talked to the
tax people and I don’t know why the property tax was not exempt because that was the
point of order that was taken that day when we did discuss it. I’m going to make a
motion that we go ahead and forgive the property taxes based on the use of this property
for the church because we do that with so many religious institutions, and I put that in the
form of a motion.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Like to recognize Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I remember very well back in July when
that came to this body. We have been trying to do things uniformly, some things we do
uniformly. But Mr. Patty, Mr. George Patty, if he can just help me out a minute I think, I
46
think that got approved in July and if you hadn’t had use of that property at the beginning
of the year, was the only way you can do it. Now if you doing it for next year, I think
you might be able to do that. But I don’t think—and I need Mr. Patty to come and
decision, Mr. Mayor. Or somebody from Planning & Zoning. The way I understand it is
if the property, a 501(c)(3), a non-profit organization has a establishment in the beginning
of the year here’s Mr. Patty, maybe he can enlighten me and help me out so I can support
it.
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to recognize Mr. George Patty.
Mr. Patty: I apologize. I wasn’t really paying attention. I heard my name and I
heard Grand Boulevard and I can tell you we did approve a church, a church related
activity at a location on Grand Boulevard six months ago I guess.
Mr. Williams: And these ladies have came and wanted to have the taxes exempt
for that piece of property on Grand Boulevard.
Ms. English: For 2005.
Mr. Williams: For 2005. For this year. And that was my question, whether or
not it was—what the rule states for being in the beginning of the year or how that work,
George?
Mr. Patty: I have no idea. All I can tell you is we zoned it about midway last
year. They shouldn’t have conducted any activities before it was zoned. I remember
looking at it and the property had been rehabilitated at the time we rezoned it. Before
that I just don’t know.
Mr. Williams: Well, who gives the answer? Do I need the Tax Assessor?
Somebody need to say what’s what. I see [unintelligible] over there. Somebody need to
let us know.
Mr. Williamson: First, let me say I’m not familiar with this case. The only thing
I can say is that if this property was being used for anything connected to religious
services or religious work or the parking adjacent thereto, it would normally qualify for
an exemption if the exemption was applied for. I’m talking a little out of school because
this is the tax assessor area. But that’s my information. However, the board has the right
to take whatever action they so deem fit.
Mr. Mayor: Does that answer your question, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes. I was just trying to make sure we don’t open the door. We
do it the right way that we should do it.
Mr. Mayor: I understand.
47
Mr. Williams: And I’m just trying to figure out whether or not it should be—and
can we get somebody up while the ladies are here so we’ll know, Mr. Russell; is there
somebody downstairs that—
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I was going to suggest we check with the Board of Assessors
because they are charged with the questions of taxability, exemption, evaluation. If we
could have a motion to—
Mr. Colclough: Would you talk into the microphone?
Mr. Shepard:
Excuse me, Mr. Colclough. I said the tax assessors board is
I’d ask that you lay it on the
ordinarily charged with those questions of taxability.
table for a few minutes and we can check with the board downstairs that probably
will be determative of the question.
Mr. Cheek: Move to table.
Mr. Rearden: Second.
Mr. Russell: Commissioner Williams, George Patty is going to call down and get
an answer for us.
Mr. Mayor: The item has been tabled. Ladies, we’ll wait to receive clarification
on that and then we’ll come back to it. I’d like to, if Rev. Sam Tanksley is still here
regarding the structure of the government.
F. Rev. Sam Tanksley. Jr., TH.D.
RE: Regarding the structure of county government.
Mr. Tanksley: Good evening and thank you, Mr. Mayor, council [unintelligible].
I’m here to—I wanted to address the changes brought forth in the city government and
[unintelligible] Mr. Mayor [unintelligible].
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, it did.
Mr. Tanksley: That’s what I wanted to address. And I’m grateful that it did fail
because I don’t feel like one man should have power over [unintelligible] but
[unintelligible] Commission can work together and it still works together [unintelligible]
and we can’t do that without God [unintelligible] but once we start off on [unintelligible]
then we [unintelligible]. If I [unintelligible] come together as a Commission to make one
Augusta and [unintelligible] for all [unintelligible]. We can all work together
[unintelligible] one Augusta [unintelligible]. And we can work together [unintelligible] .
God bless you and thank you so much.
48
Mr. Mayor: Thank you for your comments. I believe that’s it. We will not move
into the regular agenda. I’ve had requests for two items to be moved forward due to the
fact that some people have to leave. So we will address item number 47 first.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
47. Consider a request from Augusta Mini Theatre, Inc. for a waiver of property
taxes on their property at 2546 Deans Bridge Road.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Like to recognize Mr. Butler.
Mr. Butler: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I thank you, Commissioners, for giving me
this opportunity to share some good news. You all know that for the past five or six
years the Augusta Mini Theatre has been struggling to construct a community arts school.
We have property at 2546 Deans Bridge road. We are very thankful that the SPLOST
passed and we are going to receive $500,000 to go toward the construction. Now, since
we started this project everything has gone sky high. The $3.2 million arts school that we
are going to construct has gone up now to $4.4 million. We are prepared and we have the
dollars to go forward with the construction of the school’s portion. The school’s portion,
and not the theatre’s portion. Our architectural company is 2KM Architects. They are
presently working on getting started, getting a contractor, and by June or July of next
year I have been told that we will be breaking ground on that arts school. I’m here to say
that starting January 1 that land will be developed, starting to be developed for the
school. We will occasionally have some charitable activity there [unintelligible]
meetings, rehearsals with our students. Construction is scheduled to last about nine
months so we will go probably into 2007 with the construction. What we are hopeful for
is that once the construction starts on the school, other dollars will be coming forward to
help us continue to construct the theatre’s portion as well. So today I am asking that we
get either waiver and exemption of the taxes on that property so that we can use those
dollars to go toward the construction cost of the art school.
Mr. Hankerson: I second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner?
Mr. Hankerson: I second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Hankerson: To approve.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any more discussion? Steve?
49
Mr. Shepard: We have had the Boxing Club precedent for some time where the
Boxing Club has utilized real property, I believe, and that has been—I think we
[unintelligible] the taxes every year on that property. And you are putting this property to
use now, Mr. Butler?
Mr. Butler: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: Is there some use in this year?
Mr. Butler: This year, yes, we’ve had some charitable activity on the property
this year. But we paid the taxes for this year.
Mr. Shepard: 2005?
Mr. Butler: 2005. But I’ll be more than happy to get those back.
Mr. Shepard: I’m sure that you would, sir. But I just wanted to establish for the
record that there is activity like the Boxing Club on the subject parcel so it can be treated
the same as the Boxing Club.
Mr. Butler: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Lena, Ms. Clerk, could you read
the motion?
The Clerk: The motion was to approve the request from the Augusta Mini
Theatre for a waiver of their property taxes located on property at 2546 Deans Bridge
Road.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote through the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank goodness. I like seeing these unanimous votes occasionally.
Mr. Butler: Thank you very much.
D. The House of Abraham
RE: Waiver of property taxes at 2023 Grand Blvd.
Mr. Rearden: Move to take off the table.
Mr. Russell: The Tax Assessor is here. We can dispose of that item.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
50
Mr. Mayor: All in favor. Motion off the table.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Russell: Commissioner Williams and members of the Commission, talking
with the Tax Assessor, it’s the status of that—Commissioner Williams is absolutely right.
st
The status of the usage on January 1 of that year is what would determine whether or not
it was tax exempt or not.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
st
Mr. Hankerson: May I speak to that issue? As of before January 1 there is a
church located next door to that neighborhood, to that particular facility, and that church
was given privilege to park, doing parking during their worship services and so forth, and
that is considered also church use while the house was rehabilitated. The church put
more than $15,000 in the house. They did not come and ask the City or HED for
anything. They invested $15,000 to rehabilitate that house and allow the church next
door to use the property.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Meg, I just want to—Meg, if you could answer this for me. I just
want to—I’m trying to help out but I just need to know the process. Even though the
property is sitting next door to a church, would they have to apply? I think they can
apply for this year, for next year. But exactly how does that work? I mean I just need to
know. I want to support but I’m trying to find a common ground. I’m trying to see is
that the process that we use.
Ms. Birkinshaw: [unintelligible] come in and notify the Board of Assessors that
they have a property [unintelligible] make sure it’s qualified.
Mr. Williams: And you have to do this when?
Ms. Birkinshaw: If they meet all the criteria [unintelligible] any [unintelligible]
year.
st
Mr. Williams: So are you saying they got to come January 1 for 2006 if that’s
the case. But they’re speaking of—
st
Ms. Birkinshaw: [unintelligible] January 1 [unintelligible] any given year.
[unintelligible]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can?
51
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: If you would get with them and explain and show them what they
need. If they’re qualified to do something this year we need to support that. But I want
to—
Ms. Birkinshaw: [unintelligible]
Mr. Williams: Okay.
st
Ms. Birkinshaw: [unintelligible] January 1 [unintelligible] qualify
[unintelligible].
Mr. Williams: But to keep them from having a next time, next year, Meg, they
can go down now.
Ms. Birkinshaw: She’s already [unintelligible].
Mr. Williams: Okay, okay, all right.
Ms. English: [unintelligible] trying now to get [unintelligible] 2005
[unintelligible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
st
Mr. Hankerson: That’s not correct. We owned it before January 1. The church
next door was using it while we were rehabilitating the house for a ministry. We allowed
the church next door to it, it’s adjacent to another church that need parking, they parked
in it, they utilized it while we were renovating the house and getting it ready and we had
a dedication notation which she have there, as of February. And the law says that if you
are using the property for church use that it can be exempted and the property was used
as church use when another church is parking on the property, that is church use.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I would suggest that we defer it for the next time. There may be
some evidence that could be developed that they were using it as parking, as Rev.
Hankerson said. A lease or something that would be able—that the Board of Assessors
would be more comfortable exempting it if that were the case. If we have a little more
time to develop the answer, that would be the appropriate motion.
Mr. Williams: I make a motion that we defer is that they can get together
with the Board of Assessors and then bring it back to committee so we can look at it
and approve it or whatever.
Mr. Mayor: We do have an original motion.
52
Mr. Rearden: Second.
Mr. Mayor: So Mr. Williams’ would be a substitute motion on the original
motion. Didn’t we have an original motion on that?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any more discussion? Commissioners will now vote on the
substitute motion by the substitute sign.
Mr. Hankerson abstains.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Let the record show I did not vote because of conflict of interest.
Mr. Mayor: Let the record reflect this. All right. A request—one of the
Commissioners--due to time constraints we will now move on to agenda item number 50.
The Clerk:
Mr. Mayor: And it has been requested due to time constraints by a Commissioner
that we now address item number 50.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENT(S)
50. Appoint Brad Owens to the Downtown Development Authority. (Requested
by Commissioner Andy Cheek)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I have a letter also from the Downtown Development
Authority as representative of DDA. We’ve got three candidates here I’ve been asked to
bring forward. I believe the Clerk has put the letter on everyone’s desk so for the
pleasure of the Commission we have three candidates: Brad Owens, who is an activist
and hard worker downtown; Steve Kendrick, the president of Creative Colors; and
Cassandra Brinson, owner of Café 209. These are three very qualified applicants. All are
hardworking and have an interest in the success of the Downtown Development. Just
move that we open the floor for nominations.
53
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: Yes, I’d like to nominate Brad Owens, please, for the Downtown
Development Authority.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I’d like to nominate Dr. Frazier.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I’d just like to mention that we do have persons from the Downtown
Development Authority and it may be a good time to hear from them if it is appropriate.
Mr. Mayor: Representatives of the DDA? Is one person going to speak for the
group? I’d like to recognize Paul King.
Mr. King: I just have a couple of brief comments. First, now that I have this very
public forum I’d like to say that we are going to greatly regret the loss of Ernestine
Howard and Sanford Lloyd who served for a while on the DDA. It was a great pleasure
for me to serve with those folks and they represented their community very well. The
board voted—unfortunately I wasn’t at the last meeting, I had to be out of town. But the
Authority voted unanimously to recommend the two candidates you see on the letter
before you. These candidates were chosen not only for their presence and interest in
downtown but because they would maintain the wide representation from the community
that we feel we’re losing with Sanford Lloyd and Ernestine Howard coming off the
board. The DDA feels that maintaining that wide representation will in turn maintain
broad community support for our mission in redeveloping the downtown that is so vital to
us all. So the position of the Authority is we urge the Commission members to approve
the nominees that the DDA has brought forward to your Commission here. Thank you.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I want to make a motion that we approve the request from the
DDA with the two names that’s presented to us, Ms. Brinson and Mr. Kendrick.
Substitute motion.
Mr. Cheek: Point of order.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Point of order on nominations. We generally take nominations from
the floor and then vote on them in the order they’re received. That’s the way we’ve
always done that.
54
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Rearden?
Mr. Rearden: Just a clarification, please, sir. Are we voting for one or two?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Two seats to be filled, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Rearden: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: We have two seats. Just for clarification for me, we have two seats,
we have the names before us as nominations and we also have the nominations from the
floor of the names mentioned.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] one at a time? Can we nominate them both? How
we doing it, Mr. Mayor? Cause if going to be one at a time I need to just name one and
come back with I guess the other one.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Parliamentarian?
Mr. Shepard: I think you’d vote in the order they were nominated. If a person
gets six or more votes he is elected. Then you’d vote on the second candidate for the
other remaining vacancy. I was not aware there were two vacancies but I think you
would vote in the order of their nomination.
Mr. Williams: I’m going to ask that we nominate—
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: —Ms. Brinson as one of the candidates since we going one by
one.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: I [unintelligible] nomination of Steven Kendrick.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner, do we have—Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: You know I nominated Dr. Wayne Frazier?
Mr. Mayor: Uh-huh.
Mr. Williams: I move the nominations be closed.
55
Mr. Rearden: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners, all in favor—
The Clerk: Wait a minute.
Mr. Mayor: Excuse me, that was just to close the nominations.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Clerk, could you read out the nominations?
The Clerk: You’re right. Need to carry the vote to be closed.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioners will vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Nominations are closed. Could you give us the list of nominees in
order of nomination?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The vacancies—okay, I need to know for which vacancy
these nominations are being placed on the floor for. There’s two vacancies.
Mr. Grantham: Fill one, and then you fill the next one with the—
The Clerk: Next one?
Mr. Grantham: That’s the way I read it.
The Clerk: Okay. Ms. Sims nominated Mr. Brad Owens. Mr. Brad Owens is the
first nominee.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Ms. Beard abstains.
Vote carries 7-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: Could you please read the second nominee?
The Clerk: Mr. Wayne Frazier.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote with the usual sign.
56
Mr. Williams, Mr. Rearden, Mr. Smith, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Hankerson and Ms. Sims
vote No.
Ms. Beard abstains.
Vote fails 2-6-1.
The Clerk: Next one is Ms. Brinson.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote through the usual sign.
Mr. Rearden, Mr. Smith, Ms. Sims, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Colclough and Mr. Hankerson
vote No.
Motion fails 3-6.
Mr. Mayor: The next nominee?
The Clerk: Mr. Steven Kendrick.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote through the usual sign.
Mr. Colclough votes No.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Vote carries 7-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: I guess we have our two nominees. And prior to continuing on with
the regular agenda, I would like to look for a recess, if anybody needs to get up and walk
around.
[Recess]
ATTORNEY
51. Resolution in Support of Fourth Judgeship for State Court.
Judge Hamrick: Good afternoon, everyone. Appreciate your time. Can
everybody hear me all right? Appreciate the time this afternoon. On behalf of the State
Court of Richmond County and the judges there, Judge Watkins, Judge Slaby
[unintelligible] asking the body to adopt a resolution for forwarding to the Delegation
[unintelligible] asking that a fourth judgeship be created in the State Court of Richmond
County. [unintelligible] outlining some information that I hope will give you information
[unintelligible] feel it is an appropriate request. [unintelligible] have about it
[unintelligible] if there is any way we can help in making a decision regarding this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Judge, I apologize for keeping you here
during this ordeal we just had but I had a couple of questions. And I’m in support. Did
get your letter. Did talk to a couple of other judges. The financial impact, what’s that
57
going do for this body for next year, and if our budget already been adopted; will that
change it? I guess that’s the best way to ask it. What financial impact would that have
on this government to go ahead and send this to the Legislature? Cause I think you
overworked, I think you need a fourth person, like you say. Only three of y’all now. So
will there be any financial impact on this body?
Judge Hamrick: I indicated on the last page, the last page of the letter
[unintelligible] financial impact or the estimated cost [unintelligible] based on salary of
the judge, of an assistant for that judge, and [unintelligible] salary and benefits there
would be some other minor costs. I say minor, possibly a few books, things of that
nature. We have office space already, as I indicated. There is a place down there for the
judge and the assistant in the Law Enforcement Center that is right adjacent to my office
now. There will be some financial impact. I have indicated that if this approved by the
st
Legislature normally the earliest time for it [unintelligible] is mid year, July 1 effective
date. [unintelligible] so you’d be looking at a half year from that standpoint.
[unintelligible] 2006 already budgeted [unintelligible] would not be cover it all but would
be a substantial portion, be a substantial portion of what we need, would already be in the
budget already for 2006.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a motion that we approve and
send it on to the Legislature.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any more discussion?
Mr. Rearden: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Rearden?
Mr. Rearden: Thank you. Judge, I’d just like to congratulate you on the Court
that you do run. Having spent a week of jury duty this year in your Court I was quite
impressed and I would point out that you do much more for a larger population with less
than the people in Aiken County do where they have nine judges who sit in the same
capacity that you and the Civil Court Magistrates do and I just want to congratulate you
on a well run Court and I heartily endorse this and [unintelligible] in the future.
Judge Hamrick: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to echo those sentiments. Commissioners will now vote by
using the usual sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, Ms. Beard had to leave the meeting.
58
Mr. Mayor: She told me.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, if I could direct your
attention. We also have Tax Commissioner Jerry Saul with an item remaining.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we also have some folks here with item 43 as well.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Steve, that agenda item?
Mr. Shepard: The number?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: 18.
Mr. Mayor: We want to go ahead and address agenda item—Steve, that had been
pulled from the consent agenda?
The Clerk: Yes. Item 18.
Mr. Mayor: Item 18.
The Clerk:
18. Motion to approve request for Personnel (Tag Office). (Approved by
Administrative and Finance Committees December 12, 2005)
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to recognize Jerry Saul.
Mr. Saul: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. [unintelligible] request is
for [unintelligible] Tag Office. [unintelligible] handle the additional work load
[unintelligible] additional personnel [unintelligible]. In this case the state has allowed the
tag office to [unintelligible] and [unintelligible] for [unintelligible] personnel
[unintelligible].
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So Mr. Saul, this is about a $30,000
impact on the budget for 2006 that is not in the budget right now?
Mr. Saul: [unintelligible]
Mr. Grantham: And I asked this question before. Will the State increase their
contribution to us or is that the plans that they have based on increase of cost in the years
to come?
59
Mr. Saul: [unintelligible]
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, having already passed our budget, Fred, are you okay
with finding $30,000?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: [unintelligible]
Mr. Grantham: I told you to find $3 million but you hadn’t yet.
Mr. Russell: If directed to work with Mr. Saul, we’ll be more than happy to find
the $30,000 the best we can, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Rearden?
Mr. Rearden: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Saul, I asked this to be removed from
the consent agenda for one reason, and one reason only. I don’t have a problem with it. I
would just like to be sure—we sat here last week and voted to lay off 39 people. I would
like a commitment of some form from you that these people that are identified for layoffs
would be the first people considered for these positions.
Mr. Saul: I can’t promise that, sir. This is a constitutional office and I can’t get
rid of the people just as easy as that. I can’t promise that.
Mr. Rearden: No, sir, I’m not asking you to lay off people. What I’m asking you
to do is if you want these four new people is to give first preference to transfers from
other part of the government.
Mr. Saul: If they’re qualified to do that job—
Mr. Rearden: That’s all I’m asking.
Mr. Saul: —then we’ll consider them.
Mr. Rearden: Thank you.
Mr. Saul: This is not a job that you take someone that does one type of work and
get them to do another type of work. But if they’re qualified, yes, I’ll certainly consider
them.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think this is something that is mandated
to us anyway, something that we are going to have to find the money. Well, even if we
60
ain’t got the money, even if we have to put it on our charge card we got to get it from
So I’m going to make a motion we go on and approve and get Mr. Saul
somewhere.
out of here.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any more discussion?
Commissioners will now vote using the usual sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Saul: Thank you, gentlemen and lady.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek, I believe you had an agenda item?
Mr. Cheek: 43, Mr. Mayor. We have a group of folks here that would like to
speak to that particular item.
The Clerk:
PLANNING
43. Z-05-126 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to DENY a petition by Shirley A. Fell and Sherry Josey, on
behalf of Sherry Josey, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to
Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 4688 Mike Padgett
Highway and containing approximately 4.8 acres. (Tax Map 279 Parcel 55.01)
DISTRICT 8
Mr. Mayor: I appreciate y’all being patient with us. I didn’t realize you were
waiting to address something but please go ahead.
Ms. Fell: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On behalf of my daughter and myself, we
would like to appeal the decision of the Augusta Richmond County Planning
th
Commission made on December 5 to deny rezoning for 4688 Mike Padgett Highway for
the purpose of establishing a campground for recreational vehicles. There was concern
brought up at that meeting about the septic drainage from the people attending the
meeting. We would like to reassure everyone and reestablish that we have had the soil
tested by Redland Environmental. He performed a Level III investigation to establish
that there would be no problem with the septic drainage and we did turn in a report of that
when we initially applied. Mr. Lee from the Augusta Richmond County Environmental
Health Department also came out and talked with me and assessed the property for proper
septic and drainage and he concurred with Mr. Joslyn’s test that it would be no problem.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t mean to interrupt, but could you state your name and address
for the record?
61
Ms. Fell: I’m sorry. My name is Shirley Fell, and I live with my daughter,
Sherry Josey, at 4688 Mike Padgett Highway.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Ms. Fell: We would like to reassure everyone concerned that we also reside at
this, on this property where we would be establishing this small business venture. There
was also concern regarding the noise level and we would like to reassure everyone else
also since we live on the property that we would not like that either and would strictly
enforce noise control. We have five acres surrounded by woods on three sides and feel
that this would be adequate to control the noise. We feel by not taking out any of the
woods surrounding the perimeter of the property we would maintain our privacy, as well
as the privacy of our neighbors. We would like to maintain that we have talked to our
neighbors that have property adjoining ours and explained what we would like to do and
established that we would maintain as much privacy as possible for everyone.
Ms. Speaker: [unintelligible]
Ms. Fell: Our neighbors that had adjoining property that we talked to seemed to
be satisfied and had no problem with the business venture since our driveway is also
surrounded by woods. They had no concern that, concerns about traffic or noise.
Therefore, since none of them attended the meeting we were very puzzled why Mr.
Walker, who has the land adjoining ours in the back size, would be so concerned since he
lives on Horseshoe Road and has also has no houses adjoining our property. We would
th
like to point out that none of the people attending the meeting on December 5 also did
not have property adjoining ours. We have previously submitted a list of businesses
within a mile radius, if I may read it off. We have a brand new business called Savin’
Haven that just has opened up within less than two months. Then there’s Harvey’s Truck
Equipment and Auto Sales. Cumbee’s Convenience Store. Jack’s Convenience Store.
There’s a greenhouse across the street from Jack’s. There is a church along there also.
At the corner of [unintelligible] Road and Mike Padgett, Street Rod Specialties, Garage
and Trailer Storage also has a business there where they store trailers for a business up
the road across from International Paper. And also less than a mile is the Augusta
Corporate Park proposed location for the new drag strip, which I understand has been
turned down. But I’d like to point out that at any time there might be some type of
industrial business going in there, also. We are also less than a mile from Augusta
Newsprint and International Paper. We don’t seem to have any problem with the noise
and the odor from there so I would assume the other people attending the meeting
shouldn’t have any problem either. Also, back behind us there is a model airplane club
that flies their—more or less adjoining our property and they fly their model planes, and
they make noise, especially on the weekends.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
62
Ms. Fell: And also we have the noise from the railroad delivering to International
Paper and Augusta Newsprint. So these are just a few things that I would like to point
out.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
Mr. Speaker: And the steady hum of Highway 56.
Ms. Speaker: [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to recognize Mr. Patty.
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. This is a 4.8 acre lot. It is actually a flagpole lot. The body
of the lot sits about 300’ back off the highway. And it’s not consistent with several
policies in our comprehensive plan, one of which is that the [unintelligible] commercial
development along these highways would not extend more than 400’ from the highway.
None of the adjoining properties are zoned commercial. There are a number of homes in
the area. The folks that came to the meeting represented that they were adjoining
neighbors. I frankly didn’t check that out. There’s no public sewerage in this area and
the property may pass the [unintelligible] test but whether or not having a high intensity
use that would use an individual sewerage system in this area in my opinion is not a good
idea. We did have objectors and the Planning Commission voted I think unanimously to
deny it. Mr. Mayor, you do have objectors here.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. If there are any objectors, I’d like to recognize them.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Mayor, my name is Carl Walker. My property adjoins this
property on two sides.
Mr. Mayor: Give your name and address for the record, please, sir.
Mr. Walker: Carl Walker, 1199 Horseshoe Road. My houses faces Highway 56,
Mike Padgett Highway. The neighbors have a question about a RV park in such a
location [unintelligible] conveniences and a residential area. Would this have any appeal
to travelers? It appears to us that the location [unintelligible] industrial areas would be
appealing only to construction workers who would reside in this park long term. In other
words, the RV park would function more as a mobile home park. We believe locating an
RV park in our residential community would devalue our property. We also believe that
the noise created by traffic entering and exiting the RV park would be a nuisance to our
area. We believe that the absence of a public sewerage system would require a
substantial investment in a septic system engineered to serve stations scattered over
several areas. To make the investment practical they would have to be a density of
stations that would require a drain field area that would likely exceed the area available.
In other words, the project could become a health hazard. Thank you.
Ms. Fell: May I respond to that, please?
63
Mr. Mayor: Please, and then we’ll move on.
Ms. Fell: Mr. Lee from the Environmental Health Department did come out there
and he did establish that we could do one large septic and it would have to have a pump
on it and it would come on at a certain level, from what I understand that he told me, and
he agreed that the land was very sandy and that he did not see a problem with the septic.
And I can only assume that we would get some, hopefully some business from the
Futurity and also when the Masters is over flooding the area with people. I’m sure
people would be glad to come in their campers and camp there.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to move that we deny the
petition based on Mr. Patty’s recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. George, I’d like to ask a couple of
questions. And I heard that a trailer park and an RV park and a trailer park—what’s the
difference and how can we be assured that it would be an RV park versus mobile home
setup as we have some in this community? But how can we distinguish whether or not it
going to be an RV, a true RV, or whether a mobile home brought in and set up on stands
or blocks or even the tires?
Mr. Patty: [unintelligible] size [unintelligible]. One of the problems I have with
this frankly is we don’t have rules [unintelligible]. If you’re going to do a trailer park, a
manufactured home park, we’ve got certain sizes [unintelligible] certain amenities,
certain—as a matter of fact [unintelligible] we’ve got controls over mobile home parks.
We do not have any standards [unintelligible] other than zoning. Of course
[unintelligible] so as far as how many units they can have [unintelligible] .
Mr. Williams: But the grading and road or paving would have to come through
the normal process that we do here at Planning & Zoning; is that right?
Mr. Patty: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: With a site plan.
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: And that would determine whether or not it’s sufficient, cause it is
[unintelligible] mobile home, and I’m trying to figure out whether it going to be RV or
whether it’s going to be like the opposers are saying, whether it’s going to be mobile
homes brought in there. And we [unintelligible] RVs, if it’s approved. I just need to
know.
64
Mr. Patty: [unintelligible] commercial zoning that [unintelligible].
Mr. Williams: That’s all my questions, Mr. Mayor.
Ms. Fell: Could I ask one question? Up on Highway 56 across from Castle Pines,
there’s two homes up there with numerous RVs parked around it on either side. And I’m
sure they would have the same septic problems that we have and apparently they don’t
have any problem because they’ve been there for numerous years. And apparently the
neighbors on either side don’t have a problem with it, either. Because it’s right across
from Castle Pines and it’s been there ever since I can remember.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. One last comment, please, sir, and if we could keep it brief
because there’s supposed to be five minutes for the presentations.
Ms. Fell: And I have submitted a site plan.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Fell: We would probably have no more than 10 or 12 RV places to park.
Because that’s about all the run we have to maintain our privacy because we have to live
there also.
Mr. Mayor: We do have a motion. I don’t believe we—
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote—
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, is there a substitute motion in place or just one
motion?
Mr. Mayor: Just one motion.
The Clerk: To deny.
Mr. Williams: Motion to deny? I’m going to make a substitute motion that we
approve it with the stipulation that they limit it to twelve and that if there are mobile
home or anything of that sort put out there it would revert back or they would lose their
zoning. Can we do that? Can we put that stipulation in where they would have to do the
things that’s spelled out or go back to where it was?
Mr. Patty: [unintelligible]
Mr. Williams: Would you agree to having no more than twelve put in?
65
Ms. Fell: Certainly.
Mr. Williams: And any grading or anything done have to have a site plan and go
through the normal process through this [unintelligible]?
Ms. Fell: Yes, we would be willing to do that.
Mr. Williams: I don’t know how this vote is going to go but I mean I’m just
giving you my proposal. That would be my substitute motion, Madame Clerk.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any more discussion?
The Clerk: We don’t have a second.
Mr. Mayor: No second on the substitute. Could you please read back the
substitute?
The Clerk: It didn’t get a second.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, it didn’t get a second.
The Clerk: It didn’t get a second, no, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: Dies for lack of a second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioners will now vote on the first motion.
The Clerk: The original motion is to deny the petition.
Mr. Mayor: By the usual sign.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any other agenda items that people are here to make
presentations on?
The Clerk: We have a bid protest.
Mr. Speaker: 16.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 16. Let’s get item number 16.
Mr. Colclough: We do have one other person waiting. Item number 44.
66
Mr. Mayor: Item number 44?
Mr. Colclough: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll move to that as soon as we get past 16.
16. Motion to approve HOME Competitive Program Design. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee December 12, 2005)
Mr. Williams:
Mr. Mayor, I pulled item 16 but I had an opportunity to talk with
I’m going to make a motion that we
some of the HED people and some of the CHDOs.
approve,
keep Paul DeCamp from having to say anything, and let this thing get on out of
I make a
here. I got my clarification. Some other Commissioner may want to but
motion we approve.
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second by Mr. Colclough. Any further
discussion? Commissioners will now vote through the usual sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we also have some folks here from OMI as well.
Mr. Mayor: 44, let’s go to 44 first. 44 is the alcohol license. [unintelligible]
We’ll now move on the item 46.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
46. Consider bid protest from Horne's Pest Control relative to Commission
action taken on December 5, 2005 to rebid Pest Control Services for the Augusta
Public Services Department.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. The
Procurement Director and I and Mr. Bush, who represents Horne’s, met—
Mr. Colclough: We can’t hear you on this end, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: I said the—can you hear me now, Richard?
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir.
67
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, sir. I’ll try to speak down into this. During the recess,
the Procurement Director and Mr. Bush and I met and reviewed the bids that were
tabulated and it appears that Horne’s is the best bid, and as Ms. Sams put it, the only
compliance bidder and it would be our recommendation that the matter not be rebid but
that the contract be awarded to Horne’s.
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you. I’m in favor of moving to approve it but I’d like to
know how it get this way. We just go through doing some stuff a little while ago that had
no record, no indication of how things happen. Where did this ball get dropped at, Mr.
Shepard? Procurement or Purchasing or Finance? And I think the man deserve the bid if
they won the bid. But how did it get to this table and then now it’s worked out?
Mr. Shepard: I would say that it got dropped—I really don’t know where it got
dropped, Mr. Williams. I received a phone call from Mr. Bush this morning and if
somebody else can answer it that’s fine, but I present you with an agreement here
[unintelligible] approval.
Mr. Mayor: Like to recognize Mr. Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Williams, I think I can help answer
the question a little. It was more my doings than anyone else because when I saw the
item on the agenda when we were discussing it to start with, I looked at it and it was a
$43,000 bid and there was only one bid, one company that we had used as far as
receiving that bid. There were several companies that made a bid but they were thrown
out due to some improper paperwork. And this bid was 30% larger than what our service
was from the previous year, which meant about a $9,000 to $10,000 higher bill on a
$30,000 project that we’d had in ’05. and looking at that, and I go back to the lesson
being taught by Mr. Williams when we get these automobiles in we look at those things
and [unintelligible] we try to pull them back, we talk about them or we get a different
answer on them. That’s what I had it rejected fro at the last meeting and it was put back
on the agenda. And so the reason was being 30% higher with only one bid and one
person that came in as far as that goes, was the reason that I asked our Commission last
month to reject it, or last meeting. And so if they’re coming back with a different
approach and a different look and we can do something that’s different then I’m willing
to accept that and to move on with the bid.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Grantham, I appreciate your explaining that. I was just trying
to make sure that we hold everybody accountable.
68
Mr. Grantham: Right.
Mr. Williams: The attorney I think is here now and before he got to this door,
there should have been a process before he ever got called. Now, this business owner
going to have to pay at least for his time sitting here going through this other stuff here
that could have been avoided if it had been talked through to Purchasing and Finance and
whoever else. But I’m glad to know that somebody is watching the henhouse besides me
cause I get tired sometimes.
Mr. Grantham: Well, the other thing, if I don’t mind—
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you [unintelligible]. I did discuss this with Mr. Acree also
and he and I had talked about it. And that’s why he was involved as far as what did place
in this bid process at the last [unintelligible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Rearden?
Mr. Rearden: I’d just like a clarification from the Attorney, if I might. Steve, I
asked you to look into state law regarding mandatory bid meetings. Have you researched
that item?
Mr. Shepard: I had one of my partners do that and they said that it is.
Mr. Rearden: It is?
Mr. Shepard: It is legal.
Mr. Rearden: Legal?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Rearden: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, for a further clarification [unintelligible] is the fact that
we have the lowest qualifying bidder here. The remainder of I guess the concern was that
there were several other people interested that did not attend the mandatory meeting and
therefore did not qualify or meet the minimum qualifications. So the process was
followed, protocols were followed, and we are where we are. I call the question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
69
Mr. Williams: I just want to get Sylvia Cooper’s attention, Mr. Mayor. Every
time we do this bid process we talk about fair and equitable way of doing it. And this
time it looked like it worked out. But we’ve done bids, Sylvia, fair and equitable and we
didn’t give it to the person who won the bid, we gave it to who we chose to give it to. I
want you to be abreast of that, Ms. Cooper.
Mr. Mayor: All right. The question has been called. We’ve got a motion and a
second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Mr. Rearden, Mr. Smith and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Motion fails 5-3.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I don’t understand. I thought the Attorney said—and
clarify [unintelligible]—that they had got it worked out and that was the right bid, went
the right way and we still didn’t do it right?
Mr. Shepard: I would ask the Commission to reconsider the action. This was the
only best bid [unintelligible].
Mr. Cheek: Motion to reconsider.
Mr. Shepard: I’d ask that you reconsider that and avoid [unintelligible].
Mr. Cheek: Motion to reconsider the item.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any more discussion?
Mr. Cheek: Motion on the floor, Mr. Mayor.
The Clerk: To reconsider item 46. That’s the motion on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
The Clerk: To reconsider item 46. Reconsider.
Mr. Colclough: [unintelligible]
Mr. Cheek: It didn’t pass; is that correct?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: [unintelligible]
70
The Clerk: This is to reconsider.
Mr. Cheek: Yes, ma’am, I agree with that. Reconsider.
The Clerk: To reconsider and approve?
Mr. Grantham: Yes.
Ms. Beard out.
Mr. Rearden votes No.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, in order of somewhere that you could put this item 31,
I’ve got representatives from OMI here, too.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I’ve got 45 ahead of that. We’ll go to 45 and then 31.
Mr. Colclough: 44.
Mr. Mayor: Excuse me, 44.
Mr. Sherman:
PUBLIC SERVICES
44. Motion to approve a request by Mukesh N. Patel for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Raceway located at 2161 Gordon Hwy.
District 5. Super District 9. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee
December 12, 2005)
Mr. Sherman: Before I ask him to say his name and address, he is not the person
that is on the agenda. He is a partner who has 40% interest in the business. His name is
on the application. The person who was the contact person is in India, obviously is not
here. He was asked to be here in his place. Please state your name and address for the
record.
Mr. Speaker: My name is [unintelligible]. I live at 2701 Woodcrest Drive,
Apartment C, Augusta, Georgia 30909. My partner, the reason he is not here is because
he’s in—
Mr. Smith: Can you speak up, sir?
Mr. Speaker: [unintelligible], 2701 Woodcrest Drive, Apartment C, Augusta,
Georgia 30909.
Mr. Sherman: The Sheriff’s Department and the License Department have
reviewed the application and recommend that it be approved.
71
Mr. Colclough: Motion to approve.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any more discussion? Barbara?
Ms. Sims: I was going to make a motion to approve.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote through the usual sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: On to—
The Clerk: Item 45.
Mr. Mayor: Item 45 and then we’ll do 31.
Mr. Sherman:
45. Discussion: A request by Richard Bighon for a Therapeutic Massage license
to be used in connection with Massage - X - Stress located at 104 Warren Rd.
District 7. Super District 10. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee
December 12, 2005)
Mr. Bighon: My name is Richard Bighon. I live at 2404 [unintelligible] Place
Court 30906, Augusta. And I’m here to apply for a therapeutic massage license. I am a
graduate of Augusta School of Massage and I have the equivalent of 600 hours in the
therapeutic program and I’ve also taken the—
Mr. Mayor: Can all the Commissioners get one for free? Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Did you get a notice to attend the committee meeting?
Mr. Bighon: Today?
Mr. Colclough: No, sir, last week.
Mr. Bighon: Yes, sir, but I got it on Monday. When I got home from work I
found it in the mailbox.
Mr. Colclough: So you didn’t get it on time?
Mr. Bighon: No, sir.
72
Ms. Sims: Motion to approve.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any more discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: We will now move on to item number 31.
The Clerk:
31. Motion to approve Amendment No. 10 (Year 2006 Agreement Modifications)
to Agreement with OMI for a 2006 Budget cost of $6,446,056.00. (Funded by
Account No. 506043310-5211110) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
December 12, 2005)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Williams: I asked that be pulled, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll yield the floor, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Williams: I’m glad to hear it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I asked that to be pulled, Mr. Mayor, because of the—first of all
the amount that we are doing at the end of this year. This is I think number ten, is that
the number of change orders that this is affecting? And the other question I have beside
the money amount at the end of this year here we are now, this is for, this is for 2006 or
this for December of 2005, I guess is my question. Wasn’t we supposed to be hiring
employees to transition from this company to have an in-house situation, Max? and if we
have, how many people have we hired? How much longer this process going to work at
the rate of money that we’re spending?
Mr. Mayor: Recognize Mr. Hicks.
Mr. Hicks: In regards to the first questions, as well as I remember, last year the
contract with OMI was voted on to be extended—was it three or four more years? It was
four? In other words, you voted first to give them one year and then last year you gave
them four more years. Earlier this year you gave them four more. So consequently this
contract extends through the next four years but each year we’re required to bring you a
73
budget for that next year to come up. So this item is the budget for 2006 for a contract
that was approved earlier. I think it was earlier this year that y’all gave them four more
years.
Mr. Williams: I’m remembering the conversation, Max, but I don’t remember
whether it was four years or not. I can’t keep all of that in my head. It’s some records
somewhere to reflect.
Mr. Hicks: You’re thinking about CH2MHill. CH2MHill you didn’t give four
years. You gave CH2MHill two years and then two years, but OMI you voted one year
and then four years.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I’d just like to see that somewhere, Max. I trust you, but I
just want to see it written down somewhere. Reason for that is all this stuff that we deal
with, all of the money that was spent—and I’m not opposed to it. I just want to know, I
want to know those answers. If it’s a three year, four year, whatever it is, I’d like to get
the Administrator to get that to me so I can see that. The other question was, though, we
are supposed to been transitioning to city workers, hiring people to work and do this
work, and for the last six year we are supposed to start. I want to know where we are,
how many we hired, how many is going to be permanent with the city, because at the rate
we going, if this is four more years at $6,446,000 we can hire a lot of folks, Max.
Mr. Hicks: What I believe is being confused is the discussion that took place
about CH2MHill and on that one, CH2MHill’s duties are in fact diminishing. You
recently voted on a reorganization where we added another engineer. Not another
engineer but another assistant director in order to begin to take over and more fully
develop the operation and maintenance of the distribution and collection system. We are,
we are in the final phases of the CH2MHill contract in that between now and 2010 we are
bringing on more and more responsibility [unintelligible] Utilities Department and are
setting up to do that. But so far as the contract to operate the wastewater plant, the
Messerly Plant, which is that that OMI has done, we have not yet gotten into discussion
over whether or not we would continue to operate by privatization or if in fact the city
wanted to take that back over and operate it internally. We have not discussed that but
we did in fact discuss the CH2MHill.
Mr. Williams: Max, help me out now, because—and I’m going from
remembrance but I know there are records on it. We just approved six months ago to this
month a $27 million contract that I opposed because we didn’t what we just did with the
exterminator, go out for bids on it, for CH2MHill; is that right? Or OMI?
Mr. Hicks: that was with CH2MHill and you approved it partially in order—for
two years and then you’re exactly right on that one, it has to be reconsidered again either
in ’06 or ’07, one or the other. It will have to be voted on again.
74
Mr. Williams: But the process was supposed to be—and I’m trying to
remember—that we were going to transition, that we were going to hire in some people
to work for this government and phase them out.
Mr. Hicks: We are.
Mr. Williams: Because we up and running, we big boys and girls now and we
know how to do it ourselves. We been taught. So being in class all this time we able to
do that. This item 31 here you said is—
Mr. Hicks: That’s operation of the Messerly Plant. That’s a whole different ball
game. That’s a year to year operation for that plant. And earlier this year they were give
a four year—four more years on their contract.
Mr. Williams: But we’re not supposed to be doing the same thing. I’m—we’re
not supposed to be hiring and then transition that plant as well?
Mr. Hicks: No, sir. And the Messerly Plant was Best in State last year, just to let
you know.
Mr. Williams: I understand. I understand. The amount of money we paying,
Max, we should have been Best in State. In fact, the world ought to be considered.
Mr. Hicks: Look forward to that.
Mr. Williams: But all I’m asking was—and I thought that was the same thing,
that we had a transition period to hire people under that. Now, this $6,446,000 our DBE
person is completely satisfied with the participation?
Mr. Hicks: From what she has expressed to us, she is. Yvonne—is she still next
door?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Ms. Gentry is coming in. Let us address it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Hicks: If the Mayor and Commission wishes, Ms. Gentry is here and could
address this.
Mr. Mayor: I would love to recognize Ms. Gentry.
Ms. Gentry: What was the question?
Mr. Williams: The question was, Ms. Gentry, that the DBE person was satisfied
with the participation we supposed to be getting from the firm that doing business, in this
case to the magnitude of $6,446,000, have the goals or the—what’s the word?
75
Mr. Mayor: Objectives?
The Clerk: Objectives?
Mr. Williams: Objective is good. Been met that we asked for?
Ms. Gentry: Yes, sir. I was charged last year with reviewing OMI’s method of
inclusion for DBE and local participation. I met with Mr. Andrews on a quarterly basis
to ensure. The numbers that they provided me last year and the numbers that they
provided this year, right now we’re at 85%. Local participation is 58%, minority
participation is 15%, and woman-owned is 10%. As opportunities evolve they contact
me to identify additional areas of DBE participation. There is always room for
improvement. However, they have been working with the City in terms of identifying
opportunities. Based on what Mr. Andrews provides me, which is product listing of the
product as well as the services that they procure, and he is willing to work with our office
and has done so on a quarterly basis.
Mr. Williams: So the percentage is not just the numbers of participation but the
dollar amount? And that’s been my question all the time, is how many dollars? Not how
many workers. Because the mass of the work is going to be done that way. But I was
talking about the dollar factor, when it comes to this city spending money with local
businesses, women owned, minority business in this community, has it reached the level
that we asked them for?
Ms. Gentry: To be honest with you, Commissioner, we didn’t ask them to reach a
particular dollar amount. We requested that they increase it. As you remember, last year
they brought in not really percentages for us, but just gave us dollar amounts. What I’ve
had them to do is to go back and identify who they’re purchasing and procuring goods
and services with, and which they have increased that. That dollar amount has—not only
the dollar amount but the percentages have increased also.
Mr. Williams:
Okay, Ms. Gentry, if you’re satisfied with it, and you in the
I’m going to make a motion that we approve it
position, with no other conversation.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Williams: But I just wanted to make sure and very sure that we are—I mean
doing our job and to make sure that we are keeping up with what we’re supposed to be
keeping up with.
Ms. Gentry: There is always room for improvement, Commissioner. There is
always room for improvement. However, they are meeting with me and making sure that
as opportunities evolve, I attempt to identify our local minority as well as woman-owned
businesses.
76
Mr. Williams: I would just love to see check and balance, not just with this firm
but with any firm. When you spend the kind of money we’re spending with any firm, I
would love to see some check and balance so we’ll know what’s there, is there. Because
had we not had a person on staff like we would not have the level of participation that we
been asking for. So I want to see some check and balance out of your office or
somewhere so I’ll know for myself.
Ms. Gentry: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to be very brief. This is one area we never—
let me repeat—never need to bring back in house. When I first went out there the
paddles, the chains were turning in the [unintelligible] but the paddles weren’t even
hooked on to them. But the guy was checking it off every day. We are now approaching
years of operation in conformance with the Clean Water Act, something the city never
did. OMI has a unique skill and [unintelligible] initiative in the operation of this plant.
We’re getting the biggest bang for our buck because we were under consent orders and
fines and everything else for years before when the City ran this. We’re talking about 42
million gallons or so if sewage a day, or thereabouts, that they’re managing and it’s
coming out conforming to clean water standards, which is exceptional. We’re getting a
good bang for our buck. Yes, we are investing money into it but this one that we need to
keep under a subcontractor that has professional expertise in line management up the line
to run a plant like this.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. I think everybody is feeling good about this. We have a
motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Hicks: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Lena, how many more?
The Clerk: We have item 38 and a couple on our regular agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go to item 38.
The Clerk:
38. Motion to approve the amended service areas for the prime contract haulers.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 12, 2005
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I asked for that to be pulled as well. We been talking
trash all week long and you and I been together debating to get some things—but Fred,
77
exactly what is this 38, prime contract? Is that something different from the other stuff,
Mark?
Mr. Johnson: No. What it does is we put together three implementation
schedules. One is with Waste Management not participating. What it did is it divided up
the Waste Management work among the other three haulers. The original approval was
to go to the cheapest. However, for us we needed to use major divides such as the
freeway. So we wanted to split that work into threes and utilize strategic divides which
makes it easier for us. So it repeals the first decision y’all made, changes some
boundaries to the second, and then the Phase I think portion of that is it extends our
service levels out in the county to some of the areas that aren’t incorporated now, such as
over off Dyess Parkway. There’s an area north of I20 that wasn’t included. So it fills in
the gaps, if you will. We actually have some subdivisions where we have two connecting
streets and there’s ten homes in the middle that aren’t included, because they were never
included and the subdivisions finally grew together. This takes a lot of the hiccups out
and makes it contiguous.
Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a motion and a second. Any more discussion?
Commissioners will vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Lena, am I correct; 48?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. 48 and 52.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
48. Receive as information a report about the service(s) provided by Hester
Sanitation.
Mr. Speaker: At the committee meeting last week the Solid Waste Department
came forward and expressed some concerns and shared with you—
Mr. Williams: Send this to committee.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
78
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if we can let’s send this to committee and have an
opportunity to discuss this with him.
He’s not here not; right?
Mr. Speaker: He’s not here. Let me share the pros and cons to that. He was
asked to be here, number one. We gave him a letter. But the contract goes into effect
st
January 1.
Mr. Williams:
In light of that then I’m going to ask the Administrator and you to
get—if you can’t get something together in the next 48 hours, to get with the Mayor and
That’s in the form of a motion.
let’s try to resolve this if we can, Mark.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. We have a motion and a second. Is there any
more discussion? Commissioners will vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if I may, just on this particular item. We are to a point
and I’ve done my best to try to alert the Commission. We’ve had as many from this
particular hauler thirteen consecutive days of non-service on more than one occasion.
And while talking is good, unless we see some drastic improvements we’re going to have
to take some action to basically get someone that’s going to provide service to the people.
So while we pass this and ask for this discussion today, thirteen days in a row—and that
is not the only time, this has been a repeated problem. I’m getting calls from people in
that area that are saying you’re going up on my rates but you’re giving me sorry service.
We’re going to have to see some drastic improvements or a new hauler.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Cheek.
The Clerk:
52. Resolution to approve an appropriate rate of charge by unit of service; to
define a unit of service; to supplement previous resolutions passed with respect to
Solid Waste Collection; and to repeal previous conflicting Resolution.
The Clerk: The Attorney.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Members of the Commission, we were charged with developing a
definition of a solid waste service unit. The Exhibit A to the resolution is that operative
document that’s a full unit, that require services from either water or domestic light and
power services are connected to a dwelling, [unintelligible] set the annual rate of charge
at $276 annually. Some break points where multiple groups of housing and dwellings
79
can come before the solid Waste Director and receive an exemption. We’ve tried to set
that out. They can participate when they have five or more units but they don’t have to.
And we have other rates in there. For example, a partial unit where there is an
unoccupied residential dwelling, it can be charged at a 50% rate. In addition, we have
optional services, 30% for the annual rate of charge for an additional cart, 15% of the
annual rate of charge for the additional recycling cart, a charge for lost and stolen carts if
the Solid Waste Director determines that there has been some problem with the holder of
the cart. But this would tie up the last of the solid waste rate of charge and the resolution
just sort of ties it all together indicating how we have had a long process that has gone on
really since June of 2001 to bring haulers into a unit of unit cost type arrangement. And
that’s what this does.
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any more discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Rearden: Excuse me.
Mr. Mayor: Excuse me. Mr. Rearden?
Mr. Rearden: Could you come forward, please? Last time we had a discussion
there was a $4 million deficit in your fund?
Mr. Johnson: Yes.
Mr. Rearden: So you’re proposing to reduce it by 20% per year?
Mr. Johnson: We’re proposing to have that as an option. At $276 there’s $4 a
month associated with debt reduction. So that becomes an option. As the contract
increases, if we don’t increase rates so on and so forth, that provision gives us the option
to add on a percentage to help get that down in this contract term. So that’s a possibility.
Not a definitive.
Mr. Rearden: So what you’re saying is that at the end of five years this deficit
may or may not be gone?
Mr. Johnson: The intent is to have the deficit gone by the end of this contract
term, which could be five or six or seven years as defined by our contract documents.
Mr. Rearden: And you say it’s $4 a month per household?
Mr. Johnson: We have $4 a month—out of that $276—no, not a month. A year.
Out of that $276 per household, $4 a year is designated towards contingency fund
80
balance bad debt. So out of those, I don’t know how many people aren’t going to pay
their bills, I don’t know how many people are not going to pay their bills. And what type
of contingencies we might need moving forward. Because historically, the increases to
cover the cost haven’t been there so we wanted to write something in that gave us the
power at some point to at least get us out of the hole.
Mr. Rearden: So 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, 20 years from now we may be in a deeper hole
or out of this one?
Mr. Johnson: Out of this one ideally in five, opportunistically in seven.
Mr. Rearden: If I were to bring a pickup load of trash to the landfill, my personal,
it’s personal trash that I’m hauling—
Mr. Johnson: Yes, sir?
Mr. Rearden: How much do you charge?
Mr. Johnson: In excess of 6,000 pounds or less than?
Mr. Rearden: Well, my pickup truck won’t hold 6,000 pounds. Let’s say 5,000
pounds.
Mr. Johnson: It’s gross vehicle weight, so if it’s less than, we charge you $2.50;
in excess it’s $7.50.
Mr. Rearden: And how much do you charge the contractors to dump their big
trucks?
Mr. Johnson: That depends on the total volume that they bring in. It ranges from
$24.50 a ton if they bring in excess of 10,000 tons a month to $33.50 a ton if they bring
in from zero to 2,000 tons a month.
Mr. Rearden: And how much do you charge out-of-county haulers?
Mr. Johnson: It depends on the volume which they bring. But all of the out-of-
county volume comes in through private contract. Private contractor. Waste
Management, Advance Disposal, so on and so forth. So for us to give you an out-of-
county rate, I couldn’t do it. I can tell you what we charge individual companies and then
we would have to ask them what percentage of the waste comes from where.
Mr. Rearden: So you’re charging them the same rate per ton regardless of the
origination of the truck?
Mr. Johnson: I’m charging the company a rate for the garbage they bring me, yes.
And it’s indifferent to where the garbage came from.
81
Mr. Rearden: So therefore if I started a business in Columbia County picking up
garbage I could bring it and dump it in your landfill at the same rate that garbage that is
picked up on my street in Richmond County is charged for based on tonnage?
Mr. Johnson: Yes.
Mr. Rearden: So do you have an estimate of how much goes into our landfill that
is generated out of the county?
Mr. Johnson: No. Not off the top—I can tell you that the landfill currently takes
about 200 to 220 tons a day. That’s the residual. That’s what they have left. But I have
not done a breakout of what comes in from out of county, no.
Mr. Rearden: So therefore on the backs of the taxpayers of Richmond County we
are subsidizing other counties if they choose to use our landfill?
Mr. Johnson: Actually I would go quite the contrary. Those other counties are
paying us money to utilize our service. That’s the reason that we could afford to pay
back the bond to develop the new landfill, that’s why we could afford to build a new
building this next year. Without those revenues those things could have never been
accomplished. So in a landfill it’s a little bit different than your traditional business. I
can charge $50 a unit and get ten units and that generates $500. Or I can generate $25 a
unit, bring in 200 units, and have twice the revenue. Because volume dictates revenue in
many cases. So subsequent—I had a financial person once say, you know, you’re
making money, we’ve got to lower the rate. But if we lower the rate we get more
volume. I make more money. So if you want to slow down the rates, you increase them.
If you want to accelerate how much garbage you get, you decrease them. And
secondarily to that, my cost structure is fixed to a certain point. I have two bulldozers. I
have capacity to 2500 tons with those two bulldozers. We currently take in about 1400
tons a day. So I have opportunity costs to 2500 where it doesn’t cost me another dollar to
put that garbage in, so the rest of it falls to the bottom line. So I would say that we want
more volume at a reasonable rate to give us more revenue to build what we need to build.
Mr. Rearden: What would you consider to be a reasonable rate?
Mr. Johnson: Somewhere between $24.50 and $33.50, depending on volume.
Mr. Rearden: Does not compute, to use a space term.
Mr. Johnson: I don’t understand.
Mr. Rearden: Well, I understand what you’re saying but what I’m saying is this
government has no business subsidizing the operation of another county.
Mr. Johnson: And how are we subsidizing? I don’t understand.
82
Mr. Rearden: If you allow trash from Columbia County to be come to our landfill
and in volume you’re charging them the same rate that you’re charging for a person who
only picks up in Richmond County, you’re subsidizing that county. Because they can go
out of the landfill business and live off of us.
Mr. Johnson: And quite honestly, we could charge everybody flat rate at $33.50.
Our volumes would decrease because Waste Management would start taking our garbage
back down to Hilton Head because that makes more financial sense for them. The
volume that’s coming in potentially from across the river would turn around and go back
to Three Rivers. Columbia County’s garbage would go to Twiggs County and we would
be left with an $11 million bond that we couldn’t pay. So while I agree that it’s a good
concept, the application leaves us financially holding a really big bag because there are
other disposal options very close. Three Rivers. Thirty miles away. Transportation cost
to get it there is not very much. Twiggs County is I believe fifty miles away. So when
you look at a private industry like Advance, their fixed operating costs plus transportation
and then $5 to pick it up off the floor, if we’re not going to be competitive with that we
shouldn’t be in the landfill business.
Mr. Rearden: What does Three Rivers charge; do you know?
Mr. Johnson: Three Rivers charges commercial garbage I believe $34 or $35.
Mr. Rearden: So why aren’t we doing the same instead of giving them a break
based on the volume they haul when we’re cutting down their haul by half?
Mr. Johnson: Because when we went to volume-based pricing we picked up
$600,000 out of their landfill that went to our bottom line.
Mr. Rearden: So if you take it off volume-based pricing and they closed your
landfill, it’s got to go somewhere and they’re going to spend half as much to truck it past
our landfill to somewhere else to dump it for the same rate?
Mr. Johnson: No, sir. You just switched counties on me. From Aiken County to
Three Rivers. You’re talking about Columbia County. Because Three Rivers is not
going to close their site.
Mr. Rearden: No, that’s not what I asked.
Mr. Johnson: Okay.
Mr. Rearden: Okay. Columbia County is closing their landfill.
Mr. Johnson: Correct.
Mr. Rearden: And we’re going to take their garbage?
83
Mr. Johnson: Correct.
Mr. Rearden: We’re going to give them a discount based on volume.
Mr. Johnson: Incorrect.
Mr. Rearden: Well, that’s not the way you answered me two weeks ago.
Mr. Johnson: It depends on the company. If Company A brings me 1000 tons
we’re charging them $33.50. If Advance Disposal, who brings me 11,000 tons, we’ll be
charging them $24.50. So it’s a sliding scale depending on who brings it.
Mr. Rearden: I understand that point. Now, here’s my point. Does Three Rivers
have a sliding scale?
Mr. Johnson: No.
Mr. Rearden: They do not?
Mr. Johnson: No.
Mr. Rearden: All of the garbage that goes to Three Rivers landfill is generated
from basically out-of-county providers?
Mr. Johnson: The garbage that comes from Three Rivers basically comes from
Aiken County east through a network of transfer stations and they really don’t take much
from Richmond County at all. Because they are in a consortium.
Mr. Rearden: The point you tried to make was that if we were really in the
landfill business to break even that we would lose that Columbia County garbage because
they would take it to Three Rivers; is that your point?
Mr. Johnson: It would go to Twiggs County.
Mr. Rearden: And our hauling cost from Columbia County to here is more than
from here to Twiggs County?
Mr. Johnson: No, it’s less than. But you’re competing with private industry and
so the cost structure for private industry to operate its landfill we’ll say is $10 to $15 a
ton at the landfill. Number two is you’re going to have a transportation contract to get it
there [unintelligible] and it’s going to cost you $4 to transfer it. Basically, Advance
Disposal simply wants to take their garbage, put it in their landfill and make a buck. So if
they can do that, if they can pick it up off the floor, put it in the trailer, and pay their $10
fixed operating cost and it’s less than that we’re charging, they’re going to take Columbia
County garbage to Twiggs County landfill.
84
Mr. Rearden: I agree that a private company will save a nickel wherever they
can. My point to you is we need to make a nickel wherever we can and to put garbage
that is going to use our landfill whether we have 120 years or 460 years or however long
the landfill is going last, to take other people’s garbage and relive them of that cost is not
fair to the taxpayers of this county. And the users.
Mr. Mayor: I think people are starting to drop off. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to—while I agree there seems to be kind of a fairness issue
of the citizens of Richmond County versus Columbia County as far as rate structure is
concerned. The bottom line and the original question was are we going to get out of the
red? And the [unintelligible] is no, not if we manage it like we have in the past. Which
we’ve got a professional manager running it. The landfill will fill up at some time. If
you have excess capacity and equipment, the best way you can get the most bang out of
that equipment is to fully utilize it, just like Waste Management will a transfer station and
a truck they have sitting idle, that they can get and utilize for 25 cent less per mil or
whatever. I mean it’s all relative. The bottom line is we’ve got to recoup the money,
make a commitment as a body to pay this debt off and come out of the red within the
contract period and then start over again. At some point in the future we will be looking
at a new landfill in at least 25 or 30 years. But right now we’ve got to make the thing
work and make money. For goodness sake, there’s a lot of equations but I trust Mark
more than I do us.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Rearden, please keep it brief. I think we have discussed it.
Mr. Rearden: I just have one more remark. And that is it is not fair to the
taxpayers of this county to allow other people from outside this county to use facilities
that we have issued bonds to pay for at a discounted rate. Now, if you want to give then a
10 cent a ton or a quarter a ton, that’s fine. But not when you start talking about $8 and
$10 a ton. You’re already putting 20% more on this bill, $4 a year, whatever you want to
call it, on the taxpayers of Richmond County to erase a deficit that they had no choice but
to accept because the government would not look at those costs every year and move
incrementally, incrementally [unintelligible]. We waited four years to raise it 50% when
we could have raised it over the same four years at about 8% or 9% per year and been
ahead of the curve from where we are today. That’s all I got to say.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, in closing?
Mr. Cheek: Just for the record, and clarification. Words have mean. We are
giving them a market rate, not a discount rate, because they’re Columbia County.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard and Mr. Williams out.
85
Mr. Rearden votes No.
Motion carries 6-1.
Mr. Mayor: I believe that’s the last agenda item.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Motion to adjourn.
Mr. Rearden: Mr. Mayor, if I might?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Rearden?
Mr. Rearden: A point of personal privilege. Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you
very much for the privilege you gave me of serving with you. I have enjoyed the
friendships I’ve made. I have an entirely different view of this Commission than I did
when I came on it. I won’t say it’s 100% change but it is different. I personally
appreciate what you do. I know it’s difficult having to sit here and decide how to apply
taxes, what to do with personnel. I wish you much look in the future in the things that
you face. Again, I thank you for the opportunity, and if there is any way I can be of
service, I’ll be more than happy to do so.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you so much and I’d like to personally thank all of the
outgoing Commissioners for their public service. I believe we stand adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena 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 December 19, 2005.
________________________
Clerk of Commission
86