HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 29, 2005 Augusta-Richmond County Commiss
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
March 29, 2005
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:06 p.m., Tuesday, March
29, 2005, the Honorable Marion Williams, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Mays, Grantham, Colclough, Cheek, Beard,
and Sims, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Bob Young, Mayor and Boyles, member of Augusta Richmond
County Commission.
Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by Rev. Donald Jordan.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
The Clerk: Rev. Jordan, on behalf of our Mayor Pro Tem and members of the
Augusta Commission, we’d like to extend our appreciation, our heartfelt appreciation for
that spirit filled prayer and petition to heaven on our behalf, and we’d like to give you a
token of our appreciation for you being here today. It’s our Chaplain of the Day Award
for your civic and spiritual guidance, demonstrated throughout the community, that
serves as an example for all of the community. Thank you for being with us.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, we’ll look at our consent agenda. I realize
that we’ve got a couple of groups to appear, so let’s look at our consent agenda and then
we’ll go straight to those and try to get them out as quickly as possible.
The Clerk: Under our consent agenda, which consists of items 1 through 27,
on our printed agenda, 1 through 27.
For the benefit of any objectors to our alcohol
petitions, once the petitions are read, if there are any objectors would you please signify
your objection by raising your hand?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by Emily E. Strickland for a Therapeutic
Massage license to be used in connection with Jon Ric International Medical Day
Spa & Salon located at 229 Fury’s Ferry Rd. District 7. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee March 21, 2005)
2. Motion to approve a request by Jan Scholer for a Special Events license to be
used in connection with Wild Wing Café located at 3035 Washington Rd. for April
1
8, 2005. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
March 21, 2005)
3. Motion to approve a request by Lisa Edmonds to transfer the Liquor, Beer &
Wine license used in connection with the Good Life Lounge located at 3602
Milledgeville Rd. to 1524 Gordon Hwy. There will be dance. District 2. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 21, 2005)
4. Motion to approve a request by Joseph E. Taylor for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the Exchange Club
Fairgrounds located at 308 Hale St. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee March 21, 2005)
5. Motion to approve a request by David F. Sandbach for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with the Pumping Station, Inc. located at
4149 & 4145 Windsor Spring Rd. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
6. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3176
located at 1713 Martin Luther King Blvd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee March 21, 2005)
7. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3171
located at 1739 Walton Way. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
8. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3174
located at 1947 Gordon Hwy. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
9. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3173
located at 902 Walton Way. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
10. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3175
located at 3418 Mike Padgett Hwy. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
11. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3181
located at 2058 Central Ave. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
12. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3179
located at 3315 Peach Orchard Rd.. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by
Public Services Committee March 21, 2005)
13. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3178
located at 2631 Washington Rd... District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
2
14. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3183
located at 3755 Wheeler Rd... District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
15. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3170
located at 2574 Tobacco Rd. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
16. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3180
located at 499 Highland Ave. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
17. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3168
located at 2855 Washington Rd. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I have a question on one of the items.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Item 4. Alcohol and beer license in connection with the
fairgrounds, the Exchange has a – help me out there. Is that a club there or bar or what?
Mr. Sherman: This is, Mr. Taylor is here. He could probably address it better
than I, but these are – I’ll explain to you and if you have any, direct your questions to Mr.
Taylor. They are applying for a beer and wine license to sell during special events at the
fairgrounds. They will set up, have it set up inside one of the buildings. Only those that
are older than 21, 21 and older are allowed to go in there. And the Sheriff’s Department
security tent beside the building, where your ID is checked.
Mr. Colclough: Is that the structure on Hale Street?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Colclough, if you will, let us go through the consent,
and then we can pull that one. Then we can come back.
Mr. Colclough: We’ll just pull item 4 then.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. We can address that then and get the clarification of
what we need. Go ahead, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: I’ve read all the alcohol petitions.
3
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get a motion, gentlemen, ladies? Commissioner
Cheek, I see your hand.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, do you want to go ahead and add the
Engineering Services to the general consent agenda or pass it as a separate consent
agenda?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We can go ahead and add that, if you’d like. I’ve got a list
of those, and we can pull from that list those that need to be pulled. Madame Clerk, there
is no alcohol on that list, but we’ll go ahead and add the consent agenda from
Engineering Services to our consent.
The Clerk: That’s items 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
36. Consider a request for an easement for pipeline in county right of way at
Doug Barnard Parkway for FinnChem USA, Inc.
37. Approve Augusta Utilities Department participation in the Water
Environment Research Foundation Biosolids Research Plan at a cost of $5,000.00
per year for five years with a total cost of $25,000.00 (Funded from Account
506043110-5212999).
39. Presentation of Savannah River at Risk Research Program by Dr. Gene
Eidson to aid in request for $300,000.00 funding from Augusta.
40. Approve the Deed of Dedication and Maintenance Agreement for the water
and sanitary sewer mains with applicable easements for Alexander Commons,
Phase V.
41. Approve the Deed of Dedication and Maintenance Agreement for the water,
sanitary sewer mains and lift station with applicable easements for Wheeler Lake,
Phase Two, Section One.
42. Authorize the Augusta Utilities Department to notify perspective firms of the
selection results and proceed with negotiations of a contract with the top ranked
firm, Parsons Water & Infrastructure Inc. for Construction Manager at Risk
Services for the Highland Ave. Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Project. RFQ # 05-
067
43. Approve an Option for Easement between National Welder Supply
Company, Inc, as successor by merger with National Realty Sales Corporation, as
owner, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property located at 519 National
Avenue for the purchase price of $237.00: 537 square feet, more or less, of
permanent utility and maintenance easement and 952 square feet, more or less, of
temporary construction easement.
44. Approve funding in the amount of $1,687,636.12 and award the construction
contract to Blair Construction for the construction of the Horsepen Branch Sanitary
Sewer 1b phase, Bid #05-064.
45. Authorize execution of Lighting Agreement with the Georgia Department of
Transportation for the Windsor Spring Road Phase V Project. The estimated
annual cost of $21,000 per year to cover operations and maintenance will be funded
4
from Street Light Account No. 276-04-1610/53.12310 once the millage rate is
adjusted after the project is complete.
46. Authorize execution of Lighting Agreement with the Georgia Department of
Transportation for the Windsor Spring Road Phase IV Project. The estimated
annual cost of $25,000 per year to cover operations and maintenance will be funded
from Street Light Account No. 276-04-1610/53.12310 once the millage rate is
adjusted after the project is complete.
47. Approve new position of Assistant Director for Water Distribution &
Wastewater Collection – Utilities. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee March 21, 2005)
48. Approve new positions in Utilities Department and Information Technology.
(See background information under Item 24 on Administrative Services agenda)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: And if it please the body and the Chair, item 38 was received as
information and can be added. And item 49 was also received as information with a
report back in two weeks and can be added to the consent agenda if it please the body.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 38 and –
Mr. Cheek: 38 and 49.
38. Presentation by Ms. Doris Lehan regarding an exemption from the solid
waste fee. (Received as information)
49. Discuss the paving of Youngblood Road. (Requested by Commission Smith)
(Received as information with a report back in two weeks)
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’d like to move that we add to this consent
agenda the two items, 1 and 2 on the revisions, to the – the additions to the agenda today.
Addendum Item 1. Motion to ratify Augusta Recreation applying and accepting a
grant award (no matching funds required) in the amount of $2,500 from the
International Paper Company to assist with the Senior Citizens Nutritional
Program.
Addendum Item 2. Motion to approve the appointment of Jay Forrester to the HED
Citizens Advisory Committee for District 10. (Requested by Commissioner
Grantham)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do we have the consent of the body to add to the agenda,
then add to the consent? Madame Clerk, I guess we got to first, Mr. Shepard, receive
these?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. We need a motion to add them to the agenda.
Ms. Sims: So move.
5
Mr. Cheek: Second
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of
voting.
Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, now you want those added to the consent. We can
add them to the consent, Commissioner Smith, and then we can pull those, if someone
has some questions, some clarifications, some – we can go ahead and add them to the
consent agenda and then those Commissioners that feel uncomfortable or still have a
question can go ahead and pull those. Madame Clerk, we add those two to the consent.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And if any Commissioner have any, any interest in pulling
and getting information on anything, they’re welcome to pull. Can I get a motion to
receive, and then we’ll pull from the consent after we –
Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve the consent agenda.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Been a motion and a second that we approve the consent
agenda. All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign. We need to go ahead and
pull them first. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. Now is there anyone that want to pull anything?
Commissioner Colclough, I think, asked for number 4 to be pulled.
Mr. Colclough: Number 4. Item number 4.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there any other items to be pulled? Madame Clerk, I’d
like to pull item 44 and 47. Is there anything else?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? Are we attempting to do the consent agenda
as published in the book, in addition to the alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes.
The Clerk: Item 23 and item 47 are companion items.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 23 and 47?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
6
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, either one. If they companion, we pull them together,
23 and 47. Any other items to be pulled, ladies and gentlemen? Hearing none, I need a
motion now.
The Clerk: We have a motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Have a motion and a second.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by Emily E. Strickland for a Therapeutic
Massage license to be used in connection with Jon Ric International Medical Day
Spa & Salon located at 229 Fury’s Ferry Rd. District 7. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee March 21, 2005)
2. Motion to approve a request by Jan Scholer for a Special Events license to be
used in connection with Wild Wing Café located at 3035 Washington Rd. for April
8, 2005. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
March 21, 2005)
3. Motion to approve a request by Lisa Edmonds to transfer the Liquor, Beer &
Wine license used in connection with the Good Life Lounge located at 3602
Milledgeville Rd. to 1524 Gordon Hwy. There will be dance. District 2. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 21, 2005)
4. Deleted from the consent agenda.
5. Motion to approve a request by David F. Sandbach for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with the Pumping Station, Inc. located at
4149 & 4145 Windsor Spring Rd. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
6. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3176
located at 1713 Martin Luther King Blvd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee March 21, 2005)
7. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3171
located at 1739 Walton Way. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
8. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3174
located at 1947 Gordon Hwy. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
9. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3173
located at 902 Walton Way. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
10. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3175
7
located at 3418 Mike Padgett Hwy. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
11. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3181
located at 2058 Central Ave. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
12. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3179
located at 3315 Peach Orchard Rd.. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by
Public Services Committee March 21, 2005)
13. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3178
located at 2631 Washington Rd... District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
14. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3183
located at 3755 Wheeler Rd... District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
15. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3170
located at 2574 Tobacco Rd. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
16. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3180
located at 499 Highland Ave. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
17. Motion to approve a request by Larry James White for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Store 3168
located at 2855 Washington Rd. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 21, 2005)
18. Motion to approve Supplemental Agreement #1 between the Department of
Transportation, the State of Georgia and Augusta Richmond County, Georgia.
(Approved by Public Services Committee March 21, 2005)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
19. Motion to authorize soliciting after review of the HR Department a RFP for
voluntary employee benefits – portable universal life insurance. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee March 21, 2005)
20. Motion to authorize advertising/filling of vacant positions in the Finance
Department. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 21, 2005)
21. Motion to approve Final Version of Year 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan and
Year 2005 Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG),
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnerships and Housing
Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funds. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee March 21, 2005)
8
21A. Motion to approve the funding formula as identified by the Administrator
and Director of AHED of the Economic Ombudsman Initiative via R-UDAG and/or
General Fund. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 21, 2005)
22. Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing Submission Year 2005-2009
Consolidated Plan and Year 2005 Action Plan for Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnerships
and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS funds. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee March 21, 2005)
23. Deleted from the consent agenda.
24. Motion to approve new positions in Utilities Department and Information
Technology. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 21, 2005)
APPOINTMENTS:
25. Motion to appoint and/or reappoint the following to various ARC Boards,
Commissions and Authorities representing District 8.
NAME BOARD/COMMISSION/AUTHORITY
Bob Woodhurst Canal Authority
Charles Byrd ARC Personnel Board
Brad Kyzer Augusta Aviation Commission
Hardie Davis, Jr. Zoning Appeals Board
Hugh Fulcher, Jr. Planning Commission
Irma Lorie Williams Citizen Advisory Housing & Economic
Development
Randy Peters Human Relations
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
26. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held March 15, 2005.
ATTORNEY:
27. Motion to approve Ordinance to amend Title 4 Chapter 2 Section 6 of the
Augusta-Richmond County Code to provide for increased fees for the use of the
Augusta-Richmond County Solid Waste Landfill; to provide for severability; to
provide an effective date and for other lawful purposes. (Approved by the
Commission in meeting March 15, 2005 – second reading)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
36. Consider a request for an easement for pipeline in county right of way at
Doug Barnard Parkway for FinnChem USA, Inc.
37. Approve Augusta Utilities Department participation in the Water
Environment Research Foundation Biosolids Research Plan at a cost of $5,000.00
per year for five years with a total cost of $25,000.00 (Funded from Account
506043110-5212999).
38. Presentation by Ms. Doris Lehan regarding an exemption from the solid
waste fee. (Received as information)
9
39. Presentation of Savannah River at Risk Research Program by Dr. Gene
Eidson to aid in request for $300,000.00 funding from Augusta.
40. Approve the Deed of Dedication and Maintenance Agreement for the water
and sanitary sewer mains with applicable easements for Alexander Commons,
Phase V.
41. Approve the Deed of Dedication and Maintenance Agreement for the water,
sanitary sewer mains and lift station with applicable easements for Wheeler Lake,
Phase Two, Section One.
42. Authorize the Augusta Utilities Department to notify perspective firms of the
selection results and proceed with negotiations of a contract with the top ranked
firm, Parsons Water & Infrastructure Inc. for Construction Manager at Risk
Services for the Highland Ave. Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Project. RFQ # 05-
067
43. Approve an Option for Easement between National Welder Supply
Company, Inc, as successor by merger with National Realty Sales Corporation, as
owner, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property located at 519 National
Avenue for the purchase price of $237.00: 537 square feet, more or less, of
permanent utility and maintenance easement and 952 square feet, more or less, of
temporary construction easement.
44. Deleted from the consent agenda.
45. Authorize execution of Lighting Agreement with the Georgia Department of
Transportation for the Windsor Spring Road Phase V Project. The estimated
annual cost of $21,000 per year to cover operations and maintenance will be funded
from Street Light Account No. 276-04-1610/53.12310 once the millage rate is
adjusted after the project is complete.
46. Authorize execution of Lighting Agreement with the Georgia Department of
Transportation for the Windsor Spring Road Phase IV Project. The estimated
annual cost of $25,000 per year to cover operations and maintenance will be funded
from Street Light Account No. 276-04-1610/53.12310 once the millage rate is
adjusted after the project is complete.
47. Deleted from the consent agenda.
48. Approve new positions in Utilities Department and Information Technology.
(See background information under Item 24 on Administrative Services agenda)
49. Discuss the paving of Youngblood Road. (Requested by Commissioner
Smith) (Received as information with a report back in two weeks)
Addendum Item 1. Motion to ratify Augusta Recreation applying and accepting a
grant award (no matching funds required) in the amount of $2,500 from the
International Paper Company to assist with the Senior Citizens Nutritional
Program.
Addendum Item 2. Motion to approve the appointment of Jay Forrester to the HED
Citizens Advisory Committee for District 10. (Requested by
Commissioner Grantham)
10
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of
voting.
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-3, 5-22, 24-27, 36-43, 45-46, 48-49, Addendum Items 1
and 2]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Before we get to that, we’ll go ahead and go to, Madame
Clerk, 58, I think we got a group here for item 58, and we’ll come back to the consent
agenda after we dispense with 58, and maybe 57, and 58.
The Clerk:
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Commission,
Commissioner Tommy Boyles will be unable to attend today’s meeting. He will be
absent.
APPEALS HEARING:
58. Consider a request for reconsideration from Mr. J. Pete Theodocion,
Attorney At Law regarding Commission action taken in the regular meeting held
March 15, 2005 denying a new application request by Back Hap Ja Son for a retail
package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Corner Mini Mart
located at 635 Laney Walker Blvd. District 1. Super District 9.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Somebody here to address that?
Mr. Sherman: The applicant had petitioned the Commission to appeal this
decision that was made March 15 to deny them a beer and wine license at 635 Laney
Walker. I don’t see the applicant here or the applicant’s attorney. They were notified of
the meeting and I suppose they asked you, Ms. Bonner, to put it on the agenda?
The Clerk: Yes, he hand delivered the request to me.
Mr. Sherman: So they are aware of the meeting time and date.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is someone from the neighborhood –
Mr. Colclough: I’d like to make a motion that we deny
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
it.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a motion and a second. Do, do any of the
neighbors want to be heard? Is that some – I mean people have come down. Is that – our
Attorney will get a head count, Ms. Armstrong. Thank you for that. Mr. Shepard, could
you get a count?
Mr. Shepard: Those in opposition, please raise your hands.
11
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Please.
Mr. Shepard: Fifteen, including the speaker.
(15 supporters of denial are noted)
Mr. Hawes: And also, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if you, if you would, sir, allow for
these petitions to go in the record from the residents of the community.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Give those to Ms. Bonner. Mr. Hawes, give us your name
and your address and state your –
Mr. Hawes: My name is Stanley Hawes and my address is 804 James Brown
Boulevard. And just to kind of piggyback off of that denial, we’d like to, on behalf of a
lot of, a majority of the citizens in our community, you know, for situations like this to
occur, to whereas we thought we were going on the proper road toward a productive
development of Laney Walker in our community, from seeing all of the other areas where
[inaudible] beer and wine is being sold in our community, it seem like within the inner
city, and I have to peg it as such because that’s the way it seems. It seems like within the
inner city where we’ve got these little single beer and wine being sold in our
communities, we got a lot of deviant behavior going on right in around that area. That’s
one of the primary reasons why we, folks in the community who though we was going to
be able to build from here, from starting out on a positive note, we thought that we was
on the proper road toward revitalizing our community. There is a lot investment,
personal investment and financial investments being made in our community. The things
that this type of store in our community precipitate is a lot of deviant behavior, from drug
dealers, vagrants in the street. They come out with the 40 ounce and it double deuces,
which that’s the term they use when they go and purchase, and they come out on the
street and they hang around. And we, we really thought that we would be able to enjoy
what the State of Georgia said would be able to have [inaudible] our real estate property.
So hopefully that the Commission and also the different bodies that make up the ground
work, the ground roots for the situation like this would also assist us in helping create an
atmosphere where more positive things can come to our community. We building up, we
do not want to go backwards. Everybody is taking pride in our community and it’s a
vibrant part of Richmond County now. Let’s not stop now, cause we got too much work
to be done, and this is pertinent to that because we are pushing in one direction and it
seem like there might be some other folks who might come in and want to take advantage
of those particular situation what we’re dealing with now. Hopefully we can start to
create an atmosphere where everybody is on board, instead of us having to come down
and fight this and fight that, and I commend you, Commissioners, for your denial of that.
The community will back you all the way on that and hopefully we all can work together,
even the different [inaudible] that we can create something that this [inaudible] would be
eliminated and we start on a positive note to create a real community. Thank you.
12
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. Hawes. I don’t see anyone else. Is there
anyone else who need to – I see Mr. Cooks from ANIC. Robert, did you want to say
something? Give us your name and address.
Mr. Cook: Robert Cooks. President of Augusta Neighborhood Improvement
Corporation, 925 Laney-Walker Boulevard. On behalf of ANIC, we currently are
probably one of the largest landowners in the neighborhood and we do not support – and
support the Commission’s decision on denying the application. Development is
happening in a great way. Allan Collier who is doing development, does not support it,
as he stated to me. He can’t speak for himself, he’s not here in town. His name is on the
petition and I’d like to thank the Commission for taking a stance with the neighborhood
as we try to change its face.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think we got a motion and second. Any Commissioner
have any comments they want to make?
Ms. Speaker: [inaudible] Laney-Walker Development Corporation. We also
appreciate what you’re doing and hope you all will continue the same pattern as we all
work together to improve the [inaudible] of this community. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We got a motion and a second. Mr. Shepard? I’m sorry.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if we could perfect the record,
with a – I’m going to give to the Clerk a certified copy of a map which shows the
location of this establishment, in proximity to the property that was just discussed, the
ANIC property that’s being developed, and the residential community represented by the
M.M. Scott [inaudible] which is directly across Laney-Walker Boulevard from this
location, and if I could the Mr. Cooks to identify on this map if he could some of the
properties. Would you do that for me, sir? [inaudible]
Mr. Cooks: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: And this map shows to the west of this location [inaudible] shows a
grocery story, I believe [inaudible].
Mr. Cooks: Yes, sir, grocery story. [inaudible] Laney-Walker Boulevard.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] on-premises consumption for beer and wine?
Mr. Speaker: Not consumption, but sales.
Mr. Shepard: Sales. Not to consume there but to consume off premises; correct?
Mr. Speaker: That is correct.
13
Mr. Shepard: All right. And then you also pointed to properties to the north and
west of this location. Do you have any idea how much the investment has been in those
properties?
Mr. Cooks: To the tune of $2.6 million.
Mr. Shepard: And then while I have you here, directly across the street is the
M.M. Scott public housing complex?
Mr. Cooks: Correct.
Mr. Shepard: Which is probably less than fifteen years old?
Mr. Cooks: A little older than that.
Mr. Shepard: But nevertheless, a multi-unit that’s been developed that represents
a substantial public investment in that area; is that correct?
Mr. Cooks: That is correct.
Mr. Shepard: Which consists of one story living units and a mid-rise of about five
or six stories; correct?
Mr. Cooks: That is correct.
Ms. Beard: Steve?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, ma’am?
Ms. Beard: I’d also like to mention I talked personally with Mr. Collier, Allan
Collier, and he has the new subdivision behind this store, and he does not go along with
it.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] and the top map [inaudible] could you indicate where
the [inaudible] properties are [inaudible]? The new subdivision is in the same block?
Ms. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: And intended for residential; is that correct?
Ms. Beard: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We got a motion and a second. Any other Commissioner
have any other comments? If not, we’ll go ahead and vote. Mr. Shepard, you had
something else?
14
Mr. Shepard: If I could. I’d like to have made a part of the record for this item 58
the GIS map, which I am tendering to the Clerk at this time. And also, a – ask to include
the photographs of the Garden Walk apartments, Ms. Armstrong, and that both of these
are the Garden Walk?
Ms. Armstrong: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] subdivision is on the map.
Ms. Armstrong: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: I’ll use your map.
Ms. Armstrong: Here’s the same one that he’s talking about right here. This is,
this is the store, this is the subdivision, this is the church, and these are the [inaudible] are
subdivisions and the projection of the new houses coming in.
th
Mr. Shepard: And the church, for the record, is at 8 and Laney-Walker?
th
Ms. Armstrong: Yeah. It’s 8 and Laney-Walker, which really is important
because usually when they purchase these type things we’ve had the situation before,
they would walk the block and sit on the church steps. And sometimes, you know, this is
a problem. They would use the church steps as a place to sit and drink and this is what
we are trying to eliminate.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Armstrong, we got a motion to deny, and I think the
Attorney done had ample time to get the records in. Thank you, ma’am. We need to go
ahead and alleviate this and bring it to a vote. Ample discussion. All those in favor of
the motion to deny, let it be known by the normal sign of voting. Mr. Shepard, you had
another comment?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. At the direction of the maker of the motion, Mr.
Colclough, he asked me to incorporate these additional considerations in the motion
which is listed in our code, Augusta code Section 6-2-65 and Subsection A 4 and 5.
The location is being considered and that is the location for which the license is
sought as to traffic congestion, the general character of the neighborhood and the
effect that such an establishment would have on the adjacent and surrounding
property values. The maker of the motion wishes that to be in the record and
wishes it to be reflected in your consideration, and then the, also the number of
licenses in the trading area, the number of licenses also granted for similar business
in the trading area for which the license is sought. That was also part of the
consideration of the maker of the motion, and I’d ask that those, too, be recognized
expressly as reasons for this Commission’s decision with respect to this denial.
Mr. Colclough: That’s correct.
15
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Bonner, will you post the motion? I mean post the
vote.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Motion to deny. Next item, Madame Clerk,
we’ll go ahead and take 57 while we back here, and then we’ll go back to the consent
agenda. We’ll take item 57 while we’re back and then we’ll go back to our consent
agenda.
The Clerk:
57. Motion to approve the Mayor’s Council on Homelessness 10-year Plan to end
chronic homelessness.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Who is going to address this, this issue?
The Clerk: Vickie Johnson.
Mr. Colclough: A motion to approve.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Johnson, if you’ll give us your name and address for
the record.
Ms. Johnson: Vickie Johnson, Housing and Economic Development, 925 Laney-
Walker Boulevard, second floor. And I believe you all received a copy of our ten year
plan to end chronic homelessness. This was achieved by a commission that was formed
back in August, 2004, which is the Mayor’s Council on Homelessness. And I would like
to recognize those individuals that have worked all these months on achieving this
particular plan. Would you please stand? These are approximately six, seven individuals
of a commission of approximately 45 individuals, and I would just like to publicly
acknowledge all the hard work that they have put into this plan and they come from a lot
of different organizations that are already serving the homeless. We have representation
from our business community. We had some extensive work done by one of the
sociology classes at ASU. I’d like for one of the students there to stand, also. Our Mayor
has given this plan a stamp of approval and I’m hoping that today the Commission will
do the same and continue to support us and know that you will probably be seeing a lot
more of us.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Johnson, we thank you for all your efforts.
(A round of applause is given.)
16
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: On behalf of the Mayor, in his absence, I want to personally
say that we appreciate the work that you do, especially for those who are homeless, who
are down and feel like they are out and been left out. I think that’s what our city is about,
is trying to help those who are not able to help themselves, to get them to a different level
than where they were. And it’s been a motion already to approve, and we just applaud all
of your staff and all of your group for coming and what they doing. It may not get as
much attention as it should get, but be aware that your work is not going without being
noticed. There is someone greater than where we sit look at what you do and appreciate
it and will bless you for it.
Ms. Johnson: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Been a motion to approve and been seconded. All those in
favor let it be known by the normal sign of voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, we’ll go back to the consent agenda and
look at our consent agenda here. Start with item 4.
The Clerk:
4. Motion to approve a request by Joseph E. Taylor for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the Exchange Club
Fairgrounds located at 308 Hale St. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee March 21, 2005)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Colclough had this pulled, but if he yield, I’ll let you go
ahead.
Mr. Colclough: I’ll yield to my partner to my right.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m going to ask that I be
excused of voting on this item since I am a member of the Augusta Exchange Club, and I
will excuse myself from the room while deliberations are being made.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. Grantham. I understand.
(Mr. Grantham does not participate in any discussion or vote on this item)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Colclough?
17
Mr. Colclough: My question is, it’s the Augusta Exchange Club, and I suppose
that’s at the fair grounds?
Mr. Sherman: That’s correct.
Mr. Colclough: Number one, you say special events. How – does this meet the
requirement distance from the church to the fairgrounds?
Mr. Sherman: Yes, sir, it does. The way the distance is measured, it’s out the
door of the structure where the beer and wine will be sold to the nearest right-of-way, and
then along that right-of-way to the property line of a church or a school. Going out the
door, directly to the right-of-way, it is 579 feet to the nearest church property line, which
is at the west end of Hale Street, 721 feet to the nearest property line of the school, which
th
is over on 4 Street.
Mr. Colclough: What is the distance requirement? I thought it was –
Mr. Sherman: 100 yards. 300 feet.
Mr. Colclough: 100 yards.
Mr. Sherman: 300 feet.
Mr. Colclough: Isn’t, isn’t that fairground – when they have events, like they
have children out there?
Mr. Sherman: Pardon me?
Mr. Colclough: Doesn’t they have children that goes to the fairground?
Mr. Sherman: It does. And Mr. Taylor is –
Mr. Colclough: My question is why would anyone want to sell alcohol and beer
at the fairgrounds? Maybe he can answer it.
Mr. Taylor: If I may? Yes, sir, I’m Joe Taylor. I’m the, I’m a past president of
the Augusta Exchange Club, and for the last six years have served as fairgrounds
manager and fair manager of the Augusta Exchange Club Fair, which we now refer to as
the Georgia-Carolina State Fair. In the past five years, basically since I took over as fair
manager, we’ve made a concerted effort to allow other events other than our fair to take
th
place on our fairgrounds. For, gosh, 70-something years – this will be our 84 fair – for
70-some-odd years we opened our fairgrounds the week of the fair and we closed our
fairgrounds when the fair was over and it sat totally dormant the remainder of the year.
When I became fair manager, we started opening it up for other events. We’ve had
family reunions, we’ve have company picnics, we’ve had probably in the last six years
seven or eight concerts. We’ve had Cooking for Kids. Everything that has taken place
18
down there has been just wonderful in the sense that it allows that facility – and there’s
no other like it in our community. It’s totally fenced in all the way around, it has access
because it’s a city block, has access from so many different directions traffic-wise. We
allowed people to use our fairgrounds initially who could have entertainment, and they
came in and they obtained a temporary permit for that day, for that event, to serve
alcohol, primarily beer. Last year, we erected a $74,000 stage, a permanent stage, with
the intent of drawing major events to the fairgrounds. Not just small events, but concert
type events. The type of events that cannot afford the coliseum and would not want to be
in the coliseum necessarily. A classic example, and a lot of folks here are familiar with
it, is Power Fest, which for the past years has been held at the stadium. I think for the last
two years in a row it’s been out at the lock and dam. They expressed a great deal of
interest in coming to our fairgrounds. Once we realized that we were going to go in this
direction, we made the conscious decision that, number one, if there was going to be any
alcohol served on our fairgrounds, we wanted to control it. We have a reputation in the
community of being a public service organization. All of the profits from our
organization are poured back into the community in terms of, in ways of prize money,
contributions to charities. There are very few charities that involve children in our
community that are not on our donations list. But if we were going to have alcohol on
our fairgrounds, we did not want someone else controlling it, we wanted to. We went to
Sheriff Strength, who is a member of our club, but we went to Sheriff Strength and we
had a very, very serious conversation about the ramifications of us going in this direction
and would he, would he be the person who would control the security aspect of it? He
said he would. We then drew up a – we have a very elaborate contract that we –
Mr. Colclough: Let me ask you, sir, how much is [inaudible] charge to control
the security at the fairgrounds for these events that you’re going to have?
Mr. Taylor: Okay. Let me say this first, if I may, and then I’ll answer that
question.
Mr. Colclough: Okay.
Mr. Taylor: There will never, ever be alcohol served on our fairgrounds during
our fair. We have absolutely, total 100 mandate from our club that we are a family event
and in no building, nowhere on our fairgrounds will alcohol ever be served at our fair.
This is only for entertainment type events. In our contract it stipulates that when
someone expresses interest in coming to our fairgrounds to put on events such as Power
Fest, which is put on by Clear Channel, the radio broadcasting community of radio
stations, they then must appeal to the Sheriff, who based on the type of activity taking
place, he will determine the number of people, security. And there will be more security
other than Richmond County Sheriff’s Department.
Mr. Colclough: You’re just saying, you’re talking Power Fest, talking thousands
of folk –
Mr. Taylor: Yes, sir.
19
Mr. Colclough: - and Power Fest is going to go to the Sheriff’s Department and
going to hire security from the Sheriff’s Department, to make sure that once these folks
start drinking your alcohol [inaudible]?
Mr. Taylor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: And so that means that the club doesn’t have to pay the Sheriff
for security, that means that the people who are putting on the event have to pay the
Sheriff?
Mr. Taylor: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That is correct.
Mr. Colclough: Plus the Fire Department?
Mr. Taylor: Yes, sir. That is correct. He is – I think if I’m not mistaken, he’s
designated for this particular event which will take place on April 23, on a Saturday, I
think it’s going to be on grounds. Now this doesn’t have anything to do with other
security that he might bring in as far as [inaudible] are concerned, but on the grounds 29
police officers.
Mr. Colclough: So that means that 29 cops are off the streets, as Power Fest?
Mr. Taylor: Well, they would not be on-duty policemen on our fairgrounds.
They would be off-duty for that event.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible].
Mr. Taylor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: I just have a problem with alcohol being sold at fairgrounds.
That’s my personal problem.
Mr. Taylor: It’s been taking place without us having any control of it. That’s one
of our concerns.
Mr. Colclough: If it’s been taking place illegally, I think you need to call the
Sheriff’s Department.
Mr. Taylor: Oh, no, sir, it was not illegal. They were getting temporary permits
for it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there any other Commissioner – comments from anybody
else?
Mr. Colclough: That’s all I have.
20
Mr. Taylor: May I address one other issue? You mentioned the church.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Excuse me, sir. Just hold your comment for a minute.
Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I will say this. I fully support what the Exchange Club is trying to
do. I do have a problem, however, with the stipulation, as I understand it, that the
Sheriff’s Department and the Sheriff’s Department only provide security. When an event
coordinator takes on the responsibility, both with the insurance required for the event and
subcontracts to anybody else in the private sector and assumes that liability, then they
should be free to pick and choose the security force they want to use, not be dictated by
somebody within this government to use only their particular people, which would be
significant income for those officers and everything else. I’m not against it, but I don’t
think we should limit the remaining private sector security market from participating in
major events if the event coordinator selects them and they should be dictated to just to
use the Sheriff’s Department. But I support what we’re doing and I’m not going to vote
against it, but that’s just a concern I have, is that with that we have eliminated the entire
remaining security providers in the private sector from being able to participate, which I
think is an unfair control of the market.
Mr. Taylor: Our primary purpose for doing that, sir, was to have people on the
fairgrounds that had the authority – not just to supervise, but to literally have authority to
control anything that would take place. And I might mention, if I may, your concern
about the church. We have a very good relationship, even myself personally with the
minister, and we will not have any event – 99% of these events are going to be Saturday
events, but we will not allow an event on our fairgrounds if it’s to be a Saturday and
Sunday event to take place during church hours. We will control that. We will not let
that happen.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, I think this item 4 is just to approve the
selling of the beer and the wine for that day. That does not control the Sheriff. That
specifies for the license; is that right?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, for that location. They’re asking for an on-premise
consumption beer and wine license for the location.
Mr. Taylor: The requirement for the Sheriff’s Department to be the security was
the Exchange Club’s contract. We’re not asking for that as part of the edict from the
Commission.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Do I have a motion? Barbara?
Ms. Sims: I make a motion we approve.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
21
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Any other discussion? Hearing none,
all those in favor let it be known by the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Mr. Colclough votes No.
Mr. Grantham not voting.
Motion carries 6-1-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
23. Motion to approve new position of Assistant Director for Water Distribution
& Wastewater Collection – Utilities. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee March 21, 2005)
47. Approve new position of Assistant Director for Water Distribution &
Wastewater Collection – Utilities. (See background information under Item 23
under Administrative Services agenda)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, I had this item pulled, Madame Clerk. It’s been much
conversation about the study that we done in Utilities and I talked with Max about it. I
understand what he’s trying to do. But the study had several different components to it
that should be brought to this body, and I’m kind of a little leery about the one that’s be
pulled out [inaudible]. I guess my question, Max, is – Max, this is something the study
recommends; is that right?
Mr. Hicks: Yes. The [inaudible] review. They did. They fully supported this,
along with other things they recommended that we will bringing to you in subsequent
meetings. But as Commissioner Hankerson had explained [inaudible] reviewed this, I
knew it would first appear on Administrative Services and so we try to review it, and
these were the two that we brought forth. The one you’ve already approved by consent,
so this one has to do with the new position of Assistant Director. So it was one of the
ones that they went [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The one that got approved by consent got by me that time,
Max. And I’m not against, but I’m just thinking about the, the, the proposal to do this
and the study brought back some other issues. I’m thinking about the little man who
drives the water truck, who delivers, who is making minimum wage, so to speak, who
really hadn’t had a raise, who hadn’t done anything. Why hadn’t those been brought to
us? I heard a lot of talk in the committee room about Utilities and the monies they’ve
gotten. But what about the secretaries in the office? What about those people who have
been really keeping this government afloat, those who don’t get to go on site and see
things, but those who answer the phones and those who really keeps us going? Why
22
hadn’t they been brought up? Why hadn’t they been brought either with them or even
before these? I mean – and I guess that what concerns me more than anything.
Mr. Hicks: Commissioner Williams, or Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we, we brought
these because this was an item that did not involve a raise or an increase in salary for an
existing position. It involved the creation of a new position of Assistant Director. We
are very aware of the Commission’s desires that have been expressed, and that is that
there not be any increases. However, we do have two other items – or one other major
item that we wanted to bring with you. One of them involved a reorganization within our
water production arm. The other one – and in addition to that water production arm, we
also had a reorganization within the customer service division and also we had a number
of positions that were exactly the same grade and same activity where there was a
disparity in salary that had occurred from the consolidation. And we’re trying to bring
that up. But the reason we didn’t bring the rest of them forward is that we’re very much
aware of the Commission’s desire that they not be brought, but we did want to bring them
as part of the next package we want to bring to you, which I think Commissioner Mays
asked about in the, in the committee meeting. We will bring that forward at the next
committee and then we’ll have a chance some others. But we were trying to go by what
we thought the Commission wanted, sir. We can, we will be glad to bring as many
forward as you’d like that we think maybe would get approved. We don’t want to just
start something. We’d rather bring it so it would be approved.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I understand, Max. Somebody else may have a comment. I
see Commissioner Hankerson’s hand up. But just let me clarify something.
Commissioner Mays already talked about those midnight hours at the Wal-Mart. And let
me tell you who, who, who [inaudible] us more than anybody else is those truck drivers,
those meter readers, those people who don’t think they have a voice, who don’t think
nobody cares. And when I asked to see the study to see what it entailed, I mean I didn’t
want anything picked out and brought to us. I wanted to look at the study [inaudible] on
the shelf, since it been back. Now there was mention of talking about it, but I wanted to
see everything that was in there. And then kind of make a decision as to, you know, what
we can do. You talked about there’s no money, but when you create a new position and
then you put a – what’s the, what’s the, what’s the word, Mr. Shepard? When you create
a new position and you got to classify with a number as to what, what that position is
worth and where the pay going to come in, it may not come today but it’s coming.
Mr. Hicks: It will.
Mr. Shepard: Assign a grade.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s right. When you assign a grade to the position, it
may not come right now, but once you establish that and you establish that grade, the pay
coming, Max, whether it coming today or tomorrow, now.
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir, it will.
23
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So I mean, let’s, let’s, let’s just put it out so it be real and
that way, we won’t have to, we won’t have to worry about that. I don’t have any other
comment. Commissioner Hankerson got his hand up. Let him speak now, if he will.
Mr. Hankerson:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I went over that, the jobs and
the reorganization with Mr. Hicks. He called me down to show me the, what they were
attempting to do. As he said, I am probably responsible for those reclassifications not
coming, because I didn’t feel that – I gave him my personal opinion that I didn’t feel we
should do any reclassification or reorganization, what he was going to - what the other
part recommended, which did involve some employees, and I also asked, since this did
not involve reclassification, that I felt comfortable with bringing these positions forward
and then later on I told him I couldn’t inhibit him from bring them to the Commission but
[inaudible]. So you know, with that I clearly understood after it was explained to me
what the department was trying to do and it wasn’t no additional cost at the time to the
government. So I, you know, you asked for the other part and that’s probably why, cause
I’d like to put it in the form of a motion to approve this,
he would have brought it.
the positions he’s asking.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Got a motion and second and I understand the
Commissioner’s concern and I hear what you’re saying. With the amount of money that
this government has put in Utilities with outside private sources to help Utilities, I mean,
Max, I said before and I say it again that I think, you know, that Utilities is doing a great
job, but you ought to be doing a great job. We put millions of dollars in private funds to
help your department do what it does. But now we need another position and we got
people that’s already working in that department, with outside source working in that
department, now we going to create another position. Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I just urge support. This is a
restructuring recommended by staff to further streamline and align the line of
organization to better suit the existing needs within the department, help it address the
public’s needs and concerns. It doesn’t cost any additional money. This is a
recommendation staff is bringing to us that we should support.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Been motion and second. All those in favor let it be known
by the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Mays: Madame Clerk, my comments, in the essence of time, those same
concerns that I had in committee, they just be transferred as a part of the record for today.
And I think the Mayor Pro Tem has adequately expressed them. Not necessarily against
what is being done. I’m very much concerned about the budget that this Commission
passed in the last year. While we say we’re not dealing with any money today, some
times some things that go towards morale negativity when you’ve got a work force of
2,700, you see other departments grown, you see some come and beg and ask for help
that’s constantly being denied, budget being cut back. I’m concerned about those things
24
still. That’s not necessarily happening, and when the Commission takes a prudent look at
observing the whole city work force in reference to what we’ve got to do, then maybe I’ll
have a little bit better attitude. I’m not going to vote against it, but I’m not going to vote
at all. And I express the same sentiments that I did in committee with it.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Hicks: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: I believe that takes care of our consent agenda.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 44.
The Clerk:
44. Approve funding in the amount of $1,687,636.12 and award the construction
contract to Blair Construction for the construction of the Horsepen Branch Sanitary
Sewer 1b phase, Bid #05-064.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Madame Clerk. I asked for this to be pulled for
several reasons. One is the amount that we did, and I know there was an RFP or bid
process that went out and it was done by those standards. But the DBE person, the
person we brought on board to make sure that local minority, women-owned business to
be considered, this is one of the construction that been doing a lot of work over many,
many years in this city of Augusta. And I’d like to hear from the DBE person what
involvement has, did she play or would have, even Purchasing or whatever. To award a
bid of $1,687,636.12 – can you help me in understanding what participating was taking
place through your office or through Purchasing?
Ms. Gentry: Absolutely. Mayor Pro Tem and Commissioners –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] don’t matter about the rest of it. [Inaudible]
Ms. Gentry: I was not afforded the information regarding the Blair Construction
Company contract until I saw it on the agenda items. I’ve had conversations with – I
called Blair Construction Company once I saw it on the agenda item and have also
referred a couple of minority vendors. And one of the things that I’ve said even in the
beginning, it’s imperative to get the DBE office involved in it on the front end versus
waiting. This is almost an afterthought, to be honest with you. One of the things we
have done thus far is work with the Procurement Department to ensure that they are
providing me all the information in a timely fashion and which Ms. Sams’ office is doing.
We are also attending the pre mandatory conference so that I can inform the contractors
25
that the City has a diversity goal program in place and it our wish to ensure that they
include minority and local business. This particular one, to answer your question, was
not afforded to me until I saw it on the agenda item.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And that’s why I had this item pulled. This firm done
plenty of work for this City and I’ll be afraid to venture out and ask the question as to
how much cause it probably runs in the millions or even maybe even the billions of
dollars over the past history of this City. But I’m a little upset, I’m a little concerned that
they have not come to the table. I see Max standing behind you. Maybe he got some
information that he’s going to share with us and help me out. Max?
Mr. Hicks: Prior to our coming into this chamber for the Commission meeting,
Ms. Gentry and Ms. Sams and I were discussing this very issue and this very item.
Before we open bids, we have a pre-bid meeting. I understand that Ms. Gentry hasn’t
been attending all of those pre-bid meetings. This item, or the request for proposals on
this particular one went out probably about the first of February. Ms. Gentry was just
then getting on board, getting her feet set down, and the procedures were not yet worked
up at that time, so this is one that went on out. And as I told the Commission, we have
one coming this particular Thursday that’s going to be opened and it will be in the same
category. But of those that are going out now and those that are in the process, Ms.
Gentry is attending the pre-bid meeting. She will still have the opportunity to attend a
pre-construction meeting should this be awarded to Blair, who is indeed the low bidder,
and it’s my understanding that she and the Procurement Department are working up
language to include in any subsequent bids that might take place. So this was not an
intentional thing regarding Ms. Gentry, it’s just that she was just on board and getting her
feet set down when this one went out for bids. That’s the only thing.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, since we do have a DBE person on board,
now prior to her coming [inaudible] I used to attend all these meetings. Attend pre-
construction, attend [inaudible] and participate in the actual scoring of the bids. I think as
the DBE person she’s – no bids should go out unless she sits in on that and no bid should
go out unless you have all the documentation and information for her to be there. And
that’s one of the, I think that’s one of the reasons we hired a DBE person, so there can be
someone present to make sure that we do have minority participation. And I think that no
bids should go out, I don’t think no contracts should be open [inaudible], I think she
should be in on every one of those contracts and every one of those bids that it sent out
from this government to any contractor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Max?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir. In regard to that, Commissioner Colclough, Ms. Gentry has
sat in on the two RFQs we have considered since that time. For instance, the last one was
the one that was on here today, which you approved for the CM Risk position, and Ms.
Gentry did indeed sit in on that, as well as a representative from the Procurement
26
Department for that very reason, Commissioner. Just to be sure that the minority and
women and local owned business participation was stressed. So she has sat in on those.
This one was one of those where it’s a sealed bid, but you don’t have a discussion like
you’re talking about. They just take the bids, open them, and read them out, and so her
opportunity in that instance would be at the pre-bid meeting. And this is what she’s been
attending now, is the pre-bid meeting.
Mr. Colclough: I have one more question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Colclough: Do we have any minority participation on this contract?
Mr. Hicks: Ms. Sams, would you care to address that, how it’s addressed in the
present procurement document? I don’t believe there’s any set forth participation except
there is a general statement that it’s the goal of the Commission to encourage minority
and women owned business, but I don’t believe there is any figures in there.
Mr. Colclough: One other question, and then I’ll be finished. One other question.
I looked at the bids on the back here, and this one is the low bid. And I’ve had some
experience. Change orders. Every time I see one come back on this Horsepen trunk line,
it runs through my district and Andy’s district. Every time I see one come back we have
a problem. So you make sure Mr. Blair knows that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Sams, can you enlighten us or help us a little bit on
this? Participation as far as – and let me clarify something. This is not about just
minority, but we got local people in the city of Augusta that’s able to provide goods and
services that we go outside – and this is a local company we’re talking about now – but
we are talking about here now. But we go outside and get other firms to spend the
money. How will we ever grow? How will we ever be – how will the economy spread all
over the CSRA like it should if we don’t make sure that we are spending what we can
spend in the city of Augusta?
Ms. Sams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and Commissioners, something has been put in
place to include Ms. Gentry in that process. Unfortunately, the contracts or the
information that has gone out on this particular project was prior to her setting up her
office, as she alluded to. But now, something is in place, some language is being
implemented through the Attorney’s office, my office, and the DBE office, so all
documentation will be inclusive of the DBE’s office and would identify the part of the
contract and minority participation, minority and local participation. In this particular
contract, the language was we would like for you to do business with local and minority
participation. And that was the extent of that language.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We can spend $1,687,636 and say like. The federal
government has got a saying, best effort. I mean when, when – I mean here we are in
2005 and this is not pointed at you, Ms. Sams, I’m just, I’m just making the statement.
27
We got business, local business in this government that we’ve got to ask them to
participate and not giving anybody anything but to buy goods and services from people in
your hometown, in your area. Something wrong with that picture.
Ms. Sams: And I agree with you, Mr. Commissioner, but again, the language
that’s in Augusta-Richmond County Code does not clearly address that issue.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard, my attorney, wants to speak.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, Ms.
Sams and Ms. Gentry and I met as recently as yesterday to address the DBE/MBE
language in our contracts. Basically, we’ve set a path forward that during April they
were going to gather some materials that they thought were from successful programs of
DBE and MBE in the state of Georgia. They gave me a little less time to respond to that.
I think the first Friday in May. And we’ll be presenting a joint recommendation from the
three offices as to the path forward on MBE and DBE, but we’ve begun that work
yesterday, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard:
I consider this to be very important. However, listening to the two
of them speak, it appears this happened before you came aboard. And we may have one
I’m going to move
or two other contracts out there, you know, that we are dealing with.
that we allow those contracts to go through, but from this point on, if it does not
reflect those things, then it will go back to committee.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That item is not on the agenda now. My attorney may
need to correct me, but we are voting on one item now.
Now you’re welcome to put
that on the agenda and we can talk about it and bring it that way, but the item –
Ms. Beard: Then I’ll limit it to Blair.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, I think we got a motion and a second to already
approve that; is that right?
Ms. Beard: Uh-huh [yes].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: With her amendment then it would cure the Chair’s concern, that
she’s limiting it to this motion, this contract.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Right. Right.
28
Mr. Shepard: And sending the others to the committee.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: If the amendment is accepted, which I presume it is. I don’t see any
objection.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I yield to Ms. Gentry first and then let me comment on something.
Ms. Gentry: I would just like to make comments. First of all, it’s imperative to
get my office, just as Commissioner Colclough mentioned, it’s imperative to get me in on
the front end so that the communications with our local suppliers as well are included. In
addition to that, it comes better, the communication comes better from the DBE office
identifying and discussing with the vendors our DBE goal. I have no problem with going
back to Blair Construction Company and inquiring, asking him if there is any DBE
participation. Now I do understand, and Mr. Max and I have spoken regarding this
already, I do understand this is a [inaudible] bid, I understand that this particular vendor
has accepted pricing from various vendors. However, I think we need to, at some point,
make sure that we’re including doing everything we can. In addition to that, we do need
an ordinance in place in order to justify exactly what you’re requesting the DBE office to
do. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek, then Ms. Beard.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mays: I think I yielded to her.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m sorry, you did yield. Commissioner Mays.
Mr. Mays: Thank you. I think with what Ms. Gentry has said, and that’s why I
yielded to her, that’s why out of 147 people, I think Mr. Hankerson and Ms. Sims can
attest it, that’s why she finished first in the applicants that we had, and that was the
person that we recommended to this Commission in order to bring things forward. But I
want to remind the Commission that the actions that are coming forth out of that
department are in a beginning stage, however long overdue, and to a point is going to be
a test of political will of this Commission as to whether or not it succeeds or fails. And
this is one of the things we said from the very beginning. I am happy that the, that the
three offices will be coming forward with a plan forward for us to move, but I want you
to know that in order to be successful I think it’s going to reflect upon the fact that you
are going to see other things that are going to have to come to this Commission, that is
going to be tested, in order to do or not do in reference to the level of participation in
29
terms of how this is carried out. Not only dealing with an ordinance, and while I’ve got
the floor, be happy to go ahead on and say it that [inaudible] disparity study which has
been there, one that may have to be updated and redone again in terms of the, of the
numbers in order to make it work, in order to make it fair, in order to make it to a point
that it is something that if you’re going to really make the program work that stands court
muster, that it’s a program that has its goals set in place and that we work with them.
What I also would hope, and I had planned to discuss part of this in legal, but in keeping
it to a point that some of it is not to be discussed in legal, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I think to
a point when you’re talking about policy and what it [inaudible] be done, I was glad that
she mentioned about the contract writing, the way it is to be done, happy that the attorney
is on board to deal with that, because I think that we need to get one thing not confused
very quickly, and I say this to top level staffers, to a point of this going down to
department heads who come in with a lot of these bids. DBE office should not be used as
a sounding board at the last minute to decide whether or not something has been done
properly. I think it’s very important to a point that you put in place, even to a point of
when you’re looking at folks, what goes into the attitude of writing a contract and how it
reflects that. And I think unless you do that from the ground level where you start, I think
you can cure a lot of problems. Also, it would keep the city out of a lot of legal trouble to
a point if it’s done, and if it’s done properly. So I’m hoping that not only where these
departments are working with that, through the Attorney’s office, through Procurement,
and through DBE, but also to a point that we work closely [inaudible], Mr. Administrator,
of where those people who work under you, that those department heads that are there
understand that when, for instance, DBE requests something and emails a department, it
should not take light years to a point to get back for them to decide. It should be a matter
of at least policy of this decision, and if some folk have to be drug into this century, then
we need to know who is participating and who is not participating. And have no bones
about that, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. And I think that’s where a lot of that can get cleared up,
in those initial stages. Because, you know, this can go on forever to a point that, you
know, well, you new. Well, I been around this to a point it took a decade to get it passed.
And I think if it’s out there in front, then it ought to be done properly, it ought to be done
legally, it ought to be done right. But the only way it can be successful is that if
everybody is in a team effort, working toward those goals, not in terms of trying to create
or to put together any type of give-away programs, any type of fronting programs, but
programs which are legitimate, programs which interact with those types of businesses
that we are trying to work with, and I think we’ve seen in places where they are
successful, that major corporations will tell you that they’ve not lot one dime by any true
real joint ventures that have been place, and those that have been put in place both legally
and properly, and those are my comments with that, Mr. Mayor. I was going to save
some of that for legal, but it got into policy kind of out here and that’s why I went on and
commented on it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I agree with what has been said and the intent of this effort and fully
support it. I did want to make one other comment, though, that this is a project, just as
the other sewer projects and water projects have been, that we promised the people that
30
we would deliver it in this time frame, it’s being delivered in this time frame. It’s being
moved forward, and we are making great strides toward taking care of the largest
unsewered pocket in the city of Augusta in this area, and I want to congratulate staff on
continuing to move these things and allowing us as elected officials to promise something
to our citizens and then have our staff deliver it as promised.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I guess I’d just like to say that it seems to me you’re trying to
determine how the different departments here will interact and the description for your
department. Now you’re in the process of working on that; is that correct?
Ms. Gentry: Are you referring to language to go in the contracts?
Ms. Beard: The language that we will use as city government when we go out for
bids.
Ms. Gentry: That’s correct. That’s correct.
Ms. Beard: Is it in place?
Ms. Gentry: No, it’s not. Just as the Attorney alluded to, we met yesterday to
discuss it, ran into a blocked wall, so what Ms. Sams and I are going to do is go to
Atlanta to the City of the Atlanta where they have proven language that has been
challenged in place.
Ms. Beard: And I think that’s what I’m saying. With the ones that we are
working on now, we might need to go forth with them until we get everything in place,
but no, we don’t expect this to take a year, five years, or what-have-you, but we do want
to do it right.
Ms. Gentry: Well, going forward I would just like the opportunity to at least
[inaudible] the contracts, and that’s where the barrier comes in place. I’m not identifying
and finding the information out until it’s too late. Had I known about this two weeks ago,
I could have had three or four or five or six different suppliers, as well as subcontractors,
to meet with Mr. Blair. I could have had a conversation with him to make sure that he
was aware of our diversity goal.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we might need to form a committee to look into
this and to be sure it’s working properly.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am, I can get you to chair that committee if you’d
like and I can put you and Commissioner Cheek and Commissioner Mays on it and look
into it.
Ms. Beard: All right. I don’t mind at all.
31
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Beard would chair it, Commissioner Mays and
Commissioner Cheek would be your support group there. Ms. Bonner, we’ll go ahead
and call for the question. We go ahead and vote. Mr. Mays, you had – okay. We’ll go
ahead and vote on this issue. All those that are in favor let it be known by the normal
sign of voting.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Bonner, if I can, I need to reconsider one item, too, and
it’s on this same line. If I can get approval from the board to reconsider item 42.
42. Authorize the Augusta Utilities Department to notify perspective firms of the
selection results and proceed with negotiations of a contract with the top ranked
firm, Parsons Water & Infrastructure Inc. for Construction Manager at Risk
Services for the Highland Ave. Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Project. RFQ # 05-
067.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I don’t hear any objections. Can I get a motion then, cause
I don’t hear any objections.
Mr. Shepard: I think you need a motion, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Colclough: I so move. To reconsider.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Been a motion and second. All those in favor, let it be
known by the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Smith, Ms. Sims and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion fails 5-3-1.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes?
Mr. Mays: If I might, if I might say for the record, and I voted to extend the
Mayor Pro Tem the opportunity to have this heard, and I know the reasoning of it,
because I think probably it was not so much in reference to the item that was on here, and
I’m not trying to speak for him, but I think there were some positive things that came out
of item 42 as opposed to really it being a negative. And that was my reason that I didn’t
have a problem with it being heard. But I think there were some things that both the
DBE office, the Utilities Department and Purchasing had that were along the lines that
32
we have just discussed on the previous item, that were worked out and that were put in
place in terms of being able to deal with that. So I think that concern was pretty much
answered in there, but I think it – I know your reason for wanting to get it on the floor
because I think that would have shed some light on the part of what can happen
[inaudible] not only out of one department but actually out of three departments working
together on a project, and that was why that reconsideration was to be done. Not
necessarily to vote it down, but actually to show the support for it and what had taken
place in that particular part of – since they had been recommended and the negotiations
that had gone on with those companies, in the absence of an ordinance per se, but still
being able to try and make some things work that would increase their participation level
in there. And I just wanted to say that for the record with it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, Mr. Mays, there was some things I wanted to
comment on. There was some positive things. It took me five years to learn that you win
some, you lose some, but you can talk about them all. And if I have to hold them and
mark them and keep them here and talk about them, then we’ll do that. I mean I’m trying
to be as fair as I possibly can with this whole entire community. But it takes six votes.
And I learned that. I can count to six, Fred. I might not be able to go further than that
but I can count to six, and I know when my one is needed, too. Trust me. But let’s go on
to the next item, Madame Clerk. Is that our regular agenda, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk:
Yes, sir.
PLANNING:
28. Z-05-22 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Garey Vangarden, on behalf of
Geosong Presbyterian Church of Augusta, requesting a Special Exception to
establish a church including day care activities, per Section 26-1 (a) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 1629 Barton Chapel Road and containing 3.07 acres. (Tax Map
53 Parcel 64) DISTRICT 3 (Deferred from the March 15, 2005 meeting)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: George?
Mr. Patty: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, this was postponed from the previous meeting.
The petitioner didn’t show and we finally got in contact with this petitioner. He’s been
sick and is sick today and asked me to speak on his behalf. The only thing I can tell you
is that it’s a three acre tract on the west side of Barton Chapel Road. It’s relatively close
to Wrightsboro Road. It’s got commercial and light industrial zoning across from it. It’s
a small church. They gave us a plan that shows a 3,000 square foot sanctuary, non-
denominational. And there were objectors and I’ll let them tell you what the reasons are.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If you give us your name and your address for the record,
please, sir.
Mr. Eidson: Tyler Eidson, 2912 Eidson Drive. Mayor, can I pass these around?
33
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Give that to the Clerk, please, sir. Go ahead, Mr. Eidson,
tell us what you want us to know.
Mr. Eidson: Okay. The way this piece of property is on Barton Chapel Road,
it’s right at a curve. [inaudible] this is wetlands. If they put a parking lot there, where is
the water going to go? Cause I own land all the way around it, and right now I’m having
problems, I’ve been down to Planning & Zoning about the water situation on Eidson
Drive. Because they’ve built houses back to Bennett’s Crossing, and all this water out of
Bennett’s Crossing is coming down on this property. And so I’ve got a water problem.
And I’ve asked the Planning Commission to give me some help out there. They said they
was. But I’ve still got the water problem out there. And still got water problem – if the
church builds there, they’ve got to have parking. Where is the water going to go? They
can’t put it in the wetlands.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So you’re not against the church coming? You more
worried about the dumping of the water that coming in as a result of the church?
Mr. Eidson: Right.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can somebody from – George, Planning & Zoning, can you
help us out?
Mr. Patty: Well, you know, it’s basically a two step process. They get the zoning
first and they give you a conceptual plan, and I’ve got it here if you want to see it. If they
get zoning approval, then they’ll hire engineers and they’ll design the site to meet our
standards and they won’t be able to do any wetlands and they’ll have to retain the water.
That’s in the Rocky Creek basin, I believe. And they’ll have to show adequate parking
and all that sort of thing. And hopefully, you won’t have the situation Mr. Eidson
described. Now he’s talked to me this morning and he’s getting water off a recently-
developed subdivision up – actually comes off Belair Road. And you know, we do the
best we can. Engineering sometimes isn’t perfect, sometimes it doesn’t work out on the
ground like it does in plans and I guess that’s what his situation is. But you know, there’s
no reason they couldn’t control this if it’s approved.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: How can Mr. Eidson – right?
Mr. Eidson: Eidson.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Eidson. How can Mr. Eidson be sure? I hear what you’re
saying, George, that they got to do a site plan. And if the site plans meets our
requirements, then that should not dump any more water on him than what he’s presently
getting; is that right?
Mr. Patty: It should not be released at more than the pre-development rate. It
shouldn’t be any different when it leaves the property than it is now.
34
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And if they can’t do that, then they can’t build?
Mr. Patty: Then we won’t approve it. Now like I say, you know, that’s
engineering and once it gets on the ground, you know, there’s no guarantee is what I’m
trying to tell you. There’s no guarantee. I don’t think any engineer would guarantee that
it’s going to way it’s designed, but it should.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just a minute, Mr. Eidson. Let me get Commissioner
Hankerson’s comment and then we’ll come back, come back to you. Commissioner
Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, the question I was going to ask Mr. Eidson,
is there water coming off this particular property right now on your property?
Mr. Eidson: Yes, sir, but now it’s [inaudible] in the dirt now. You know what
I’m talking about? This is the same thing I’m trying to explain to everybody when they
built the subdivision behind this property. In other words, after you – when they come,
they take all your trees down, take up everything, then they put streets and stuff in and
the yards don’t have any way to stop the water. All y’all have to do is sometimes just
right by, through our neighborhood. I don’t believe any of y’all Commissioners been out
through there.
Mr. Hankerson: I live off Barton Chapel Road.
Mr. Eidson: You do?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Eidson: You know where it is?
Mr. Hankerson: I got to church over there.
Mr. Eidson: [inaudible]
Mr. Hankerson: I visit that church and I go to the mall that way, so I’m up there
all the time.
Mr. Eidson: Then you see what I’ve got. If you come by there now, since this
last rain we had for the last couple of days, all around my property now is full of water.
Never has been. I’ve lived there for 47 years. I mean – yeah, 47 years.
Mr. Hankerson: My question is who is responsible for the water now? Could you
find –
35
Mr. Eidson: Now it’s coming off, like I’m saying, from Bennett’s Crossing,
coming over, coming down. It’s slanted all the way down to Wrightsboro Road.
Mr. Hankerson: So if this church is approved and as he said, the engineers
approve that they control their water, and if some water is already coming off on your
property, then you have some – at least you have one property owner that’s going to be
responsible for correcting water on your property, because if they dump water on your
property, if you get more, then they are going to be responsible, so you’ve got somebody
to go to here with the church doing this. If they do that, then they are responsible
probably and would help solve some of your problems that you already having. That’s
what I was getting at. You have somebody – if this is approved, the engineers approve it
and then later on water, you find that more water is being dumped on your property, then
you have somebody to go to.
Mr. Eidson: Well, when I went to Planning they said well, we done gave them
the permits now. We can’t back up on it. And whatever what you get, we’ll try to do all
we can to help you. I’m drowning.
Mr. Hankerson: But the engineers have to – the plan – they’re not completed, the
engineers are going to have to design it so the water would not –
Mr. Patty: He’s talking about water that’s coming off this subdivision behind him
that actually fronts on Belair Road.
Mr. Hankerson: Oh, you’re talking about the subdivision.
Mr. Patty: It’s coming, it drains back toward him and he apparently has drainage
problems resulting from that.
Mr. Hankerson: But am I correct in saying if this church is allowed to be built
here and more water is coming in on his property, then they’re responsible?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: For correcting that problem?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: They’ll be held responsible for doing that?
Mr. Eidson: Well, that’s what y’all said about the housing project. I ain’t got not
help. You know, I went to Planning and went down and cried and cried. They sent
people out there and they sent people out there, but I still got the water. I mean –
36
Mr. Patty: I’m not your lawyer, but as long as they built it according to plans,
then that’s the end of, the extent of our responsibility. And somebody else picks up at
that point. Civil or whatever.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Let me ask a question. George, if I’m looking at this map – I
don’t know if you’ve got his map that he passed out.
Mr. Patty: Talking about this thing?
Mr. Colclough: No, the one he passed out. There’s 144 acres, or 62. Is that
where you’re talking about where the housing project is? Right here? Okay. So the
water is running [inaudible]. Okay. So what about this water here? [inaudible] Okay.
Mr. Patty: [inaudible] There’s a garden on the rear of this property, if you’ve
ridden by it. It’s been there for years. And it’s high up on the road and then it drops
down substantially in the back. And where they want to build a church is up on the road.
It drops back and then it’s low and flat in the back, and there’s been a garden back there
for years.
Mr. Colclough: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, can – Commissioner Cheek’s hand is up. Go
ahead.
Mr. Cheek: I guess my question on this one is how old is the subdivision and
George, did they build it according to our plans or engineer-reviewed plans?
Mr. Patty: The subdivision is, you know, was developed in stages and that stage
that’s affecting him is probably five years or less old, and I know there were complaints.
There were complaints about where the retention pond was placed and there were
complaints right off the bat about a fence, whether or not there would be a privacy fence
back there, and so it’s been scrutinized and I would assume that Public Works people
have been out and looked at it to make sure it was built in accordance, according to plans.
They wouldn’t have released it if it wasn’t. So I would have to believe that it has.
Mr. Cheek: This Commission mandated as-built plans and a verification of the
site contours in accordance with the design specifications. It would be interesting to see
if this actually slipped through an engineering crack perhaps and somebody didn’t see a
contour or something or if were actually built to specifications. Because the action that
this Commission took about three years ago was to eliminate this type of problem from
occurring in the future, and it sounds like this is in that window maybe or maybe not
under the new criteria. I would certainly be interested to find out if this is some ground
truth, if our system is actually working as we expected it to or if this one fell through the
cracks somehow or if it was before we made some of the changes.
37
Mr. Patty: I’ll be happy to report back to you on that.
Mr. Cheek: I would appreciate it. Because we’re not supposed to have this
problem happening any more, and that’s one of the things that is important where we
don’t grow that $90 million drainage problem price tag that we’ve got now.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I need to know what we are going to do about Mr. Eidson’s
problem here now. I mean the report you’re asking for, Commissioner, but I need a
motion or something to move with –
Mr. Hankerson: How many pieces of property, Mr. Eidson owns here?
Mr. Patty: I cannot tell you.
Mr. Eidson: Well, I went all the way around. Their family was a good friend of
our family. In other words, this community out there, all us been there for years. Since
the 40s. As a matter of fact, Mr. Shepard even come out when he was Commissioner and
looked at some of my problems I had out there. In other words, he knows what kind of
problem I had, cause he walked it with me that day. And I tell y’all fellows, I mean I
been living out there, like I say, in this one place for 47. I’m 67 years old. I’ve always
lived on one of these pieces of property my whole life. We got a nice neighborhood out
there. You can ask the Commissioner on the end there. He says he comes to Sharon
Road Baptist Church. We all get along good out there. We don’t have any crime, we
don’t have no dope peddlers or nothing out there. And just the fact of it is we got a nice
neighborhood and I’m trying [inaudible] the things that’s going on out there is ruining my
property. The value of my property is going down, not up.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think we looking at a 47 property owner
here. He got quite a bit of property here.
Mr. Eidson: Well, I accumulated from my family as they passed away.
Mr. Hankerson: I don’t want to create more problems on him with owning all this
property. I think we probably need to do a little bit more research on this, because we
don’t want to create anything – seem like he has a problem now that as I heard the term
spoke before, you need an attorney, with what you already got dumping in on your
property. This is a taxpayer here, got quite a bit of money here, and I, you know, I’m
supportive of the church, I never go against the church and I’m not going against the
church. But I thin we need to look at what this building here, look at this whole situation
before we approve it. But I want to guarantee that this, the church property here, does not
create him further problems. Now the other land there is already creating him, according
to what he’s saying, is creating problems. But as I said to you, at least you have a go-to
now on this one. You have a go-to.
38
Mr. Eidson: Well, right now, sir, I don’t have one now because there is not a
parking lot or anything there now. If you put the parking lot there I’m going to have
problems cause you can’t put any water off that parking lot into that wetland. The
[inaudible] brothers, I think it’s the [inaudible] brothers that owns the land across the
street, they [inaudible] this last summer and they worked down there for three months
trying to keep stuff out of that creek.
Mr. Hankerson: But I don’t think they are going to approve a parking lot that’s
going to create a problem; is that right?
Mr. Patty: Well, we’re not going to let them build unless they can retain the
storm water to our standards. If they can’t, you know, if it’s all wetland where they put
the parking lot, they can’t build the parking lot, then they can’t build the church. So I
think we’ve got control.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Eidson, are you – can I proceed?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yeah. Y’all forgot about rule 275, but just go ahead.
Mr. Hankerson: I thought about it. That’s why I referred back to you on that rule.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Hankerson: 248. Yes, sir, I’m sorry. I apologize, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Are
you, are you comfortable in that if we go ahead and we monitor this in making sure
before this plan is approved, are you going to have to go come back to us again, that we
make sure that it’s not creating any property on your property? Would you be satisfied
with that, and we know that ourselves that we hold the church responsible for doing this,
and they need to know that, if it creates, if any error creates there, then they are going to
be responsible? Can we work with that, George?
Mr. Patty: Well, normally, this would be approved as a site plan, which does not
come back to you like a subdivision plan does. If you want us to, we can bring it back.
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like for it to be brought back so the engineers can tell us and
they all hear us say if it creates any problem on Mr. Eidson’s property that it will be here
documented that they are going to be responsible. Mr. Eidson?
Mr. Eidson: That’s fine with me, sir. I mean I’m retired, I can’t afford all these
lawyers everybody says I need to have, you know. I been living there all these many
years and they coming out there and causing me trouble. I ain’t causing nobody else any
trouble, is what I’m trying to say. I think to me would satisfy me is let them bring the
plans back.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir.
39
Mr. Eidson: And then y’all vote on it. I mean that’s what I’d like to see. I mean
Planning, our Planning & Zoning, they don’t go out and look either. They got that tunnel
vision, I guess, to see out there what they voting on.
Mr. Hankerson: Sir, they go out and look. I know they go out and look cause I
get a call when they out there. I know that now. That’s around my area.
Mr. Eidson: Well, when I went to Planning & Zoning –
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I make a motion that we approve it
with them bringing – to go ahead with the plan, and them bringing it back to us.
The site plan.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Been a proper motion and second. Been a lot of discussion.
All those in favor – I’m sorry, Commissioner Mays.
Mr. Mays: If I might, and I’m going to vote for the motion since it contains only
a site plan. But I don’t want Mr. Eidson to leave with a false sense of confidence, and
that’s from the two Super District Commissioners. We were discussing a minute ago. I
think that maybe we need to, since Mr. Eidson is here, Mr. Russell, that somebody on
staff needs to probably take his name, address, look at his property as is right now to see
if there can be some relief situation that can be given to him. Because I tell you, when
that site plan comes back, it may only be one vote, but I’m not going to vote for us to put
in – and I’m being very honest with you – I’m not going to vote for a guarantee that there
won’t be any water. Because even though my pastor is sitting out there and he’s an
excellent preacher, excellent pastor, but I think the man he answers to is the only that can
control whether or not you’re going to have some water or not there. I think the plans
have got to be worked, but even if built according to standard, that’s not a guarantee.
And I think before we get into the guaranteeing business of telling folk that there ain’t
going to be no more water, we better be real careful about that, because that’s just one
that I don’t want you to leave with that sense of confidence. I’d rather send somebody to
look at what you’ve got, let’s try and get back and help you as is as to where you are.
But if it comes back and they put it out there according to standards, I cannot vote to say
it’s going to deal with you not ever having a problem again. Because it may be where
they may build perfectly and it may be something built two miles from you that gives you
the total havoc out there of runoff and water that’s going to come down to you as that
water goes downward and comes eastward from things that are going to the west of you
and coming back this way. So I just wanted to throw that in there right now. I want to
make sure that we give some help like he is, but to a point of a guarantee, we give a
guarantee the first time it flood, I know we’ll see you again.
Mr. Eidson: Yes, sir.
40
Mr. Mays: You’re right about that. I just want you to leave with that, no over-
confidence to a point that that won’t do that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can we have that amendment placed in that motion? Mr.
Hankerson, will you accept?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And the seconder?
Mr. Cheek: Yes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of
voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
29. Ms. Mattie Mitchell to appear before the committee regarding an incident at
the Landfill concerning the disposal of dead animals.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Mitchell? Give us your name and address and then tell
us.
Ms. Mitchell: Yes, my name is Mattie Mitchell. I am the president of the
Bethlehem Neighborhood Association. And on March 7 I went to the landfill and I paid
$7.50 because I was emptying some household trash. And as I pulled up to the landfill
momentarily, a City car came in and the car pulled directly beside me. The car had a
trailer on the back. And the young man – the lady stayed in, but she continued to look at
me and I was looking at her, and I’m like I wonder what the City is fixing to dump, you
know, on household trash. And so the man got out and he took a remote control out of
the truck, out of the City car, and he start dumping. And I was looking like, cause the
trailer would be right here by me now, the trailer part would be by me. When he took it
out, it was like dumped, a dog fell out. I’m like, oh my God, a dead dog. And on top of
that, it was like about 25 dead dogs. I literally went into shock. I’m serious. I was like –
I just went out. When I was just sitting there, I was like I never seen nothing like this
before. And all of a sudden everything around me when black. And I got a little
Schnauzer, and I love that Schnauzer, and I don’t care if I go to Maryland Fried Chicken,
if I get chicken for me I get chicken for me, my son and that dog. So I just couldn’t
conceive that. And when I blanked out, I could see my little Schnauzer on top of this pile
of dead dogs. But the light, it was like light for a moment and then I was like – when I
looked at them again, I kept – my voice was gone. And on top of it was a dead deer.
41
And all those dogs was just looking at me. Their eyes and everything was open. They
were like bleeding. So they just pulled away. And I’m still sitting there in shock, like
that. I was just sitting there. Then when they drove away, a bulldozer was coming, I
imagine to push the dogs, cause there was no hole or nothing there for them. I’m like – I
did remember asking the guy, I was like what, what, cause the voice was gone, and he
said we get these dogs off the street. And a lot of them are diseased and we have to put
them to sleep in the shelter. By that time all I could think of is you’re going to
[inaudible] the dogs up beside me, cause [inaudible]. And when the bulldozer start
coming down toward the dogs, I just kind of like pulled away. So all that week I was like
messed up. I couldn’t talk or anything. I just couldn’t say anything to anybody. I
couldn’t go to sleep. And since March 7 I have not been able to eat solid food, and the
doctor put me on something called [inaudible]. And the only way I could go to sleep is
through these small pills. I was like – I started jogging. I was like you can beat this. So
one night I did not take the [inaudible] and I was [inaudible] all night. So this is it. It’s
just a little small pill and I never heard of [inaudible] he put me on them and I had no
problem eating or sleeping before March 7. And I just hope that you all can get this thing
in place that no citizen of this city would have to suffer like I did at the landfill and the
way I continue to suffer as a result of this traumatic incident.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Russell, do you have someone from the animal shelter
to – is that our normal procedure, is that – can somebody address this for Ms. Mitchell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. [inaudible] is here. [inaudible]
Mr. Teasley: I’d like to apologize to Ms. Mitchell. She did witness this incident.
This is the most economical way to dispose of the remains. We police up all the road
kills on the Richmond County roads, plus the animals we have to put to sleep. They’re
put in a trailer, the trailer is covered. It remains covered while it was dumped. We go
generally into the commercial area. The times that I’ve been out there, I’ve probably
haven’t seen but maybe one private citizen. She must have been standing kind of close to
the back of the trailer because if you’re away you can’t really see. The landfill, they’re
notified when we’re coming, when we get to the gate, they’re usually waiting and they
dig a hole and cover the remains.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any comments from any of the Commissioners? Ms.
Mitchell, we do apologize for your episode, what you experienced at the landfill, and we
know that can be very touching. I talk all the time about that German shepherd, Ms.
Bonner, and I understand your commitment to your animal. I wouldn’t be anywhere that
I could be and not have an animal. But that is the procedure, Mr. Teasley, is that right?
Mr. Teasley: Yes, sir. It’s the most economical method to dispose of the
remains.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We don’t have any incinerator, like some major
metropolitan city has.
42
Mr. Teasley: No, sir. That would – an incinerator with the size that we would
need would be right around $60,000. And with the installation and everything you’re
talking right about $100,000. And there is probably about $45 to $60 an hour to operate
on burn time, due to the escalation of natural gas and bottled gas. We do pick up horses
and cows. So if we weren’t going to take anything to the landfill we would have to
incinerate that type of animal, too.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other comment?
Ms Mitchell: [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Would you come back to the microphone so we hear you?
Ms. Mitchell: About him saying that there are only few citizens like myself,
that’s not true, because a lot of the people that live out that way bring their trash. And I
have seen parents out there with small children plenty of times. And my thing to him, I
think what the City is supposed to do – his workers were supposed to call in from what I
found out afterwards. And a hole should have been dug. You don’t need a $100,000
incinerator to get rid of those dogs. As a matter of fact, when I do trash at my home, you
could easily get from Lowe’s commercial size trash bags. That would have saved me the
agony of seeing those dogs. As a matter of fact, put a sign up there saying – the sign says
we are not responsible for your vehicle. But at least let me know, cause I paid to come in
there. I paid $7.50. And it’s a City-operated business. So put something up there that
say you may be subjected to dead animals. I wouldn’t have entered it. Or you could get
commercial bags and put those dogs in there. They should have been covered, or if you
call for someone to dig a hole, the hole should have been dug. If the hole was not dug,
that young lady never should have driven off.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Ms. Mitchell, for your comments. Mark, I see
your hand up. We need to go on to the next item, but go ahead, Mark.
Mr. Johnson: Basically, I want to give the long-term solution. The long-term
solution is part of our program that we’ve got the $11.5 million bond for, which is the
courtesy drop-off area. Right now we have one available spot, so we only use that for the
three bags. We are diverting as much traffic that way as we can, but as we move forward
in a year’s time, that problem should be remedied with the new courtesy drop-off area, so
none of the small vehicles will actually be entering the landfill. It will keep the private
citizens away from the commercial volume.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get a motion to receive this as information,
if
nothing else?
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
43
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All those in favor, please let it be known by the normal sign
of voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Ms. Mitchell, for bringing it to our attention,
and we will make sure that we do all that we can to make sure that doesn’t happen to
anyone else again. Next item, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
30. Approve renewal of lease agreement for 3501 Walton Way Extension, Fire
Station #9.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Chief?
Mr. Willis: Yes, sir, Mr. Commissioners. This is something we’ve been doing
for the past several years. There is a church adjacent to the fire station. Part of the fire
station property, part of the fire station is actually on the church’s property, and we lease
this particular portion of that property from the church every year, and we’re just asking
for the renewal of the lease in this agreement. In the agreement, as well, too, we put in
there that we have first right of refusal if they decide to sell, that we would have the
opportunity to buy that property and in turn we have offered that also to the church, too,
if we decide to relocate the fire station.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: How much is that? I hadn’t looked at it. How much is it?
Ms. Sims: $1,000.
Mr. Willis: $1,000.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
Mr. Mays: I so move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. All those in favor, let it be known by
the normal sign of voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
44
FINANCE:
31. Discuss Fleet Maintenance contract which will expire on December 31, 2005.
(Referred from March 7 Finance Committee)
Mr. Crowden: It was the desire of the Administrator and the Finance Director to
bring to your attention that the current maintenance contract for Fleet Maintenance
service will expire at the end of this year. We have until that time to determine what
other course of action you may wish to proceed with. You currently have three options.
Actually, you have four now. The three options which are addressed in the agenda item
are to amend the existing contract and continue it for one additional year; or to rebid the
whole contract; or to have another study conducted to bring it in-house. I know there is
some interest with regards to that. The fourth item would be to return the agenda back to
the Finance Committee, because it has not been reviewed at that level. It’s been deferred
twice already and it came to the full Commission as a result of that. So those are the four
options you have in front of you, and we’re asking for some direction, in which direction
you wish us to proceed.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Comments? Gentlemen? Don?
Mr. Grantham:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’m going to speak on behalf
of the Finance Committee in the absence of our Chairman, and maybe Ms. Beard will –
she’s the co-chairman I believe of the Finance Committee. But I think with something
this important, that we need to refer it back to committee, and give the opportunity to
have discussion in this before it comes to the floor, and not having all the information
I’m going to make a motion that we
may be necessary to be able to discuss it today.
refer this back to committee and get the information.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Any other comments? Hearing none,
all those in favor let it be known by the normal sign of voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you.
The Clerk:
32. Update from the Finance Director regarding a description of urban services.
(Referred from February 21 Finance Committee)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is David here?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, this is another item that had been referred to
the Finance Committee. There is some information in the backup that you would be able
to look at. It’s our feeling that we’d like some discussion through the Finance Committee
45
at some point on a mechanism and a method to go forth with reconciling the differences
between the suburban and the urban areas as far as our City government goes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get a motion then just to send it back to Finance, as
well?
Ms. Sims: So move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. All those in favor –
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Just as an observance, and I have got – as well as the
other Super District Commissioner, constituents in both these, and some of your do, in
districts that run across those old lines. But having the majority of it, urban and
suburban, I think if we are going take an intense look at the urban district, I think in all
fairness we need to look at the taxing districts period and really not take a look say at
one, with thinking you are going to solve the other one. I’ve said this on more than one
occasion, while the old county may have been larger, it also in being larger had more
complications with what was put into that suburban tax district. Chief Willis is gone.
I’ve discussed it with four different fire chiefs. It’s a nightmare to a point on what was
brought in from those different fire departments that made up the county and the
mechanism that you go about with a taxing formula. So I think if you’re going to take
the time to start this and talk about it prudently, I think you need to talk about both tax
districts simultaneously, because there are some things in there that are not all good or
bad about either one, but I think when it pops up, it’s sometimes the impression that we
need to correct the urban one and do away with it. I think what you’re going to find is
you’ve got some flaws that’s over in the other one that you need to also, if you’re going
to have one taxing district, you need to look at them simultaneously, give it the proper
time to do it, and not think you can deal with this as a quick fix on how to get it done.
That’s just an observance. Y’all can put it in Finance any way you want to, but you are
going to see me, if you’re going to have to deal with one of them and think you’re not
going to deal with the other one, because I think there are some far serious needs,
particularly as we continue to go down the road with the expansion in an urban city like
ours, with fire service, as to an archaic formula that’s there, and that’s the most glaring
one that’s there. But there are others that are there that have those flaws. So I think if
you’re going to do it, do it with both of them and give it the proper time that it needs to
be done.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays, if I can, I make a substitute motion if I’m in
order.
Mr. Mays: You’re not.
Mr. Grantham: Can’t make a motion.
46
Mr. Mays: I just wanted, I just [inaudible] friendly suggestion, if they’ll take it as
an amendment to do it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] so we can get it done. I mean everybody sit
here like a knot on a log like they –
Mr. Grantham: Who made that motion?
Mr. Hankerson: I make that substitute motion for you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, if you can amend that to include both of them so we
can consider them at the same time and that way we will be able to handle it.
Mr. Hankerson: I so move.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You can go to Finance with it and then come back again
and go to Finance, so Commissioner Hankerson made a substitute motion.
Mr. Mays: Well, if that’s the route we’re going, I’ll second the substitute motion
then. I just wanted to get it in there, squeeze it in there when I can.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Commissioner Mays said a whole lot better
what I was trying to say, when I said it basically. He’s absolutely right. The issue is a
whole lot more complex than just trying to fix the urban area. It’s something we need to
look at and it’s going to require some time. There are some good parts and bad parts to
each of those things and he said that a whole lot better than I did. But what he said is
what I was trying to say.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other comments?
Mr. Mays: Do I get a check?
Mr. Grantham: You get an amen.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If not, we’ll vote on the substitute motion first.
Commissioner Hankerson’s motion first.
(Vote on the substitute motion)
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ll go to the next item, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
47
34. Motion to approve the acquisition of 28 public safety patrol vehicles, 4 traffic
vehicles for Sheriff’s Office – Road Patrol and 2 public safety transport sedans for
Civil/Fugitive Division of the Sheriff’s Office.
Ms. Sims: What about 33?
Mr. Grantham: 33?
The Clerk: 33, oh, I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
The Clerk:
I skipped one. I’m sorry.
33. Motion to approve refund on 19 accounts from the Tax Assessors Office.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: See somebody from the Tax Assessors office here. You
want to give us your name and tell us what you know?
Ms. Birkinshaw: I’m Meg Birkinshaw. I’m the Interim Chief Appraiser in the
Tax Assessors office. I believe you have the list of the 19 accounts that the board is
recommending you grant refunds to. If you have any questions, I’ll be glad to answer
them.
Ms. Beard: I so move.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Grantham had his hand up, then Commissioner
Hankerson. Did you want to make a motion, Don?
Mr. Grantham: Yeah, I’m going to second the motion. I’ll comment based on I
was not in attendance at this previous meeting but had discussed this with Mr. Smith, and
also with Mr. Jimmy Norris about the rebate on these, and they had approved it. So I just
wanted to let that be known, that these were discussed by that particular board or
commission and brought to us. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Before the motion was seconded, I was going to ask what was
the urgency, that it did not go through committee and then come here. Was it an urgency
to bring it straight to Commission?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, I think Finance didn’t meet.
Mr. Grantham: Finance did not meet.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. That’s the reason it go to this point? No problem.
48
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hearing no other discussion, all those in favor let it be
known by the normal sign of voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item 34, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
34. Motion to approve the acquisition of 28 public safety patrol vehicles, 4 traffic
vehicles for Sheriff’s Office – Road Patrol and 2 public safety transport sedans for
Civil/Fugitive Division of the Sheriff’s Office.
Mr. Crowden: This request is a part of the 2004 capital outlay requirements,
which were presented to the Administrator in 2003 as part of the budget, and the
Administrator approved for your consideration the purchase of these cars. The money is
available in capital outlay. Let me give you a little bit more background because I know
the comments that are made at previous meetings and so forth. When we sit down and
look at the capital outlay requirements for all departments, we establish a priority list.
That priority list then is driven by the amount of money that’s available. The amount of
money that’s available is proportioned out by the Administrator and what I do then is I
come back and through a series of negotiations [inaudible] priorities, again what is a
priority for the government, determine what the amount of money will support with
regards to capital outlay. This year, like a lot of previous years, the capital outlay will
only support the acquisition of a small portion of public safety vehicle replacements. And
you’ve already entertained the three cars of the Marshal’s Department – I believe that
was the last Commission meeting you approved those. And this year, and this one will
finish up the 2004 requirements, short of enterprise fund requirements. So for the general
fund, this year, only vehicles for public safety could be supported out of capital outlay.
That’s if you approve this package. To give you an idea of what we’re dealing with,
because I know you also have a concern with the number of vehicles in your fleet – and I
say it is your fleet – for the sheriff we’re looking at over 500 vehicles. Now we have to
replace those on a timely replacement plan, which you approved in April, but we’re
getting away from that because the money won’t even support that plan. So what I’ve,
what I’m showing you here is what does this 28 public safety patrol vehicles, 4 traffic
vehicles and 2 transport vehicles actually mean to the sheriff. This is actually less than
one shift of cars. One shift of road cars. And a shift is consisting of 37 beat cars. That’s
how many beats in Augusta that have to be covered by a car, and those are geographical
areas that a car covers. You have 37 beat cars, you have 4 traffic cars on duty, all at the
same time, at any one given time in a 24-hour clock. For seven days a week, 365 days a
year. So that gives you an idea of the number of vehicles that public safety requires at
any given time. In addition to that, you have two sergeants that regulate those 37 beat
cars. They’ve both in a car. And one lieutenant. That is one shift of cars technically. So
that’s a total of 44 beat cars, if you will. In addition to that, you also have crime
suppression, which is also part of the road patrol. That could be anywhere from 6 to 8
49
cars. They’re on special duty. Okay. And they focus in on certain neighborhood or
certain crime areas. They’re also on 24/7. You have a small contingent of DUI cars,
whose sole purpose is to go out for DUI traffic. And then you have the housing cars. All
that has to be considered in the replacement. So what I’m asking for is less than one shift
of cars. In a perfect world, what we would want to do is replace in a life cycle of four
years for a patrol vehicle, you replace ¼ of that group every year. And we can’t do that
because it’s too expensive right now.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just a minute, Ms. Beard. Let me, let me get this mechanic
off here. Ron, you said capital outlay fund. These 28 – and you look at the money that
you got, then you try to see what you can buy; is that right?
Mr. Crowden: That is correct, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What happened to the need for the automobile, meaning
that – I mean you say you looking at the money that you got, and I know you didn’t do
this, you just work in that position. But what happened to the cars that, that need
replacing? Because we got the money, because [inaudible] 28, we need to buy 28?
Mr. Crowden: No, sir. As part of your backup, you will have an evaluation sheet
on each of the cars I’m asking you to replace. That is an evaluation of several items: the
age of the car, the mileage of the car, and in this case, all 28, all the vehicles that are
presented to you for replacement are in excess of 100,000 miles.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hold it. What that mean? I mean –
Mr. Crowden: The odometer mileage reading is over 100,000.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. But what does that mean? Because we pay Fleet
Management, that we put in finance, $3 million a year to do preventive maintenance.
Now if you ain’t doing no maintenance, 100,000 miles may be enough miles to get rid of
a car. But why would we pay $3 million per year to a service, to do service on our cars?
Oil change, brake jobs, lube, change transmission fluid, all the stuff that they do, and then
we say 100,000 miles as if that’s supposed to scare folks. We done sold too many cars
with 100,000 miles on them that somebody else gets and get another 100,000 miles off of
them. You heard this story before. So that really set off an alarm with me when I hear
people say 100,000 miles like that’s bad. Now if you hadn’t change the oil, and you got
100,000 miles, you know, you probably ought to park it right where it’s at. That’s how
good it looks. But the money we pay out to the service and then we say 100,000 miles?
That shouldn’t be a criteria. Unless we’re not doing any maintenance work. I mean that’s
no knock on you.
Mr. Crowden: I understand. No one single thing is the sole criteria for
replacement. Because we also look at the reliability of the vehicle, how many times it
went in the shop in the course of one year, and we use the Public Works Association
criteria on all this stuff, which was presented to you. We look at the reliability, the cost
50
of maintenance versus the cost of what the car cost itself and the overall condition of the
car. So we look at - those five indicators equal a set amount of points, which gives us an
idea of whether it needs to be replaced or not. Now to answer your question, in 2004,
there were over, there were just under 12,000 work orders performed on fleet equipment.
12,000 work orders. There were over 3,300 PM services performed on vehicles. There
were, at one point, $2 million was spent in parts alone in 2004 for our vehicles. So I
think we’re getting value for our maintenance. And again, I say all this is in
consideration, you consider everything, the whole ball of wax, not just one little thing.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I understand. Let me [inaudible] me and you can talk about
automobiles all day, so –
Ms. Beard: I wonder if we’re looking at gasoline usage as we purchase these
cars.
Mr. Crowden: Yes, ma’am. It’s part of the maintenance evaluation. Cost per
mile. How – miles to the gallon and cost per mile are all rolled up into maintenance cost,
so, yes, ma’am. The answer is yes, we are looking at how it’s using its fuel.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Anybody else got any comments? Barbara?
Ms. Sims: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I just noticed three of the cars were
totaled. Is that kind of norm or is that an unusual?
Mr. Crowden: I worked in Risk Management for nine years and the Fleet
Manager for four years and I would generally say we run, in the course of a year we will
lose in road cars, we will lose anywhere from six to ten a year.
Ms. Sims: So that was a good year, then.
Mr. Crowden: Pardon me?
Ms. Sims: Three is not bad, then.
Mr. Crowden: No, it isn’t bad.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ron, you got four traffic vehicles and you got road patrol
and two public safety. What’s the difference? I thought unless – Don Grantham asked
about the 500, the new Ford, the small car which still can hold a full size load, what’s the
difference?
Mr. Crowden: It’s the same basic car, sir. It’s how it’s set up with emergency
equipment. That gives you the pricing difference. There is a difference in pricing in a
road car, how we have emergency equipment on a road car and a traffic car is different.
You have a few more lights there. And then on the civil/fugitive cars, you have less of a
light package on there. But it’s the same basic car.
51
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me ask you one question that Don had to say. When we
order cars and we get a new car in, it comes in equipped with lights and all the frills and
horn and everything when we get it in; is that right?
Mr. Crowden: It’s equipped with lights and siren. It has to be outfitted with the
mobile data units which we are transferring from old cars to new cars and the camera. If
the car is to have one of those eyewitness cameras that has to be transferred as well. So
yes, it primarily comes in ready to go.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We are transmitting something, though. We are not buying
all new –
Mr. Crowden: No, sir.
Mr. Russell: Radio would be transferred, too, and stuff like that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Don?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. When we, when we sell these
24 vehicles and the money is brought in, do we show any type of value when we are
purchasing new cars as to what recovery is, based on our budget? What are we doing
with this money when it comes back in?
Mr. Crowden: Whenever we have an auction, I credit it back – when we make the
collection, I credit it back to the department and I believe, quite honestly, it goes into
fund balance. But I’m not positive. It does not come back into Fleet, I know that.
Mr. Grantham: See, the reason I’m saying that is I know you have to budget for
Fleet. But then again, Fleet should have some form of recovery. And based on that,
there should be some estimated value on those 24 vehicles that we are going to be either
selling or turning in as to how that money is going to be credited against or credited for
Fleet, or whether it’s going to go in the general fund for just our general operating.
That’s one thing I’ve been worried about.
Mr. Crowden: I’ve not been given the luxury of getting that money back into
Fleet. It’s been, over the years it’s been just washed back into the general fund or if it’s
enterprise, it goes right back to enterprise. Now enterprise could in fact turn it back into
funding.
Mr. Grantham: I’ll [inaudible] about that for you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ron, that money goes back into the Finance Department,
though, and then –
Mr. Crowden: Yes, sir. That’s correct. It goes back into government use.
52
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I need a motion.
Ms. Sims: I so move to approve.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. All those in favor, let it be known by
the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Mays out.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
35. Discuss the City Attorney/Law Department. (Requested by Commissioner
Williams)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, I had this placed on the agenda to talk about. We had
a subcommittee put together and I don’t think they ever met. I think Mr. Boyles was the
chairman and Mr. Shepard had some sickness in his family. We realize that and we thank
God that things are still improving. But I need to get some, some clarification on the
attorneys, the attorneys positions. We got staff attorney here. Commissioner, ex-
Commissioner Shepard, who is our attorney now, has a firm. People from the library,
people from the different agencies call this government and [inaudible] call the attorney
and ask them to [inaudible] up documents and other legal things that they need. We
don’t have an idea of what’s going on or what’s being paid until the bill comes. It’s too
late then. That’s like closing the gate after the horse done got out. All of those things
that the attorney does ought to come through some directive through this body as
Commissioners. Any agency can call any department, can call the attorney at any time
and request anything of him. He is not going to refuse that if he’s got any attorney ability
at all and say I’m not going to do it. He is going to address those issues cause that’s what
he’s been able to do. So I need some clarification and we might need to put a – reenact
the subcommittee. Mr. Boyles not able to attend. To try to put a handle on some
directive as far as the attorneys and staff goes. We got staff attorney here, and if our staff
attorney is not capable of writing an ordinance or writing a resolution or whatever, then
we may have the wrong staff people working for us. We might need to get some more. I
need to know who, who directs those, those, those orders. Commissioner Hankerson, I
see your hand up. You might have some comments.
Mr. Hankerson: I have some comments. I appointed that subcommittee to look at
that. I think you were on it, too, I believe.
53
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Uh-huh [yes].
Mr. Hankerson: And if you will give me the opportunity to talk to the Chairman
and find out, or direct him to go ahead and meet with you all and bring a report back to
the Administrative Service Committee. [inaudible] do that anyway because the
committee is appointed, but I will, I’ll make sure that I do that part. I may not have the
answers to your questions, but on that subcommittee meeting, cause I’m waiting on a
report from them also. I think what I’ve been getting at – we’ve got, we got staff
attorneys and they we got combined services with Mr. Shepard. And I need to know
where the level of expertise, I guess, stop at. If we need an ordinance, why can’t our staff
attorney do some of that kind of stuff, rather than sending it to Shepard & Plunkett? I
mean I’ve got no problem with that, but I just need to think I need to know which
direction, who’s going to do what. Either you pass the Bar and you’re an attorney or you
hadn’t passed the Bar. Steve, you might be able to help me out now. I see you looking.
That simple Steve stuff, I need to hear some of that right now.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. And I do appreciate the concern
the board has shown to me with my personal situation for the past six weeks, and I
appreciate those sentiments, appreciate your prayers. I have talked with Mr. Boyles and
we want to schedule a meeting of that subcommittee. I think that’s the appropriate
process to go through, at which time I’d be happy to give you a more complete structure
of how we are managing the legal work. Basically, I can give you just a thumbnail of it
right now, but in the Law Department we have an attorney assigned to the AHED,
formerly HND, Department. We had the demolition liens and we’ve had the Magistrate
Court being handled by Attorney James. And then Ms. Vanessa Flournoy has been doing
some ordinance work. She’s been doing our representation before the EEOC, the
personnel board. All the personnel-related services have been directed in her direction.
Like I say, occasionally there’s been a special project assigned to her in the nature of an
ordinance, such as the smoke-free ordinance. Then in my firm, of course we’ve had
some division of responsibility just because some attorneys are not like the attorneys that
were trained in my era, when you were expected to be more of a generalized practitioner.
We’ve been using some specialization basically. The contracts and real estate – I have
asked Mr. Plunkett to have primary responsibility for, of course supervised by myself.
And I have asked, because of his experience in litigation, Mr. Hamilton has frequently
appeared in federal court and other courts and does the condemnation. That’s sort of the
litigation division. Then I have the other attorney downtown, I basically handle all the
committees and this body as a whole, and mainly the ordinance drafting has come to me
just because I’m here in the legislative process more than anybody else. And then I also
have Mr. Beaudreaux who has done some work for me on assignment, some litigation
defense and bankruptcy, because he was the law clerk to the bankruptcy judge. And then
finally, I’ve had Mr. Tisdale do some work in the area of construction contracts and
general litigation. And from time to time over the past six weeks or so you’ve basically
seen probably all of those gentlemen. We also have some work done by Mr. Belk, who is
assigned largely by Mr. Hamilton and myself. And he supports me in the effort to draw
the legislation and also this insurance defense – I mean litigation defense. And then you
54
don’t see much of Mr. Blanchard. He basically does very little city work. But that’s the
thumbnail.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And let me, let me – and I’m glad you mentioned that
because what got me confused, I guess is, in your seat, Lamont sat in your seat
sometimes.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And then Andy was sitting in that seat sometimes. Then
Harry James would sit in that seat sometimes. But the pay for those people sitting in that
seat is different. And I’m trying to figure out now if that seat is a seat that’s needing the
expertise of a lawyer and all of those people I mentioned sit in that seat but they’re not
paid the same payment, are we getting the same service? I mean something don’t – in
other words, if you a lawyer, if you a dogcatcher, you’re a dogcatcher, whatever it is. If
you a lawyer, you a lawyer. So there is some discrepancies about how, what we paying,
there is discrepancies about who tells who to do what, and I’ve just been noticing and
I’ve asked questions about it, as to get a handle on who gives the directive to go ahead
and write up the, the, the – the Junior League call and ask for some legislation that you
did. May not have been much, now, I am just using that for an example. May not have
been much, but if they can give the directive to call and have you do something, then we
as a governing body pay those bills when they come in, then how can we mind the store,
so to speak?
Mr. Shepard: That direction, even though it involves me, comes from the director
of that division. Mr. Vanover was the one that was instrumental in getting that here. The
th
League is giving a nice gift on their 75 Anniversary.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Right. I talked with them. I’m in support. 100%. I mean
that’s no knock. I’m just saying whether Vanover, whether it’s Max Hicks, whether it’s
any directive other than the directive that the Clerk would get from the Commission
ought to be just anybody can do that, Steve. And that’s why I think our bill is getting
astronomical, because we have not had a handle on how things have been put in and
taken out.
Mr. Shepard: I assure you, Mr. Williams, we’re not creating work. We’re
responding to everybody as best we can.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s exactly right. And that’s a good lawyer. I mean
when somebody calls you, you don’t tell him you’ve got too much work.
Mr. Shepard: Because of my commitments elsewhere, I have utilized some of my
partners and the Law Department. I’ve been asked to utilize more of the Law
Department and I have tried to do just exactly that.
55
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, hopefully, this subcommittee will get back –
Commissioner Hankerson is going to get with the Chairman, this subcommittee will get
back and give us some breakdown on some of these cases, some of these billing that we
been getting, and get a handle on where we are so we can be knowledgeable enough.
Now, you know, we talked about that group that came in and gave us this bill, didn’t give
us no, no, no wording on what it was directed to. It’s the same thing here now. If it’s
something you worked on and we know what you worked on – I’m not saying you don’t,
you don’t do that, but you was on this side of the bench at one time. You was just as
adamant about trying to make sure it was done in the professional and the right way when
you was on this side. Now you on that side. I used to talk about my good friend, Jim
Wall, when he was on that side about this. That same identical thing. It ain’t changed.
Just position. You was over here, you was with me. Now you on that side, I guess you
with Jim. It’s the same thing.
Mr. Shepard: No, we’re just trying to serve the client in a professional manner,
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. We understand professional concerns.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays, did you have your hand up?
Mr. Mays: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get a motion to receive as information?
Mr. Mays: I so move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. All those in favor, let it be known by
the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Cheek and Mr. Grantham out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Hankerson, I’d appreciate it if you’d talk
with the Chairman and find out something so we can, if we can address that.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
50. Discuss the Public Works Departments. (Requested by Commissioner
Williams)
56
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We talked in committee, Engineering Services Committee,
about the Public Works and the splitting of that department. I needed from the
Administrator some guidelines or some definite input on what that department going
consist of, who’s going, who’s going share that, what their job duties are, are there any
impact to the citizens of Richmond County that, you know, in doing this, as far as
increasing salaries, and I think you said there was no increases, but I need something
back from them, from the Administrator as to those things. Now what I addressed was
that if we taking this department and splitting it, they ought not be using that person or
taking advantage of that person to pull them out of a hole or to change the situation or to
carry on three departments. Now if the workload was too much, we did her a favor, we
need to keep the favor. Don’t need to do it halfway. We need to keep doing the favor
and understand that we split it to make it better. Shouldn’t be costly, but I think it’s
going to be costly, but it ought to be split to make it better. But I hadn’t heard any
directives as to what those services are going be or what she’s going to be controlling or
not controlling, what that’s going be. Now the Administrator is not in here, but somebody
need to go out in the hall and get him and let him come in and be on the record as to what
we asked for in the committee, it be still asked for here, that those departments Mike
Green and Mark was going take those other departments. Now I’m under the impression
that they, they want an increase. I think it’s unfair to ask them to do them and not expect
them to do more when they was hired out for this job. They was hired out with a salary
and a job title and a job description. Now if you going to increase the job description.
Now I heard somebody say they ought to be glad to have a job. Not that they ought to be
glad, but some people glad to have a job. You driving a truck, maybe you glad to have a
job. But when you talking about supervisory position, making things different, making
decision, I think increase come with some benefits to it. Mr. Russell, I just stated the
same thing I stated in the meeting, in the committee room, about needing some written
documents, written input about those splitting of the department, who is going to run
them, what their job duties are going to be. Not using the previous director to pull them
out of a hole. If she left and went to SRS you wouldn’t call over there and say which way
do I go now? So we need to, if we going alleviate the problem, and that’s what we’re
supposed to be doing, I need to have something written down so I won’t be accused of
micromanaging, stepping over into something else that I’m not supposed to be in. I want
to know what their job duties are so that if I catch them micromanaging over somewhere
else, I can be able to do the same thing. Right now, ain’t no guidelines. Right now, it
just open.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, as I said in committee, what we will provide for you at the
April 11 meeting is exactly what you asked for, the information you’ve asked for, and
like I said we’ll be happy to provide that for you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Other comments? Maybe I can get a motion to receive.
Mr. Cheek: Motion to receive this as information and have a report back
from the Administrator at the April 11 committee meeting.
Ms. Sims: Second.
57
Mr. Hankerson: I didn’t hear that, what he said.
The Clerk: Report back at the April 11 meeting.
Mr. Cheek: We have a report back at the April 11 meeting that will detail the
organizational structure, cost elements, and responsibilities of each position, that will be
delivered by the Administrator to Engineering Services.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Been a motion and second. Any other comments?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Well, never mind, I’ll hold it till April 11. It’s just an observance. I
was just befuddled. If we did all these changes I just was under the impression that
whatever had been done and whatever was going on is already going on. I would think to
a point that something that we did of that magnitude, that when you do it then you’re not
looking at a plan you’re going to do, you’re looking at a plan that’s in place. And maybe
I’m wrong on asking the question. But if that’s what’s in place then I would assume that
it’s in place just as well today as it is on April 11. It’s just an observance and I have no
problem with waiting until April 11 or April Fool’s but to a point that it was done, and if
that’s the case of where it is, then you do that and those lines of clarification – you’re not
dealing with transitioning and moving from one place to another and somebody acting
here and showing the ropes. I mean you’ve got veteran people that are there. I just
assume that it’s out there. But out of respect for the Administrator, I won’t address that
because in fairness to him, there’s a lot that he’s been asked to do lately [inaudible] to
come forward, he worked on another plan when we did this one, and now he’s got this
one to do. So with that respect level for Mr. Russell, I will yield and hear that report
th
when it comes back on the 11, but I would assume that since it was one that was
soundly put in place, that it ought to be one that’s in place, not one that is being put in
place.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And that was my comments, as well, Mr. Mays. And I
asked in committee and I asked it here again and the Chairman of Engineering Services
th
recommended that there were something to be brought back on the 11. But when you
do something like this, of that magnitude, it look like it would be something in concrete.
But I just don’t want to take advantage of anybody and I used several people’s names in
the committee room, that if they was in that position I would do the same thing. You just
can’t ask people just to float around and – I mean [inaudible] to the magnitude that we
thought they should be doing it anyway, so we split it. Now we done split it and we still
got to depend on them? No, sir. I think if they been moved, they been moved. I haven’t
seen anything in writing. I want to know for myself what are the guidelines, so when I
catch them micromanaging over in something else they ain’t got no business in, and then
Mr. Russell said that this report [inaudible] some of these, the other two departments will
58
be reporting to the assistant administrator. Well, my problem with that is when you go to
the assistant administrator and ask what do I do and they can’t tell you, then don’t call
nobody else and say what do I do. I mean you either need me or you don’t need me. It’s
th
as simple as that. But I can wait until the 11. That ain’t as far as it has been. I mean it’s
done come a long ways.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, I also think that – and this may be within that report
th
and it’s another reason why I have no problem in waiting until the 11 for Mr. Russell,
and all he’s been asked to put together, is also what may come to this committee or
eventually to the full Commission in reference to whether or not there are things that
either may be asked – cause I think it’s a difference in what’s asked of us versus what
may be mandatory for us to do. But I think that one that needs to be brought forth would
be regarding how we stand and what the rules are, quite frankly, within HR as to how we
create and deal with – whether we’re considering subdivisions per se of a department,
whether we’re considering them as department head positions, or how do you deal with
these classifications, or if they are to be reclassified. I think that’s something that we
need to discuss in all honesty as to whether they stay where they are or whether or not to
a point if you’re dealing with them then as full scale department heads and you’re
dividing up, I think that’s something that HR needs to have ready and prepared, to be able
to tell us through the Administrator at that point as to what we’re going to be looking at,
or does everybody remain the same in that category. Because I think to a point when you
do deal with a reporting status of where you do not have, you’re not in a subordinate
situation where you’re the person that’s in charge, then there are certain rules that
[inaudible]. I stand to be corrected. That HR deals with in terms of how you classify
department heads’ own responsibility. So I think that’s something we need to talk about.
And I don’t have a problem with waiting and dealing with it, but I think it’s something
cleared up sooner than later would be a lot better, because under that no secrets in the
courthouse committee, it’s already rumbling to a point that we are going to be asked to do
certain things. And I prefaced what I said by saying everything you’re asked to do you
don’t have to do, but I think if we’re asked to do that then we need to know that in terms
of the formation of how that is going to go.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Mays, and that’s why I wanted to see
something in writing. Because let me say this, too. Even though HR looks at it, it takes
six votes to determine whether or not that is a department or that is a binding guidelines.
This governing body still supposed to be governing. We give some latitude to the
Administrator to put some stuff together. But once he put together, it still got to be
approved in my mind. Now maybe y’all done already talked about this, but in my mind
it’s got to be approved among this body the way it going to be set up. I mean – but I been
waiting on to see something in writing so I can say I know what it’s supposed to be.
th
Right now, all these courthouse rumors is just what they are, just rumors. So the 11 is
coming. Mr. Russell, I recognize you now.
Mr. Russell: Commissioner Williams, I think you’re absolutely right. And I
guess I’ve been somewhat neglectful in getting that information to you in writing. That’s
thth
why I was happy with the 11 day, with being able to give that to you on the 11 of
59
April. There are some issues that I took as directed by the Commission as we split the
departments up, but there are some things that we need to come back to you with for
th
some direction, and I believe the 11 would be a good time to do that. Commissioner
Mays is right, too, that we formalize that and move forward, there are some issues out
there and I do agree fully that y’all need a report in writing. I do agree fully that we need
to straighten up a few issues that are still hanging out there that would require your
blessings or your direction. I think that’s a good thing and I look forward to being able to
provide you that information.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a motion, Ms. Bonner.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m sorry. Mr. Hankerson, go ahead.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I was just listening of what we asked him to do, and there
are some unanswered questions, also in my mind, but I know when we assign new duties
or new responsibilities there, job descriptions go along with them. Regardless of what is
the courthouse rumors. But I would advise the Administrator, I don’t know the other
parties or name to head the departments up, but if you got somebody that thought they
was going to be heading it up and they got some problem with it, then I ask him to move
to somebody else and recommend somebody else. But we want the position to be filled.
And we want the City to move forward. We don’t need to hold back on it. This is what
we decided to do, to split it up, and I think he ought to have the people in there that is
willing to work according to the job descriptions. If it calls for writing new job
descriptions, then we write new job descriptions and I worked for 31 years and looked at
the bottom of mine and it says that as the supervisor’s discretion. So they ask you to do
other things that not normally everyday routine, that you asked to do some other things. I
think you got people all over this government are asked to do some other things, you
know. That’s not on my job description to pick up a piece of paper off the floor, but if
my supervisor ask me to do it, I make the choice of whether to do it or not, but I may
suffer the consequences if I don’t do it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I agree with you, Commissioner Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] put something in place and wait for the Administrator
to come back with it, as you said, look at the job description, cause it’s something new.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I agree with you that there is no names associated with
those courthouse rumors. Willie Mays always said there ain’t no secrets in the
courthouse. Anything you say on any of these floors will be all over these floors just as
soon as you get through saying it. But my point is even if those people won’t do the job,
you just can’t walk out now. Y’all know we been trying to get some people in that
position for a long time. We hadn’t been able to hire. I mean we got some people out at
RCCI that Robert Leverett could call up and say you know, you stand out with them
while they clean the ditches. But are they going to be able to perform to a level that this
60
government need them to perform to? Finding a body is easy, but the right body in there
is what we got to do. And if those people that don’t want it, I mean I don’t think they
going to be forced to take it, but I think if we ask them to take on more responsibility,
even picking up paper on your job, you probably pick it up if your supervisor tell you one
time. But if tell you to go in the yard, you going ask for some [inaudible] sure enough if
he’s asking you to go on the grounds to pick up the paper there. So let’s go on to the next
item. Do we have a motion, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All those in favor of the motion, let it be known by the
normal sign of voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item?
The Clerk:
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
51. Discuss Sports Arena for Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax V
(SPLOST) (Requested by Commissioner Andy Cheek)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’ve had some discussions with our
Administrator today and my concern with this particular item that’s placed here so that
this particular project would not manifest itself in every meeting of our sales tax but I’d
like to pull it today in favor of hearing our Administrator’s recommendations on
Thursday at the SPLOST meeting, please.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think, Mr. Attorney, you have to have unanimous consent
to pull it; is that right? To take it off?
Mr. Shepard: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do I hear any objection to having it pulled off?
Mr. Mays: Well, if it’s on there, there must be a reason for it being on there. I’ll
yield, cause I’d like to get home tonight, too, so I’m going to yield to my colleague on
there. But you know, I’m going to tell you like everybody else who’s working, I may not
be here Thursday, so if y’all got something y’all want to say about it today, think y’all
ought to say it. I’m satisfied to go on and hear it today.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, we got some objection. Go ahead, Mr. Cheek. You
got any other comments or you want to just –
61
Mr. Mays: I didn’t say I objected. What I’m saying is if it’s important to do, I
probably may not be – and that’s one thing I was sharing with Andy about it, that I may
not be here. But that’s, that doesn’t stop no shop, one person not being here. So if he
wants to get it and combine it with what Fred needs to bring forward, I don’t have a
problem with that. What you can do, if there are some ideas on it, Andy, that you’ve got
already that, just for my benefit, if we can share period, you know, off the record, you’ve
got them, in writing, whatever, just give them to me where I can look at them, but I’m
saying at the time I may not be able to be here on Thursday.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is some objection, so I mean I may not be able to
make a motion. I mean, but I can object. Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I don’t know whether Commissioner Mays – was you in the in
the last SPLOST meeting? I don’t think you were. I think I know why it’s on the
agenda. I kind of irritated my fellow colleague in the last SPOST meeting, talking about
the sports arena, going to Columbia County, I just mentioned it, and he said I’m tired of
it, I’m going to put it on the agenda and we’re going to vote it up or down. That’s why
it’s on here.
Mr. Cheek: And that’s exactly true. And the thing that has happened, and you
know, full disclosure of course, is we have had some discussion about some bonding and
other potential funding mechanisms that may enable us to proceed. I don’t want to kill
the project, but I’m very concerned. I’m kind of process oriented and I see us not
following a process, but a different process every time we come into a SPOST meeting,
just like we did last time. This particular topic consumed about seven of fourteen –
maybe as many as nine of fourteen sales tax meetings, which was for a failed measure,
and to me that is a very poor use of our time in an important issue like sales tax. I’m
requesting to have this pulled back today to hear some additional information. Again, I
don’t want to kill the project. I don’t want to kill SPLOST, more importantly. And I feel
quite sure that if we get into these protracted debates over the same thing over and over
again, don’t establish a consistent methodology to use from meeting to meeting, then
we’re going to repeat the mistakes of the past, because we sure as heck haven’t done
anything different than we did before. That is the complete and total truth.
Commissioner Hankerson was quite correct. I got a little bit bent out of shape with it
cause here we were again, not even along the priority list, and a dollar figure on the must-
have projects, and we were already going over into the like-to-have projects. So that’s
my story and I’m sticking to it
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, can I get a motion to vote this up or down?
Mr. Cheek: A motion to receive as information.
Mr. Hankerson: Second. We’re friends again now.
Mr. Cheek: I love you always, man.
62
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, I know you don’t usually get discussion on something
to receive as information, that’s pretty much one that gets everybody out of a hole. It’s
non-argumentative and nobody wants to talk about it. I’m just going to make an
observance. I have no problem and I’m going to vote for that to receive it as information.
But I think you all need to set some [inaudible]. I mentioned about [inaudible] I think
since I made the majority of the ones on all the hearings, I think I made more than
anybody else did, and sat here longer than anybody else did and [inaudible] another crew
to sit her longer this time. I’ll show up when needed but to a point of [inaudible] and I’m
through. But I’ll say this. If you are going to on Thursday – and we were talking about
those must do items – I think what you better seriously decide is that if you are going to
deal with projects outside of government – and I don’t have a problem with how we
discuss that – but I think if you’re going to open that door, then you need to decide to
open that door to the community and to other projects that are out there that need to be
discussed. And I don’t think we ought to close it to a point. A good example, I make, I
see a person sitting there, for instance, on the board of directors of the Mini Theatre. And
percentage-wise they came to the tale percentage-wise. Not dollar-wise, but percentage-
wise they came to the table with more money than anybody else did other than public
transit. Public transit had 80% or 90% depending on the amount we get back,
reimbursement for sales tax. Mini Theatre came in with 50% of its money in the bank.
Now if we going to do this and we are going to deal with one project, then I think y’all
need to have your guidelines set, you know, when I say y’all need to do it, y’all got the
votes to do it, think about it. But I think if you put one on, get ready for those who are
going to come as delegation items that are going to represents various parts of the
community, whether it be from performing arts, whether it be from other items that are
yet to be put on there, and are going to want to be heard. And I think you need to have
some clarity there to a point that where at least there is some uniformity shown as to how
you are going to put this out and deal with it. If not, then I think you’ve got joke city
starting all over again. And as I told y’all the other night, being a single man, I ain’t
going to stay here on into the wee, wee hours of the night any more. I’m going to find
something else to do. I’ve got a few more months to be here – I love y’all and respect
you as colleagues, but I won’t be sitting up here with y’all at midnight. Most of you got
somebody to go home to. I will not be here. So with those crazy arguments up until
starting one day and ending on another, but I think you need to decide. If you’re going to
do that with one item – and Andy is correct, we took a lot of time – but in fairness,
whatever you do on one particular item, we need to have unity to a point – see Lowell
sitting there. [inaudible] and folk are going to line up and say what is your formula and
it could get everywhere from eight figures of money to seven figures of money to six
figures of money. So are you going to do that? And then when you start talking that
game, there are those who said we’re going to put a limit, we’re going to put years, we’re
going to have a little small SPLOST, we get along, and then y’all done blowed that out of
the water, too. So just consider the fact that when you allow whatever category you start
with and you open that door [inaudible] in court when you open that door, then I think
you got to stick with that and let everybody who wants to come through it have the
63
opportunity to come through it. And that’s just an observance. I ain’t mad with nobody
about it. But it just an observance.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. Mays. We talked about this before. The
voters done, done said what they wanted, what they didn’t want. We been threatened, we
going to Columbia County. They ain’t went yet. They ain’t going go. But if they do
that, fine. I mean, but, if Columbia County can drive down here to go to a sports arena,
we sure can drive out there to go to a sports arena, so what’s going hurt? Let them go on
and go to Columbia County. I mean we need to vote this thing up or down [inaudible]
because what you just stated. We got the amphitheater that’s going come, you got the
arts – I mean everybody’s going come, just like you just stated, and they’ll be within their
rights to do it. The voters done said they did not want this. We going to force it on them
anyway? We going to make them take it cause they say they didn’t want it? I’m not, I’m
ready to vote on it now. Now if I get a substitute motion, we still can vote on it. Vote it
up or down. But I think we need to do something, quit playing games.
Mr. Hankerson: Call for the question.
Ms. Beard: I’d like to –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: One thing. I’ve had a number of organizations to come and ask to
speak with me, which means I know that you have had them, too. Now I’ve declined to
speak with anyone until I know the direction we will be going. But I, whatever direction
we take, everyone is going to be given an equal chance. It will not be one or two
deciding what this body is going to do and that be it, because everything else is pork. If
we are going to do pork, we are going to do it down the line. And I know enough about
SPLOST to know you can do it many different ways. I know the citizens have spoken,
but it looks like we are not ready to listen to them. And so it’s going to be very important
that we get some good direction from our Administrator. This is what I would say. And
then I think we would all know the direction we will be moving into.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Barbara?
Ms. Sims: Yes, I’d like to say also that I don’t think this is the time we vote up or
down. I think we allow our Administrator to bring back a proposal and then we look at it.
But I think today, Commissioner Cheek simply wanted to bring this forth, but only – not
for a vote, but for discussion. And then decided not even to do that. So I really don’t
think that was his intent, to vote. So I’d like to agree with Commissioner Beard and we
wait until our Administrator brings forth a proposal to us. I’m not sure that that is a
substitute motion, but if it not, I’d like it to be.
Mr. Hankerson: I called for the question. The question was to accept it as
discussion. That’s all it was. It wasn’t a vote on –
64
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to close with this. We have sat through months of hearing
of every organization in this city. Now whatever happens, whatever funding mechanism
or priority list we come up with, we don’t need a parade of folks to come through here
again. It’s time for us to do the job we were sent here to do and pick from the projects we
know are important. I’m sure there will be some give and take. There will be some
things we need to do. Some things that we’d like to do. But bottom line is it serves no
purpose for everybody to come beg again and us sit here through all of those hearings
when we have heard them before, have list upon list of those requests and needs. It’s
time for us to pick the list and get it on the road. Now that’s, that’s the bottom line and to
me that is the painful truth. It’s time to get the show on the road. We don’t need to
rehash every project, everybody’s wish. We’ve got to do what we can afford to do. At
issue here is new information that’s come forward about potential funding mechanisms,
and at this point in time I will take full credit for this discussion, for the – I guess the
anger that prompted it, but also I think I’m big enough to sit back and say if there is some
additional information worth listening to then I would like the ability to sit on this
decision until we have turned over every stone to see that we can do everything we can
for this city.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Don, I see your hand.
Mr. Grantham: Yes, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. The question has been called. I’d like
for the Clerk to read the motion again. I think we need to –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me go back to the rules now. Y’all want to do these
rules and these numbers. The question, when it’s called, don’t mean that it’s – the
question means you vote to see whether you ready to continue debate or not. So the
question don’t automatically mean we vote on the issue that’s at hand. Now I learned
that one the hard way then. I know that one. So when you call for the question, all you
doing is asking are you ready to continue to debate or not.
Mr. Grantham: That’s fine.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So –
Mr. Grantham: I would like to read the motion again so we all understand what
the motion said.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I understand, but before we get to the motion, then if
you calling for the question a second time, we need to vote on the [inaudible], then if you
going to vote on the motion. Read the motion out so you know what the motion is. But
the question has been called and all you saying is are you ready to continue the debate or
not. So – has the question been called? All those that want to debate, finished debate, we
can vote to debate or not anymore, then we can go back to the, to the, to the motion that’s
on the floor. But we vote now on whether you want to continue to debate this anymore
65
or any more conversation on it. All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of
voting. That’s what the question calls for. You called for the question. The question
means in your, in your short term here as a Commissioner, it means that if you ask for the
question to be called that mean you vote whether there is readiness to continue debate or
not. After that is turned down, then we have to –
Mr. Hankerson: No.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Shepard: Well, I think Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think you could simply inquire
if there is any unreadiness to vote on the main motion. Is there unreadiness? Let’s
dispose of that. Any further comments that need to be disposed of. Then let’s vote, Mr.
Mayor Pro Tem, on the, on the, on the motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is that the legal term? The question is –
Mr. Shepard: I think, is there any unreadiness, does anyone wish to further vote
on this motion, further discuss on this motion? Otherwise we need to go ahead and vote
the motion and the substitute. The substitute and the original motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Now are we voting – is there some unreadiness? And Mr.
Shepard, I thought the six votes said that –
Mr. Shepard: I think the Chair needs to dispose of the unreadiness. Whoever
wants to speak any further on this, let them be heard. Otherwise, let’s be heard.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Now since there is still some unreadiness then, and I need
to be clarified with the rule, though. Because –
Mr. Shepard: What unreadiness is there, Mr. Chairman, I mean Mr. Mayor Pro
Tem? I don’t see anybody responding. I think you should go ahead and call the
substitute motion. Call for a vote.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I was trying to get some clarification on the unreadiness
under the call for the question and what that constitute during, after you call for the
question. I mean am I clear with that or what?
Mr. Shepard: Well, my Clerk, our Clerk is saying that there was no properly
seconded substitute motion. So therefore, the only motion on the floor as I recall it is a
motion to receive as information.
Ms. Sims: And refer to the SPLOST work session.
Mr. Shepard: And refer to the SPLOST work session. I would ask that you call
that question, then.
66
Mr. Cheek: A point of parliamentary procedure. When the question is being
called, that requires an up or down vote if you want to continue debate.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Exactly.
Mr. Cheek: So at this point in time, since the question has been called on the only
motion on the floor, what we should do is have an up or down vote to continue debate. If
we get six votes to cease debate [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: If that’s the rule of the Chair, then proceed.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, no. I want to go by the rules. Not the rules of the
Chair, now.
Mr. Shepard: Well, call for the question on the unreadiness motion, Mr. Mayor
Pro Tem. To vote yes here means there is no further unreadiness, is my understanding of
the motion.
Ms. Sims: To vote yes is there is no further unreadiness.
Mr. Cheek: Yes, there is no further unreadiness.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, let me call the question on the unreadiness then.
All those who vote yes, meaning they are ready to proceed with the vote. All those who
vote no, mean they are not.
(Vote on question of whether to discontinue debate on motion on floor)
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Now we’ll vote on the motion that is on the floor to receive
this as information; is that right?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. And to defer it to the SPLOST work session on March 31.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All those in favor let it be known by the normal sign of
voting.
Mr. Mays: Maybe I’m a little unclear on that motion. I’m just, I don’t have to
have a comment on it. I’m just going to abstain on it. I thought we were, we were
allowing him to bring what he was bringing to the work session and continuing
[inaudible]. But what I’m saying [inaudible] motion is the item going forward, the item?
If that’s what the motion says then it means the item that Andy’s got is being put on.
And what I’m hearing y’all saying is are y’all going to discuss that or not. That’s why
I’m a little confused about where you’re going. I already said where I probably wasn’t
67
going to be, so just go on and put the orange button in the middle and do what you need
to do.
(Vote on motion to receive as information)
Mr. Colclough out.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENTS:
52. Consider one from the nominations submitted from the Legislative
Delegation for appointment as Chairman of the Richmond County Board of
Elections.
• Ms. Linda Beasley
• Ms. Carol Spurgeon
• Mr. Darryl L. Brown
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get a nomination? Mr. Hankerson, then Don
Grantham?
Mr. Hankerson: Nomination or motion, I motion that we accept Linda
Beasley.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second that we nominate Ms. Beasley. All
those in favor let it be known by the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
53. Consider the following nominations from the Richmond County Board of
Family and Children Services and Commissioner Betty Beard to fill the unexpired
terms- due to the resignations of Hugh Connolly and Neita Mulherin:
• Ms. Ernestine Thompson
• Dr. Clifford Gardiner
• Ms. Bernice Hankerson (Nominated – Betty Beard)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Need a motion.
68
Mr. Hankerson: I so move.
Mr. Mays: Second.
The Clerk: For what? You’ve got to pick two out of the three.
Mr. Hankerson: Oh, it’s not all those?
The Clerk: No, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: For the record, Hankerson is not related to me. I don’t know her.
Ms. Beard: And she’s a fine person.
Mr. Hankerson: I mean if I’m going to vote, I don’t know how it’s going to go. I
don’t know her. So, for the record.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You got to pick two out of the three. Ms. Beard is going to
be on there, but you got to pick two of the other candidates.
The Clerk: We need one from the three to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Hugh
Connolly and we need one out of the three to fill the unexpired term of Ms. Neita
Mulherin. Family and Children Services submitted nominations of the first two.
Commissioner Beard submitted the nomination of Ms. Hankerson.
Mr. Cheek: I would like to nominate Dr. Clifford Gardiner.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Hankerson: Is that a nomination or vote?
Mr. Cheek: Along with Ms. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: I thought we was voting for one out of the three.
The Clerk: Two out of the three.
Mr. Hankerson: Two out of the three?
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: So it’s Hankerson and Dr. Gardiner?
The Clerk: Yes.
69
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible]
Ms. Beard: Bernice.
Mr. Cheek: I’m confused.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You got a motion and a second. All those in favor, let it be
known by the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
54. Consider the recommendation of the Richmond County Board of Health for
the appointment of Neal A. McQueen to the Community Services Board of East
Central Georgia to fill the unexpired term due to the resignation of Sandra
Hutchinson.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen? Ladies?
Mr. Mays: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. All those in favor, let it be known by
the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS:
55. Discuss the financial institutions that house city monies. (Requested by
Mayor Pro Tem Marion Williams)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ladies and gentlemen, I asked for this to be put on the
agenda that we would get a report back from our Finance Director, as of the length of
time, the amount of monies that the institutions around this city has been housing City
money in relation to their community or community economic investment that they put
back into the city of Augusta in Augusta, not what they doing in other cities. But I’d like
70
to have the amount of money that they are holding, the length of time that they are
holding it, and the reinvestment community efforts for economic development that they
partnership with or did or are doing in the city of Augusta. Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Over what time frame do you want the economic reinvestment?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’d like to have it yesterday but –
Mr. Russell: No, I mean go back a year, go back two years?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, let’s go back five years.
Mr. Russell: Five years? Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yeah, let’s look at it in the last five years.
Ms. Beard: Question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Didn’t we transfer funds or something to a bank a few months ago,
the City funds.
Ms. Sims: We changed banks.
Ms. Beard: To SunTrust, I believe.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What I’m asking is we got money in several banks. I don’t
want just one. I want all of the banks that banking, doing banking services with Augusta.
David?
Mr. Persaud: Late last year, we received an RPF, Commissioner Williams, for
banking services. And the City selected Bank of America. They are the City’s bank, and
most of the funds for operation are housed there. For investment purposes, most of the
funds are kept with the State of Georgia local government investment [inaudible], for
investment purposes. Idle cash that we have identified on a normal basis are [inaudible]
local banks, based in certificates of deposit and based on the highest yield. So the money
is concentrated in the State of Georgia local government investment or Bank of America
and local banks based in CDs.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I need to know, David, what their economic community
input has been, what, whoever bank it is.
Mr. Persaud: Okay.
71
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: How much money they got, how long they been, they have
it. And not just the one bank, but all of the banks that house our monies. You know,
Commissioner Mays been talking about this for quite some time and how other cities –
and I know they doing a lot in Atlanta and a lot in Charlotte. Don’t bring that, please, sir.
Don’t want to know about Charlotte. Don’t want to know about Atlanta. I want to know
what they doing with the monies that we have elected to let them house in Augusta, what
economic development that they brought back to the community, what input have they
had in trying to help rebuild or revitalize any part of this community. I mean we got a lot
of money out there in all those banks, and it’s more than one. We need, I like to have
some input on that.
Mr. Persaud: We’ll get a report for you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Fred?
Mr. Russell: Come back here or come back to Finance, sir?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go back to Finance. I’d like to have it in Finance. Next
item, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: The next item –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Excuse me.
Mr. Mays: You need a motion for that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Can I get a motion to
: Yeah, I thought we had one
receive that as information?
Ms. Sims: So move.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second to receive as information. All those in
favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Mays: Could the maker of the motion accept a friendly amendment that
that be passed to Finance on what’s in there?
Cause I mean he stated some facts about
the information. I just wanted to make sure you had what you wanted to go forward.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yeah, it’s going back to Finance.
(No opposition to amendment)
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
72
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
55A. Discuss the city’s policy concerning former and/or current city employees
accepting employment with contractors performing work for city government.
(Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Marion Williams)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I asked this to be put on the agenda after learning of an
employee who has been away from this government less than 90 to 120 days who has
gone to work for companies and firms that doing work for this county. And we have an
ordinance in place. And I need to know who is the gatekeeper, what do we do? Do we
deal with the contractor? What, what, what’s our resource when we put an ordinance in
place, and I can name as least three that left this government, went to work for a firm that
doing business with this government. Mr. Shepard? I know y’all got a law practice, but
y’all need to practice over here now.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, I was called by –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, I understand.
Mr. Shepard: The language in the handbook has been pending the review of that
handbook, which has been a project that’s been undergoing, been undertaken by HR and
my office. My understanding for the time table of the completion of that is April 11.
That’s been worked all winter basically with – now the contracts language I don’t think
has ever been inserted in the contracts, Mr. Williams. And so the handbook is going to
be something we will have to you by then next committee cycle, which will address the
post-employment covenants. Now the proposed post-employment covenants, you have to
be very careful with in Georgia because they have to be reasonably limited as to time,
territory, scope of activity, this sort of thing. And they are really disfavored under
Georgia law, because they’re seen to restrict economic activity on the part of employees.
This is a state that has a preference for a freedom of labor movement from one entity to
another, so you could have post-employment covenants which are scrutinized, and if
they’re too broad they will be stricken. Right now, I don’t think there has been any
activity in a formal way since this, since this recommendation was made in 2001. It
hasn’t been, not been worked on by my office, but this was in 2001.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me get Mr. Cheek to comment, cause there is some
issues that I can address to it, but go ahead, Andy.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. 2001. My understanding, this was
put forth in the form of an ordinance [inaudible] made into law, not subject to the -
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s right.
73
Mr. Cheek: - HR manual for people to adhere to if they feel like it. This was
brought about by the former director of IT who negotiated a contract with a very
expensive telecommunications company and then immediately going to work for them
after leaving here. I remember it very well. And now we’re in the situation where we
may have had an employee who was not allowed to continue his – well, we went ahead
and allowed him to retire, going directly to work for a company that he was involved
with supervising their work activities, as well as possibly being involved with contract
information. It’s just really hard to swallow. It’s 2005, isn’t it? That’s four years.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: And that was implemented in 2001, that we – that’s a pretty sorry
state of affairs if we haven’t implemented something in four years that is a significant
tool of fighting conflict of interest and collusion as this gets. I find it very hard to
swallow, and I, for one, if this is the case, would be in favor of terminating contracts with
this contractor because of very serious potential conflicts of interest that may exist with
this employee and contractor.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if we’re going to be specific, Mr. Cheek, I
suggest we discuss that in legal. If it’s going to be a policy change we can discuss it here.
Mr. Cheek: But it should have been a policy change. We voted by six votes to
change it four years ago. And it hasn’t been implemented.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays, go ahead.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me, let me say this. While I agree with the attorney on
the specifics, particularly in names and what you may have to discuss in legal, the policy
side of it – and I do stand to be corrected – but I think there is something that we do have
to discuss in legal and that is – and I was going to say this under the vein of potential
litigation – that I think we have already, quite frankly, used this policy in another case to
determine a case against another former employee where we’ve used this as the
background in order to do it. Now – and the reason why we were able to do it and did it
was the fact that it was voted on by this Commission, rightly or wrongly. Now until
that’s overturned in a court of law to say that’s not a policy or ordinance that stands, then
I think we can do that. But I think to a point of it’s been voted on, if we’ve used it and
we’ve got litigation pending that may be in the middle of that, then we do need to – and I
agree with Steve – we need to discuss it. Because the one that Andy is talking about will
not be the only one that you’ve got out there. I remember very correctly what sparked
this and to bring this on, and we voted at that time that we needed to have some
separation time. I can’t remember whether we’re talking about a two year period or what
the time frame is, but there was a separation that was formally called for. Now whether
it’s right or wrong, that hadn’t been struck down yet, cause quite frankly, it hadn’t been
tested. Now if it’s tested, struck down, then we do away with it, but I think because of
the fact we are in another employee in a situation, in a claim, that we heard in legal,
cannot divulge that name to a point because of that being litigation, but I think we need
74
to, to a point, that we need to before we say that we do not have a formal policy, we need
to (1) determine whether we’ve reinforced that we’ve got one, and we need to enforce it
if it’s there, and we need to enforce it uniformly. And that would be my suggestion on
how we deal with it. Because we’ve crossed that line of demarcation already. So now if
we erase that, then that means that we are going to go backwards on what we have that’s
already pending in one particular case. So we out there, now, on that deal whether we
like that deal or not. And it’s up to a court to decide whether or not you got something
there that cannot hold up. But to say we don’t have it, this Commission did vote on that to
do that and to put it in place. That’s how we were able to enforce it on the one we got
that’s pending.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And to add to that, Mr. Mays, Mr. Shepard, you was on this
Commission at that time when we voted. Being the attorney, in that position where you
are now, I’m really surprised to hear that we don’t have anything officially, to sort of
speak, that’s, that’s permanent. I mean because this came up, we talked about it in legal.
That’s why we put that, that, that, that directive in place, because of that. Now we got an
employee – and I said two or three and I can name at least two – that’s done went out and
hired – and Commissioner Cheek was right, it started with IT, when it started. And we
recognized that then that there was a problem and we tried to address that to get
something done about it. Now here it is now 2005, the ordinance still in place. We still
pay for the ordinance to be written, we still paid the attorney to sit there and advise us,
but ain’t nothing happened. Now, I’m sorry, but you in the chair right now. I used to call
on Jim.
Mr. Shepard: I understand.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You are in that position, you are the man in the seat. And if
I can get a motion out of Commissioner Cheek or some other Commissioner, we need to
rescind the commitment to work with this firm whose done hired anybody that our rule
has said that they would not work for any of those firms for at least two years. And that’s
what it says. Two years. And this ain’t been two months. Mr. Shepard, go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: I would suggest that the matter be postponed until after legal so that
I have – [inaudible] I was given and that’s – I mean, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I don’t want to
make a mistake here. I want to advise you properly. And –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard, I hear you, but I tell you what, I’m really
disappointed. I done –
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I mean –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mistakes have been made so many times and then we – it
like somebody step on your foot and then when you go to get back [inaudible] excuse me.
No, I’m disappointed now. I really am. This ain’t personal.
Mr. Shepard: I understand that.
75
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right.
Mr. Shepard: It’s not personal with me. But I don’t do all this work in
preparation for these meetings, but I do have a large share that I need to deal with and I
am accountable, you’re absolutely right. That’s my job.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So we need to move into legal; is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Shepard: I would ask you to do it after legal. Postpone it until after legal, sir.
Mr. Cheek: Can I have one closing comment?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: And I want to [inaudible] this is something that came up – I think all
of us remember – that it was framed in the context of eliminating conflict of interest and
collusion in this government, which had occurred at various levels more than once. For
the former attorney not to follow through with it and implement it is a very good, classic
example of staff or whoever of what Mayor Pro Tem Williams –
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I hate to interrupt [inaudible] Mr. Cheek, but I
think we lost a quorum at this point. In terms of functioning. Thing we’re down to six
people.
Mr. Shepard: I think we are going to have to suspend our operation because we
can’t make a motion. I didn’t know Rev. Hankerson had left.
Mr. Cheek: I think we can take a recess.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, we will. We will move into a recess now at this time,
since –
Mr. Shepard: You can search the halls for him, but we need –
Mr. Cheek: It’s just a shame that we passed something in 2001, expect it to be
implemented and our previous attorney did not see fit or staff or whoever to implement
policy established by this board. Policy that’s very important to correct a long-term
problem within this city government. And I for one am in favor of not seeing this type of
thing happen again. When we pass it and we labored through these debates and
discussions, it is the job of the people we hired to run this city government day to day to
implement. And so I just want to express my general disgust with us being four years
down the road with no tools in hand apparently to fight some of the long-term problems
that really have cost this city a lot of money and quality on the work.
76
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem
: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. I hope some tools are in place,
though, when you research the minutes I’m sure you are going to find where we did pass
that. It may not been acted upon and we need to act upon it now, but there are some tools
in place. I’m very, very sure of that. The Clerk have those minutes and we might need to
Can I get a motion to receive this as information?
get those.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Been a motion and second to receive as information. All
those in favor let it be known by the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me add that the Attorney and Administrator bring
something back to us as soon as possible, after researching this to make sure.
Mr. Shepard: Next meeting of the full Commission, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem; is that
all right? Or run it through committee?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Committee.
Mr. Shepard: Administrative Services.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s right. I need something before then.
Mr. Shepard: That’s fine.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. And we got two young ladies who been patiently
waiting and they got an education whether they wanted it or not. They had an education
down here. From the Junior League; is that right? Will you please come to the podium
and explain to us what –
The Clerk: You want me to read the agenda item?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, please, ma’am. Please, ma’am. Do that. And then
have them to come.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
59. Motion to authorize the Junior League of Augusta, Inc to construct a
playground at Pendleton King Park.
77
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Give us your name and address, please.
Ms. Roberts: My name is Lisa Roberts and my address is 1107 Peachtree Road.
Ms. Speaker: I’m Rebecca [inaudible] and I’m at 2905 Stratford Drive.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Explain to us what, exactly what you intend or want this
body to do or what you’re planning to do at Pendleton King Park.
Ms. Roberts: Okay, we have been working with the Pendleton King Park
Commission and the Public Works in planning a playground that’s going to be – replace
the old equipment at Pendleton King Park. This first phase coming up in just a few
weeks will be for children ages two to five. It has extensive handicap accessibility. The
equipment is paid for by funds that the Junior League has raised from our community
projects over the past years. This is in celebration of our 75 years of service in this
community. Pendleton King Park was chosen because we feel that that is just really an
under-utilized resource of this community and we are interested in being a part of the
revitalization there. It is a beautiful place and we think that it needs to be strengthened
and more of a place for families, and the playground will help us do that. And our
installation is going to be volunteer driven. The City is going to be helping us in terms of
preparation of this site and also maintenance after the equipment is built with some
playground mulch and that type of thing.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And what do you need from this body?
Ms. Roberts: A blessing, I think.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Grantham: Second. I just think this is a great opportunity and it shows a spirit
of cooperation within this community from these civic clubs that we know throughout
this area. And Junior League has certainly been one that has been a real front runner in
all cases and have always made themselves known and just exhibited the spirit of God’s
will and what can be done. So I just applaud them and ask this body to authorize them to
go ahead and do it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I serve that district. Pendleton King Park is in my
district. I have tried to get some money in the sales tax. I explained to try to erect a zoo
of some sort in Pendleton King Park. It is a great resource that we are not using, that we
have not tapped into. I shared some information and I’m going to share it again that
when you tell people about a zoo they say well, there’s one in Columbia. And there’s
one in Atlanta. And I say how do you know? Well, I’ve been up there. I say [inaudible]
there’s not even a milk cow in that area for kids to look at. And when we talking about a
sports arena [inaudible] we don’t even have the minimum things that we ought to have in
our city for families and stuff. And that’s how you are going to get people to come, to
grow. I plan to put something back in sales tax again to try and do that. I met with the
78
Pendleton King Park board, I talked with them about my experience in Nashville,
Tennessee, at the Opryland hotel, how everything was under one roof. And we may not
be able to do it at one time, but we need to start thinking out of the box. We need to start
doing some things different. We need to start to enlighten and we got so much on our
plate, so much to be handled, but we have not forgotten. We appreciate your effort, you
have our blessings, we going try to get [inaudible] work with you as much as possible, as
we possibly can, and we do commend you, and we apologize again for not recognizing
you earlier and have you stay all this time. But just look at the experience you got today.
Ms. Roberts: Well, we did, because we already have plans in place for the second
phase of this project. We are beginning an initiative about healthy kids and this falls
right into that and we will be hoping to extend this relationship. And so we have learned
some things, about going through the proper channel and we’ll do better next time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there a motion?
The Clerk: We have one.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Before we vote, Mr. Hankerson has –
Mr. Hankerson: I was just concerned about the Junior League. You all been
working here 75 years?
(Laughter)
Ms. Roberts: My grandmother.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We got a motion and second. All those in favor let it be
known by the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Ms. Roberts: Thank you, and we hope to see you all at the ribbon cutting on
April 23 at 1:00 p.m.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
56. Discuss report from AHED relative to the itemized list of accountability of
the $500,000 predevelopment grant monies. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Marion
Williams)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Smith, I see you there. If you’d come to the
microphone. I met with the Mayor and talked with him about the grant money and what
79
it is intended for. The Mayor shared with me and explained to me that the money was to
assist to the [inaudible] to do some things and I just needed to hear from you, from your
perspective as to the $500,000.
Mr. Warren Smith: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Commission, at the
st
Administrative Services meeting on the 21 of March, I provided you a breakdown per
your request of the expenditures for the Neighborhood Initiatives Grant. It was a grant
that we received back, [inaudible] actually, the grant [inaudible] 2001 and the grant was
for predevelopment activities of a whole variety of things that we needed to do in order to
prepare for revitalization. The grant designates three different areas that we would
pursue expenditures on: affordable housing special initiatives, commercial retail
revitalization technical assistance, then grant administration. And in the report that we
provided as a breakdown of each one of these expenditures, by payee and then by
category, and I just wanted to say that – and again, I think the second list is a general
breakdown but it is also a breakdown having to do with expenditures of allocated funds
for [inaudible]. Four of the [inaudible] have received assistance. But more so, I think the
more important thing is the overall initiative provided activities that helped us with
planning for the revitalization districts, the target area master plan. We did some general
things that benefited the [inaudible] overall. So those activities technically could be
contributed to support and assistance of the [inaudible]. But as you do see on that second
chart, you’ve got a breakdown and it shows expenditures under the NIG] funds, and also
we did provide funds, $25,000 under home administration to the [inaudible] directly for
activities of a predevelopment nature.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Smith, let me, let me share. I met with the Mayor. In
fact, we went to lunch at one of his favorite places. He paid, so it didn’t matter to me.
But I asked him about this grant and he assured me, he showed me that the grant was for
the [inaudible] and to assist them and to help with some of these things. And you talking
about economic development. He mentioned that economic development in the inner
city, meaning that not adjacent downtown and not that we ought not do anything
downtown, but he said the grant was for the inner city type developments. On this list it
talk about $50,000 for affordable housing and market assistance and other things that you
mentioned. But that was two lists of names, Laney-Walker, East Augusta, Sand Hills,
and Bethlehem and Turpin Hill, and that was [inaudible] Promised Land Community. Do
these [inaudible], do these agencies receive the money from this grant?
Mr. Warren Smith: Yes. The four that are mentioned in the report did receive
funds. Sands Hills, Promised Land was provided funds.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Funds, what’s the figure with the funds? What’s the
number associated with the funds? Funds could be from 1 to 101, I guess, but [inaudible]
and I’m looking at what the set-aside was here. I’m asking you how much money,
because there is some conflict again as to who got what from our report, from what I’ve
been told, that they didn’t. And it’s so much. You got a large department, Mr. Smith.
You got a lot to deal with over there. You got a lot of funds and lot of different areas that
they disbursed in. When you got all of that, it’s like putting your hand in a candy jar.
80
You going to come out, you are going to come out with something of everything. You
can’t come out with all whatever unless you really paying close attention. And I just, I
just want to know – you say they received funds. Did they receive $50,000? Did they
receive –
Mr. Warren Smith: Specifically, out of the NIG Grant, Sand Hills received
$33,248.53, and out of our Home Admin they received $9,951.47. Promised Land
received out of the NIG funds $20,471, and out of the Home Admin, $5,500. Laney-
Walker received funds of $29,000 and that came out of the NIG funds. Again, that’s
Neighborhood Initiatives Grant. And East Grant received $5,200 out of the NIG and
actually there’s another invoice of I think $6,000 that I have in my office right now.
They also received $9,581 out of Home Admin. Those are the four [inaudible] that have
received funds under this initiative.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can you answer why was the Bethlehem/Turpin Hill
Neighborhood, Bethlehem and Turpin Hill redevelopments study I guess was not done
and was given to Promised Land? Is that –
Mr. Warren Smith: Okay, that study was a part of the target area master plan.
And the target area master plan actually was a study that included those areas, as well as
Laney-Walker, Harrisburg, those are all areas that were under the target area master plan.
You may recall, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, that actually back about a year ago we presented
that plan to you and those activities from the consultant and from our efforts culminated
in the drafting of that master plan that we were able to provide to HUD for designation of
that area as a neighborhood revitalization area. The [inaudible], as well as all residents in
that area, benefit by that because it allows us to function actually to qualify for special
dispensation by HUD in having that designation. And that plan benefited us in that way.
So again, that’s another maybe indirect benefit to [inaudible], but that – in the plan or in
this document, that study did not identify any [inaudible] to do that work. It just
identified study in that area.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem:
I don’t have anything else. I think when the Mayor gets
back he may want to address this and talk with you about it, maybe a committee or
something. There is some, some I guess misunderstanding among the [inaudible] and
, but I need a motion just to receive as information
who got what and when and then
we can –
Ms. Sims: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: - address this at another time. Motion and second. Ms.
Beard had her hand up. She wants to comment.
Ms. Beard: I do have a comment. Warren doesn’t get a lot of accolades or
anything, but I do want all of you to know this is Community Development Week and
81
they had their first program yesterday and it was absolutely outstanding. He did an
exceptional job. And the thing that impressed me most was that he had many of the
organizations that benefit from his –
Mr. Warren Smith: [inaudible]
Ms. Beard: - and they were given an opportunity to talk about the type things
they do. Health program. Homeless programs. Young people. The elderly. It was
absolutely exceptional. And the thing that impressed me most was the thing that they
were so appreciative of the assistance they have been getting from him. I think we really
just don’t know how broad that program is. It includes a lot. And I really, I want to
thank you for what you are doing for this community.
Mr. Warren Smith: I want to thank you, Commissioner. I really appreciate that.
We don’t necessarily have a chance to really tell our full story, but there’s a lot of great
things happening in this community and a lot of people working together, and there’s a
lot – as I said yesterday, we’re getting a lot of things done for the people of Augusta.
Thank you again.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other comments from anybody? Warren, I, too, think
that – I don’t think everything you do is bad and I hope you don’t get that impression
from this board. But we have gotten so many different conflict of information from your
office with different groups. I’m sure that there is some good in the worst of us and there
is some bad in the best of us. So I want you to realize that it’s about doing all you can do.
I mean you ain’t going to please everybody, so as long as you do what you know is right,
you are going to have some that criticize and some that you are going to please. But I do
thank you for what you do. I do think you got a lot on your plate. I do think that’s a job
that very much needed. Sometimes it’s appreciated, sometimes it’s not. But as an
elected official I think we’ve got to make sure that when the conflicts come in, that we
explain and we try to get to the bottom so we won’t have those things. They was talking
about dividing departments and yours is the one that came to my mind because of the
conflicts that we had, meaning all of the different things that done been – and you been
here, it’s not new to you. I’m just saying to you that you going to be appreciated
sometimes and you going to be criticized sometimes. That’s, that’s a part of life. So I
thank you for what you do, though. I really do. I mean that.
Mr. Warren Smith: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get a motion to receive as information?
Ms. Sims: You did.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, can I get a vote on it? All those in favor, let it be
known by the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough out.
82
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can we do legal in thirty minutes?
Mr. Shepard: Well, my suggestion, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, what we don’t get done,
perhaps we could recess until Thursday at 2:00 o’clock and then come back and finish it
right before SPLOST. I’ll get as much as I can.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Smith and the Administrator I know have to leave.
Mr. Shepard: Ms. Beard needs to leave.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Beard need to leave. Can we go into legal and get done
what we need to get done, and then we’ll take the simple stuff and get it out the way.
That simple Steve stuff. Take that and –
60. LEGAL MEETING:
A. Pending and potential litigation.
B. Real Estate.
C. Personnel.
Mr. Shepard: I’d like a motion to go into legal for the purposes stated on the
agenda.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second we go into legal. All those in favor.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
61. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with the Georgia’s Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Have we got a motion to approve the signing of the
affidavit?
Mr. Cheek: Motion to sign the affidavit.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
83
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a motion to approve the signing of the affidavit.
All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Colclough and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do I have a motion to – Mr. Shepard?
62. Add and approve actions from legal session regarding
A. Pending and potential litigation.
B. Real Estate.
C. Personnel.
be a motion to
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’d ask first of all that there
add and approve the conclusion of the suit for condemnation of the property at the
K-Mart bus stop in the amount of $12,500 paid to the condemnee which is known as
the Schonfeld Family Trust, with me to negotiate a final order that would
completely end the case as to K-Mart and the Schonfeld Trust [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Need a motion.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. All those in favor, let it be known by
the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Colclough and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I’d also like to ask you to add
Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
and approve the severance agreement with E. W. Reece, II, who was the former
Chief Appraiser. This is presented, is in the parameters, and that is basically a
payment of his salary – pay day, which is falling on June 24 – that’s for services
th
through the 17. In the paychecks from April 1 through June 10 his salary and
benefits will be continued as set forth in the severance agreement and then on his
last paycheck he will be given a lump sum for accrued vacation and holiday pay all
in a – this is including the taxes and other deductions – all in a not to exceed amount
of $33,357.78. That is not what he’s being paid, that’s just gross. That is subject to
reduction for all taxes, all benefits that he’s elected.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there a motion?
84
Ms. Sims: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All those in favor let it be known by the normal sign of
voting.
Mr. Colclough and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Steve?
Mr. Shepardorder that we can
: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Finally, in
finish the matters in the legal session in a less rushed manner, that we go ahead and
recess until 2:00 on Thursday and come back into legal session and cover some
matters that we didn’t have time to do.
Mr. Mays: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. All those in favor let it be known by
the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Colclough and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[MEETING RECESSED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on March 29, 2005.
______________________________
Lena J. Bonner
85