HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 3, 2005 Augusta-Richmond County Commission
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
MAY 3, 2005
Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday, May 3,
2005, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
Present: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Mays, Grantham, Williams, Cheek,
Beard, Sims and Beard, members of Augusta-Richmond County Commission.
Also present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The invocation was given by Rev. Otis Jackson, Sr.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
CONGRATULATIONS!
Mayor Bob Young on his appointment to the U. S. Department of Commerce
Strengthening of America’s Communities Advisory Committee.
RECOGNITION:
Augusta Utilities Department
GW&PCA Awards (Georgia Water Pollution and Control Association)
• James B. Messerly Wastewater Treatment Plant-2005 Gold Award
and Best Operated Plant in the State for 2005.
• Water Treatment Plants-Gold Award
• Milton Williams- District 6 Water Treatment Plant Operator of the
year.
(Tape starts here)
Mr. Hicks: You will remember about six years ago we were a far cry from being
recognized as best in the state, so we’ve come a long way in the past six years, and I want
to introduce you to the folks that are here standing with me.
Mr. Andrews: My name is Mark Andrews, I’m the project for OMI. We’ve got
Chris [inaudible], one of our operations folks, and [inaudible] is one of our lab
technicians. I invited all of our folks to attend today but they were extremely busy. And
not to leave one of my favorite people out, this is the guy that most of the public sees
because he takes care of the political stuff we have to take care of, Mr. Tony Johnson.
Mr. Hicks: And we thank all of them. And I will just say that our assistant
director over at Wastewater, Alan Saxon, is in a meeting in Washington with the
Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies, at which he also received an award from
them regarding the operation of the Messerly Plant for this past year. So we will
recognize staff at the next meeting. It’s really good. They [inaudible].
1
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Hicks: Go right ahead.
Mr. Speaker: We actually [inaudible] so that is pretty awesome.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Hicks: In regard to that, our water treatment plant won [inaudible] awards for
the year, with no deficiency for the water [inaudible]. So for the surface water, Alfred
Griffin.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Hicks: And for the groundwater [inaudible], Alan [inaudible].
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Hicks: One of our operators, Milton Williams, was recognized as the District
6 Water Treatment Plant Operator of the Year.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Hicks: Then last, but not least, Brantley Kuglar is standing here. He’s a
quality control superintendent. You will all be getting a copy of – this is the latest
consumer confidence report. We call it our annual water quality report. This is the
edition of 2005 which is the [inaudible] and each of the Commissioners has a copy of this
[inaudible]. Last year, this particular document, again published Brantley, or headed up
by Brantley, won the Best in State award. We don’t look for a repeat this year, but we’re
going to have a go at it. You can see it’s a very competitive-looking little document and I
hope all of you take time to read it. Brantley, you want to have anything to say about
that?
Mr. Kuglar: Not really. Maybe I can come back next year if we win the award.
We’re shooting for it, anyway.
Mr. Hicks: It’s good to be recognized and to have quality, not only [inaudible]
with the public.
Mr. Mayor: Just very briefly, let me congratulate this team. It’s a wonderful
team we have in Utilities, on the water side, the wastewater side. You do some
marvelous work and I think it’s important for the customers and citizens of this
community to see the quality work we’re doing and the recognition that these folks are
getting. You’re absolutely right, Max. Six years ago we couldn’t get any lower than it
was. It was lower than a snake’s belly, I think is one way that somebody might put it.
2
But we have a Utilities Department now that is [inaudible], that is a role model for the
utilities departments around this country, it’s a story that is told repeatedly in other cities,
in other counties, it’s a national story, and that’s because of the people we have who are
working for us in the system here. And our congratulations go to each and every one of
them and we’ll continue to support you with the monies and bond issue and [inaudible]
enhancements that we can bring to the system to give you the very environment possible
you could have to work in. Thank you for what you do.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Cheek: Just to follow along. It’s amazing the progress we’ve made in the
last few years and it’s amazing the progress [inaudible] and OMI has made. I’ll tell you a
brief story. Went out there [inaudible] for years the [inaudible]. And so we were hoping
[inaudible] and now we’ve got 25 months. This is amazing [inaudible] replaced
institutional mediocrity with institutional excellence. The same is true [inaudible] this
city [inaudible] we, the Commission, put the task upon this staff to make it the best in the
world, and I believe they’re on the way. I think they’ve been recognized more in the last
couple of years than probably [inaudible] recorded history. We’re on the way to
excellence, and it’s because of the people [inaudible]. And we thank you for the
dedication and hard work and leadership.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Max, I’m convinced that one day we’ll be standing here and you’ll
be letting the Commission know that you’ve won the Malcolm Baldridge Award
[inaudible].
Mr. Hicks: We appreciate all the compliments.
Mr. Mayor: Next is delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION
Ms. G. W. Sager
Mr. Mayor: Is Ms. Sager here? Okay. Let’s see, if we could, Madame Clerk, I
would like to skip ahead if we could to item number 11. I understand that the people
involved in that have a flight to catch, so if we could go ahead and take care of that, then
we’ll get into our consent agenda.
The Clerk:
11. Approve Resolution of Support for PRI’s renovation project of Cedarwood
th
Apartments. (Refereed from April 11 Administrative Services)
3
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson? You want to speak?
Mr. Hankerson: That’s in Commissioner Williams’s district. I give him the
honor.
Mr. Mayor: Marion?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I did have an opportunity to talk
several times with, in support of this firm. I’ve got some information that was sent to me
and I did get an opportunity to go out and talk to some of the residents. I am in support.
They did this resolution done so they can kind of get the ball in motion, I believe, to get
some things set to get started. I don’t see any reason to hold this up, Mr. Mayor. Like I
said, I did go out and I did review some information. I’m not fully abreast of all of it, but
I think it’s a good support to revive that area and to do some work. The residents was
kind of surprised, those I talked to. Talked to a lot of them. They didn’t know some of
that was taking place. And the firm was not at liberty to go out and share information
with them. But being a Commissioner, I was concerned. I went out and kind of
enlightened some of those as to what would be taking place, and they seemed to be
I am going to make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we
pleased. So I’m pleased, as well.
go ahead and approve this resolution and that we get the ball rolling so that they
can get the necessary steps in place.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: I second that motion.
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to second it and make some comments?
Mr. Mayor: Comments?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir, I’d like for it be known that we are happy that this
development is coming. Renovation is coming to the Cedarwood apartments. We have a
$3.8 million renovation project and I think that’s something to move the agenda up and
let the businessman come in town and then leave out on time, so we hope that we can
continue to get renovation of our apartments and things like that across Augusta. So I
second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor then please vote with the usual
sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Can we get the resolution signed [inaudible].
4
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: I’ll get Ms. Bonner to sign, and there’s a transmittal letter on your
word processor already.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Gallagher?
Mr. Gallagher: I’d like to just thank everyone here. I’m Tom Gallagher,
representing PRI today. This is, I think, a wonderful development for Cedarwood in
Commissioner Williams’ area. We’ve spent about $20,000 a unit on this property. It will
look dramatically different when we’re done. All the siding will be replaced. All the
roofs, all the air conditioning and the heating. And we’ll be leaving the rents exactly
where they are, so there will be no displacement of any of Commissioner Williams’
constituents or our residents. We are at the delicate point where we have a contract to
buy and the seller is reluctant to have us broadcast the news in case something should
happen that we can’t go through with it. So we have not been able to do the kind of
publicity, but we will shortly, and I really thank you all for your support today and
consideration to taking this early on the agenda. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: You want us to keep this action a secret today?
Mr. Gallagher: I do not. No, no, no.
(Laughter)
Mr. Gallagher: No, I do not, Your Honor. Thanks very much. It’s too late now.
Mr. Mayor: It’s too late now. Madame Clerk, if we can, let’s try to build a
consent agenda.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: If we may. I think we’ve got a couple in the book and I think you’ve
given us a supplemental sheet, so we will run through those.
The Clerk: On our printed agenda, regular agenda, consent agenda is items
1 and 1A. Item 1 and 1A. The Clerk: Supplemental agenda, consent agenda,
consists of items 3, approved in the Public Services Committee meeting earlier
today, items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9; are all on the consent agenda. Recommended for
consent agenda. The Clerk: Recommended under our Engineering portion –
5
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, why don’t you go ahead and read the alcohol since
we’re there?
The Clerk: Okay. For any objectors for the alcohol petitions, if there are any,
once the application, petition is read, would you please signify your objections by raising
your hand?
5. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-35: A request by Richard R.
Branker for an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in
connection with R & J Wings, LLC d/b/a WingStop located at 2803 Wrightsboro
Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 3. Super District 10.
6. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-36: A request by Bryan Bilmingham
for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in
connection with Allie Katz Bar & Grill located at 202 Hudson Trace. There will be
Sunday sales. District 7. Super District 10.
The Clerk: Correction on that, applicant’s name is Brian Birmingham.
7. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-37: A request by Patel Ritesh for a
retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Shreeji Food
Market located at 1342 Gordon Hwy. District 1. Super District 9.
8. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-38: A request by Paul Davis for an on
premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Coconuts located at 1082 Bertram Road. There will be dance. District 7. Super
District 10.
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk. All right, if you’ll continue.
The Clerk: Under the Engineering portion of the agenda, the Engineering
Services Committee offer as a consent agenda items 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 30
and item 34.
Mr. Mayor: I believe item 29, the committee requested that be held until the next
committee meeting.
The Clerk: Deferred to the May 9 committee meeting.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Are there any other items on the agenda that we could
include on a consent agenda?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
6
From the Finance Committee, item 17, which is a match for the
Mr. Boyles:
third level of the canal. I’d like to put that on consent. Item 18, the funding for the
hazard mitigation plan also comes from a grant. I’d like to put that on consent.
Item 19, which is a request from the Augusta-Richmond County Community
Partnership for Children and Families to serve, for this Commission to serve as a
fiscal agent. We have done that many times with other groups as pass-through. I
would like to have those three items added to consent. And item 21, also.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Boyles: That would be 18, 19, 21 and 17 from Finance on consent.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any other items that we can move to consent? We need to
motion with respect to the consent agenda, and then we’ll go back and pull those items
that you’d like to take out to discuss.
Mr. Boyles: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Are there any of those items that
have been enumerated for consent that you would like to pull out for discussion?
Mr. Colclough: I would just like to get some clarification on 22 from Human
Resources.
Mr. Mayor: Number 22. Okay. We’ll pull item 22 for Mr. Colclough. Okay.
Any other items you’d like to pull from consent? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: 17, please.
Mr. Mayor: Number 17 for Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Williams: 22 has been pulled already, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, that’s been pull.
The Clerk: Companion item, number 13.
Mr. Mayor: That’s a companion item for 22?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, did 34 make it to consent, or is that, did that make it to
consent?
7
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: I’d like to –
Mr. Mayor: Yes, that’s on consent.
Mr. Cheek: I’d like to just ask a quick question about that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any other items that you’d like to pull? We have 13, 17, 22
and 34 from consent.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to make a correction. I think 17 is already in consent and
my understanding, that should be $825,000 instead of $815,000. To be compatible with
the backup it should be $825,000.
Mr. Mayor: Do you see that, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: What was that again?
Mr. Mayor: Item 17, the dollar amount should be $825,000. $825,000 instead of
$815,000. It’s correct in the backup [inaudible].
The Clerk: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll go ahead and take a vote then on the consent agenda.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, before you vote on consent, could you run those
numbers by me one more time?
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to ask the Clerk to do it cause I lost track.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda? Okay. Consent agenda, items 1, 1A, 3, 4 –
Mr. Williams: No, no, no. The ones that were pulled.
The Clerk: That were pulled? Oh.
Mr. Mayor: 13, 17, 22 and 34 have all been pulled.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I think that covers it, Mr. Mayor, what I needed to know.
That’s fine.
8
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Motion to approve minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held
April 19, 2005.
PLANNING:
1A. ZA-R-170 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition to consider an amendment to the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to regulate the parking of large trucks in
Agricultural zones on lots smaller than one acre. (Approved by the Commission
April 19, 2005 – second reading)
ADDENDUM CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
3. Motion to approve acceptance of the GDOT contract for the Terminal Area
Improvements at Augusta Regional Airport.
4. Motion to approve the donations of one (1) instructional staff member pass
and six (6) trainee passes for approximately 60 days of training for the Georgia
Training and Support in the Community (Georgia TASC) Program.
5. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-35: A request by Richard R. Branker
for an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with R
& J Wings, LLC d/b/a WingStop located at 2803 Wrightsboro Road. There will be
Sunday sales. District 3. Super District 10.
6. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-36: A request by Bryan Bilmingham
for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in
connection with Allie Katz Bar & Grill located at 202 Hudson Trace. There will be
Sunday sales. District 7. Super District 10.
7. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-37: A request by Patel Ritesh for a
retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Shreeji Food
Market located at 1342 Gordon Hwy. District 1. Super District 9.
8. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-38: A request by Paul Davis for an on
premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Coconuts located at 1082 Bertram Road. There will be dance. District 7. Super
District 10.
9. Motion to approve Bid Item #05-084, Lake Olmstead/Julian Smith Casino
Improvements Project, to Ammar Construction in the amount of $273,800.
FINANCE:
18. Approve the budget for the Hazard Mitigation Plan in the amount of
$33,500.
19. Consider a request from the Augusta Richmond County Community
Partnership for Children and Families, Inc. for the city to serve as their fiscal agent
for grant funding from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration.
9
21. Motion to approve purchase of tickets for the Annual Mayor’s Prayer
Breakfast May 5, 2005.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
23. Approve the design cost proposal for professional services from ZEL
Engineers, Inc. for the design of the Rae’s Creek Trunk Sewer Replacement Phase
IV Project in the amount of $166,790.00.
24. Approve execution of Georgia Power Company Easement No. 6893 (Highway
56 John Deere Distribution Line at N. Max Hicks Tobacco Road WTP).
25. Motion to authorize condemnation of Tax Map 51; Parcel 254 and
Tax Map 51, Parcel 255 which is owned by Mary Holland for acquisition. AUD
Project 10153 – Upper Butler Creek/Belair Hills Estate Water Tank.
26. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of the following parcels: 074-
0-001-03-0 – 2004 Foster Road, 088-0-001-01-0 – New Savannah Road, 088-0-002-
00-0 – Gordon Highway, 088-0-003-00-0 – New Savannah Road and 100-0-011-02-0
– New Savannah Road which are owned by M.L. South Augusta, LLC for
easements in connection with the Project 60115 – Main Interceptor Upgrade more
particularly described in the attached April 1, 2005 correspondence from Sandy
Tyler, Augusta Utilities.
28. Approve award of construction contract in the amount of $830,109.93 to
Construction Perfected for the construction of the Brookwood Drive 16-Inch Water
Main Project.
29. Discuss the concept plan for the Walton Way Extension Storm Drain
Improvements Project (CPB #322-04-204822378) and authorize the Engineering
Department to proceed with developing construction plans for Alternative Number
Three. Also approve the construction project budget in the amount of $445,000 to be
funded from SPLOST Phase I Recapture and Phase II ($55,000) Recapture Funds.
30. Authorize Mayor to expend up to $19,750 from the identified funds to engage
MACTEC for professional services association with the Third Level Canal
Redevelopment Plan. (Requested by Mayor Bob Young)
Mr. Mayor: All in favor then of the consent agenda please vote with the usual
sign.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1, 1A, 3-9, 18, 19, 21, 23-26, 28-30]
Mr. Mayor: Let’s take up item number 2 then first, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
2. Z-05-34 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Antonio Kuhn requesting a change
of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured
Home Residential) affecting property located at 2327 Knox Avenue and containing
10
.17 acres. (Tax Map 99-1 Parcel 42) DISTRICT 2 (Deferred from the April 19, 2005
Commission meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today?
Mr. Kuhn: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Patty, is Mr. Patty here?
Mr. Patty: This was carried over from the last meeting. The petitioner is here
today to respond to questions that I think one Commissioner had. It’s an area that our
policy has been not to create any new lots, but this has in fact been a lot for a long time. I
think it had a house on it that had been abandoned when this petitioner bought it. He
wants to replace it with a manufactured home. That’s consistent with what we’ve done in
that area and we recommend you approve it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson:
Mr. Mayor, I brought that up, I think the last time, and now I
recall what was there before. It’s some of a revitalization to what was there before, so I
I move for approval.
don’t have a problem with that.
Mr. Mayor: Since the petitioner is here, does anybody have any questions for the
petitioner? You want to make a motion to approve this?
Mr. Hankerson: I did.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to approve. Any discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: This is an area that needs someone to do something with. George
is right. It’s a history in there of mobile home situations. I’d like to ask the petitioner,
though, Mr. Mayor –
Mr. Mayor: Would you come forward, please? The Commissioner has a
question.
Mr. Kuhn: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: In putting an existing mobile home back in that area, we have been,
we have been trying to not do it as much, but I understand that area and how it’s set up
11
and what’s already there. We – Mr. Hankerson made a motion, I’m going to support that
motion to support it, but when you bought that property, before you bought that property,
did you not know the condition and what was there? In other words, it just a surprise to
you that came up like the area don’t have a mobile home on it now; is that right?
Mr. Kuhn: Yes, just a lot. At the time it was a lot, sir, and when we purchased a
lot of property from a young lady, we were under the impression that it was already
zoned for mobile home. And that was what she was told, was telling us at the time we
purchased it.
Mr. Williams: And you already done purchased the property; is that right?
Mr. Kuhn: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Hankerson made a motion and I’m going to
support it. But we been trying to alleviate that to continue to grow, to continue to bring
the mobile home area in. We got a lot of construction, where we just heard about water
and what they doing, but we got a lot of construction work that had not been done. Septic
tanks still in that area. We still need to go in there and put some infrastructure. But by
already purchasing this property, hopefully that we can get some infrastructure going in
there and where we can start building some homes in that area. That’s all, Mr. Mayor, I
just wanted to comment to him on that. I’m going to support the effort. There’s already
been a motion to accept it.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Just one point I need to make. I don’t want him looking for a
septic tank. It is sewage out there in that area, Mr. Williams, in that part it is. Probably
in some of the other – but that part it is, so you got connect to city water.
Mr. Williams: Maybe I’m looking at the wrong area. I got a big district. If that –
and this – somebody from Public Works may know, from our department may know for
sure, and if there is, that’s fine. Anybody here from that department can tell me for sure?
I just talked to some of your residents, Mr. Hankerson, that said they needed to do some
work and they didn’t want to do nothing because they thought the City was going to be
coming in and doing some work in that area. Max, is that already?
Mr. Hicks: This area already has water and sewage.
Mr. Williams: Already have water and sewage?
Mr. Hicks: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Okay. All right.
12
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion to approve then, please vote with the usual
sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s take item number 10, I believe item number 10.
The Clerk:
10. Discuss the April 13, 2005 report from the Finance Director regarding
budget control issues in the Recreation Department. (Requested by Commissioner
Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you requested this? Did you want to lead the
discussion off? Mr. Russell, do you have a report you want to present? How do you
wish to proceed?
Mr. Williams: Well, let Mr. Russell give the report he got, Mr. Mayor, then I can
–
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, let me share with you.
The document you have in front of you is a review of the document that’s in your book
that was a memo to me from Mr. Persaud regarding some issues in the Recreation
Department. Upon receipt of that memo from Mr. Persaud, David and I sat down, talked
about the seriousness of these issues and the impact that they would have on our
operation. We made a decision that we should go forth with a plan of action that we
needed to deal with and determine the best course of action to resolve these situations.
As we did that, we presented Mr. Beck a copy of the report. He had not seen one and so I
gave it to him and asked him to respond to each of the individual issues there. And he’s
done so. A copy of that is attached for your information. Upon receipt of that response, I
met with Mr. Beck and then subsequently met with David and then subsequently met
with David and Mr. Beck to talk about the specific issues there. I’ve attempted to address
those one by one in my report. The first issue that was brought up was in reference to the
marina lease with Mobile Marine, Inc. Mr. Beck had previously talked to me in reference
to the issue with the power and the utilities and the water service there. Upon reviewing
the contract, it seemed to me that we could make an adjustment that would make that
appropriate. We discovered that as we looked at that, and the documentation is there, that
there were numerous lights that were running through the power system, the meter at the
place that we basically rented. In addition to that, some of the public water utilities are
being paid for, or the private utilities are being paid for through our utility service. So in
effect what you had was the little marina building had numerous street lights and security
lights running through its meter. In addition to that, there was all the public water that
was going through the bathrooms and stuff, was going through their initial meter, too,
and we didn’t think that was appropriate and the operator had the same problem with that.
He basically received a $700 electric bill for the operation of that building. Upon
discussion with Mr. Beck, we would look for options that were available to solve that
13
problem. The solution he suggested, and I concurred with, was that we allow an
agreement between the marina operator and the City to encompass a sharing of those
particular costs, in which they would pay for electric service and we would pay for the
water, or the other way around. We would pay for the water and they would pay for the
electric service. We talked about that. Upon review of the document itself, I did not
think that it was inappropriate for us to enter upon that kind of agreement without
Commission action. In retrospect, if it did require Commission action to do that change
in the document, that was my responsibility and I take full blame for any mistake that
was made there. It was not done in anything other than an interpretation of the
management of the contract versus any other intent there. The other issue regards
inventory list there. And opposed to an alteration to the contract in that specific case, it
seems to me that the signed agreement where we changed inventory lists is appropriate
and is a fairly typical procedure that occurs when you take over a management from
another operation or vice versa, when you change managers or whatever. Once again, I
did not infer that that was a change in the contract. That was just documentation of what
we were told to do, in my opinion. And once again, if that was a mistake and should
have been brought back for your approval, that’s my fault and I did not do that
appropriately. And we will make those changes as necessary. I did include a copy of the
page. In one of the memorandums there was an item that was stricken and you could not
read what that was. And I am not comfortable with that kind of documentation, so I
instructed Mr. Beck to bring me back the original copy and that’s reflected in one of the
attachments you have there, attachment 2, I believe. Mr. Persaud and I looked at the
clerical errors that were charged, that charged an expense to a revenue account. And both
Mr. Persaud and I agree that that was a clerical error. Our checks and balances caught
that, as that do on other clerical errors that occur on a regular basis. We’ve got those
narrowed down and I think we’re working to improve our ability there. But we do make
mistakes, and in this particular case a clerk made a mistake and charged it to the wrong
line item. That was caught, as it should have been, by Finance. They made the
adjustments and moved forward. The clerk was informed of her mistake and was
counseled in a method to make that that didn’t happen again. What was discovered is a
significant problem that I think is more significant than the initial clerical error there, and
that’s the method of payment for people that are on contractual services. We are
currently contracting with our employees, have done so as a practice for years and years
and years. It was apparently blessed at some point by our City Attorney prior to anybody
here in this room – well, maybe not Commissioner Mays, actually – but prior to the staff
being here and whatever. That issue had been brought to my attention previously and
based on the blessing of that process and practice, it’s one of the things we have not
looked at and did not look at at that particular point in time. Upon review and talking to
our personnel office and talking to Mr. Persaud, I think we all agree that’s a practice we
need to stop. The practice is that we would contract with one of our current employees
for contractual services and pay them outside of the bond that was posted as they rented
the facility. It seemed like a good thing to do at that particular time, but I think it runs
afoul of Fair Labor Standard Law as we now know it. What this does mean at this
particular point in time is that – and it’s a broader implication. If we have an employee
that’s refereeing games or serving in a custodial capacity or whatever outside of their
normal work duties, it seems to me at this particular point in time, is that we will need to
14
pay them time-and-a-half, as opposed to contracting for a specific service. At this point,
that’s going to have an impact on our Recreation Department and the bonds that they use
to ensure the cleanliness of our facilities. What currently happens is that an individual
comes in to rent the facility and deposit an amount of dollars for cleaning a facility. If
they clean that facility on their own, that money is refunded and that’s why you get some
of the refunds that are there. If they do not clean that facility, we take that bond or
deposit, I guess is probably a better word, take that deposit. We’ve contracted with
numerous individuals in our Recreation Department that will come in after hours, 10:00,
11:00, 12:00, 1:00 o’clock at night, provide the service of cleaning that. We receive a
20% administrative fee and the balance goes to that particular individual. With numbers,
as we look at that in our initial calculations, when you include fringe benefits and
overtime [inaudible] pay, we’re probably looking at doubling the cost of our operation in
that particular area, where we are no longer going to be able to give a flat amount of
money to an individual to come in and clean that particular facility, but have to pay them
time-and-a-half and fringe benefits on top of that. So my initial estimate of that is it is
probably going to end up costing us twice what it costs now. We are going to have to
adjust that as we look at the deposit that’s paid by the renter of our facility. In addition to
that, it raises an even more serious question in my mind that I’m going to have to ask for
some legal advice on and some direction at that point, is that fact that we as a city
contract with a firefighter to provide service at a city facility or contract with a deputy
sheriff to provide municipal services, can we continue to do that in a manner that we’ve
been doing in the past? I do not know the answer to that particular question and will
asking Mr. Shepard to have somebody research that for me and bring that forth. Once
again, if it does, it means that we’re looking at a fairly substantial increase in what we’re
doing that in moving forward. I believe that those are things that are necessary and Mr.
Persaud and I agree with the fact that that’s a practice that has been occurring over the
past, at least six to eight years, and Mr. Boyles, you might even be able to help me. I
assume, my understanding is it is a practice that developed even prior to your
administration.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Russell, you’re right, and I saw one of our former administrators
back there that now directs the Canal Authority, and that’s the system that was put into
effect when Dayton Sherrouse was our county administrator. And it was the most
practical and easy way to do that. And it was taken in consideration with the Fair Labor
Standards Act because that’s about when all of that was changing. And this was the way
to do it and to do it efficiently and get it up and running.
Mr. Russell: And I don’t disagree. I think it’s probably the most cost effective,
the most efficient, but unfortunately in my estimation at this particular point in time we
are going to have to change our practice. And as noted, I’ve asked the Human Resources
and Finance Department to put together a proposal that would do that and then give us
some financial impact on what that would actually mean to us, is I believe the impact is
probably going to be fairly significant over the next – as we correct that problem. In
addition to that, the last item that was posted was posting revenue to non-budget
accounts. Part of the problem that I see with this is, as we look forward and continue to
improve the operation of our government, there were no written policies and procedures,
15
no definite mechanisms for ensuring that that occurred properly. I think it’s a good
budgeting thing and we’ve for so many years operated under the way we’ve been doing
things. As we develop these situations and find these problems or uncover these
particular incidents, we will continue to need to have to make changes. The most
successful way that I’ve seen in the past and I would plan on operating is developing
written standards and written policies and procedures that cover each of these events and
give us a mechanism to move forward and how to do that. Therefore, there’s not an
excuse of not understanding, there’s not an excuse of not doing it or whatever, and the
excuse of “that’s the way we’ve been doing it for the last twenty years” – while I think in
this case is probably valid – that would eliminate the necessity for having to use that
excuse in the future. Mr. Persaud and I looked at this with some great detail. We’ve met
on it several times, and again this morning. I think he is supportive of everything I’ve
said at this particular point in time. I think he’s in the next room if you have any specific
questions for him. It’s my estimation at this point in time that what we’ve done is
uncovered deficiencies in our process. We’ve uncovered deficiencies in our
documentation. And we’ve taken the corrective steps to deal with those particular
situations. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to try to respond.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In listening to Mr. Russell, it made this
seam like this nothing, that this is just something that we ought to just turn our heads and
say well, I’m sorry. This is too much, too long, and too many. You can do stuff wrong
for 100 years, don’t mean that you need to continue, just, just turn your head from it. I
heard Tommy say how, about when it started and how long it been started, but this is a
serious event, serious situation here. When it broke out in the news and came out in the
news, the news media called me. I didn’t have to call them. There are those who think I
call them to check with the news media, who called me to tell me about the report that
was out. I want to hear from our Finance director, the person – and I commend them for
what they are doing, for what they have done. That doesn’t take anything from them,
from what I’m hearing from Mr. Russell this ought to be something that – this ought to be
something that we look the other way on. We met yesterday and talked about this issue.
Nobody charged anybody with any criminal wrongdoing and I don’t want to give that
implication that we saying that now. But I do know that we have dismissed at least three
people that I can think about in this government for much, much less than what we got
here. And it’s the same policies, the same way of doing things. We done sent our
internal auditors in Recreation only, at least ten to fifteen times that I know of they been
in there investigating and supposed to be putting in preventive measures. They have
never come up with anything. I’m very disappointed in what I’m hearing from the
administrator. I’m very disappointed, and to see all this that’s been laid out here in front
of us not. But I’d like to hear from the Finance director, who, who, who done a great job
in putting this down and documenting everything that’s been put down there. So Mr.
Persaud, can you enlighten me a little bit more on the seriousness of the, the, the, the, the
proposal in front of us now, been passed out just now?
16
Mr. Persaud: Thank you, Commissioner Williams. The report you have
essentially is an assessment by the [inaudible] budget analyst and the Finance
Department. I always insist, since I have been Finance director, that the analyst do a very
thorough budget analysis and whenever there are problems or we find a method where we
can improve process improvements, we addressed it. After all those issues were brought
to my attention, I documented it and I transmit it to administrator. [inaudible] to have the
internal auditor look at it independently and objectively and give us some
recommendations to go forward. And I did, in order to avoid any [inaudible] or to blame
anyone [inaudible] myself, along with employees in the Finance Department, Mr. Russell
has elected to respond to the issues and he has discussed the report with me and I told
him I was willing to go along with him and to work with him in terms of implementing
the correcting measures. That’s what I told him, I’ll work with him to implement the
measures so we can improve the process.
Mr. Williams: David, and I appreciate what has happened. I’m thinking now
about how we dismissed several people in Recreation for mishandling money and doing
some things with the same kind of bond money the Fred mentioned, or same kind of
money that’s been put down for deposits, to the tune of a lost cheaper. But I’m more
worried about how the federal side of this plays into the part, too. We – I mean you
talking about breaking law. You can’t hold other people to the laws and then you break
them. So that’s, that’s, that’s, that’s, that’s, that’s something that really concerns me.
The, the change in the contract we talked about, and, and any amendment to the contract,
and especially with the Recreation Department, that he’s been here a long time, he knows
the procedure. Mr. Russell, you hadn’t been here that long but I’m sure you know the
procedure, as well, know that should have came back to this body. There is no excuse.
There is simply no excuse for making any amendment to any contract that this body votes
on. This body votes on a lot of stuff that I don’t agree with, but the six votes is the
determining factor. And I’m surprised to even, to even hear of that. The budget, the non-
budget accounts, I think what have happened, we have had free range to do what we want
to and we hadn’t had nobody to control or to see that we are doing certain things, and we
got comfortable with it. And when you get comfortable, you get caught. It’s just simple
as that. I’m going to yield to my twin brother who has got some comments he wants to
make, Mr. Mayor, before I make a motion. I do have a motion in mind I need to make.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: After reviewing the report, I concur with what we, what’s been
recommended by the administrator. I do have some serious – and if anybody has
questions, I have copies of the “IRS Warns Business” – that’s a quote from the title of the
page – misclassification of workers. And just other issues that while we may in fact, with
our contracts with these employees, be within the “letter of the law,” we are certainly
skirting the law with the implementation of this in today’s business climate and so I look
forward to seeing us address that. And the thing that kind of escapes discussion is how
much this is going to cost the City, is what I’ve heard today. Well, there is this thing
called the private sector. And while we may not have the convenience of plugging one of
our employees into that, we are also at the same time denying many of the janitorial
17
services, budding industries and businesses in this city the opportunity to be on call to
clean the center, which could be a fixed fee. I mean, and that would put money back into
the private sector. And it could be charged about the same amount or a little more than
what we’re doing now. I mean there are ways through this. Also, for the security, for
fire and different things. Certainly, you can’t replace – I don’t know of any privately-
held fire agencies within our city, but there are an awful lot of security firms, and
certainly if you go to other cities, you don’t see a city policemen in every bar and
restaurant. You see private security or in-house established security people. So there are
ways around this. This is certainly something current staff inherited. I guess my concern
is we have as a Commission asked the Finance Department to provide us with – and I’m
quoting now from the mission statement – “timely and relevant information to help us
enhance our decision making and promote long-term financial well-being of the county.”
This also, we tasked them to develop methodologies and reporting systems that ensure
compliance with the general – GAP – generally-accepted accounting practices, which is a
federal and state guideline used by industry and business as a best practice for doing
financial reporting. My concern is not only with this particular issue, but that all of our
departments pay close attention to detail, because as I’ve been a Commissioner here for
five years, I have seen, especially under the directorship of Mr. Persaud, us get closer
and closer to finding out exactly what money we have and where it’s at. And all I ask is
that the departments, all of the departments, fall into line with the professionals who do
budget management for those and those people who have been trained and credentialed,
nationally credentialed people, to implement the budgetary processes and the accounting
processes necessary to make us run as efficiently as any private sector business. That is
my concern. This is an issue that I’m sure is not isolated. Across this city we have
people doing it the way they’ve done it for twenty years and that is certainly not what we
should be doing. We should be continually seeking to improve the way we do business
and also conforming with best practices within financial, maintenance, utilities, whatever
avenue we approach, we should be seeking to be our best and continually comparing how
we do things to how other people do that. This old practice is not a good practice. If you
want copies of this, I have it. It’s also on www.IRS.gov, the homepage for IRS. Specific
business practices and it specifies subcontractors and the requirements for what is and
isn’t a subcontractor and certainly it brings to issue if they are indeed subcontract
personnel [inaudible] liabilities to the city for injury during those things, and these are
just questions I had and I hope that – I certainly don’t expect it be corrected today but that
staff will in fact work on correcting the problem.
Mr. Mayor: Anybody else want to? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, let me, let me make a comment. I hope it’s in the
spirit of a lighter moment because I don’t know what motions are going to be out here on
the floor. I’ll first respond to the administrator. I appreciate you recognizing my
longevity, but I guess as a lame duck, there are a few things such as air and dirt and this
building that preceded my coming here. And one of the reasons, I guess probably that,
before I – as a lame duck before I go into relic status, that I can say this honestly that
probably one of the reasons that I survived and stayed here has been the fact that I’ve not
been afraid of change. And as you move from one period to another and even in
18
government, I think you have to recognize that fact that just like life, things change. And
also corrections have to be made. I don’t know what’s going to happen with any motions
of where this is going, but I want to say first this. Mr. Mayor, let me praise the Finance
Department and praise the director for picking up on where we should be at this stage in
the government and how we need to adapt to certain standards and laws as they affect us
right now. And I don’t think that that part should go unnoticed. That’s a good thing.
And in terms of what needs to be done. Because you need to be abreast of it. Rules
change. Things happen. Tommy mentioned a few minutes ago in reference to Dayton,
and Dayton, Dayton, by the way, did precede me. I inherited what was there in that
practice, also. But I’ve seen Recreation – it’s amazing how we can now talk about the
things that we do with money and we planned to put things all about this county and I’ve
seen it grow. I’ve seen it grown from the stages of when it was the “crumbs left over”
department and prior to even sales tax being able to be used for Recreation, [inaudible]
lot of things happen for the good of the city. And I think that’s great. But I think that as
we look as where we are narrowing this focus on this particular incident, that I was glad
that in the report that we are talking about, what it may take, what it may take in
reference to a difference in money and in Finance. And I hope that as I leave you all, you
all close out a vote on the budget at the end of this year, that you would take that into
consideration as to, one, as to how some of these practices got into place with, even
before the previous director, the director that was in place prior even to Tommy Boyles.
And then to Tommy Boyles and even to Tom Beck. To say that that practice is either
outlived, outdated, or you need to make corrections on it, then I think you have to do it.
And one, you have to do it by what the law says you have to do. I think with that, and
that’s why I praised Finance going in, but I think to a point that it doesn’t need to be
where you’ve got a conflict with departments when you make corrections, as they have to
be done with time. If you noticed something and that has to be done, then you do that. It
doesn’t necessarily mean that you, you grant capital punishment for finding a mistake to
a point that goes back even to two separate governments, even though you may have had
at a point there, this would be in the previously first consolidated department per se. So I
think it’s a lot of good that can come out of the report. I think the corrections that are
there, you’ve got the people that’s in place in order to work through it. I think you heard
from both the administrator and the Finance director and I think it’s in the best interest of
the city, quite frankly, to allow them to make those corrections and to move in a way that
you deal with it. Now I don’t know where the motion or motions are going per se. I
think if you get to the beginning of where any of the contracts started, then you probably
can summon both the dead and the defeated to come back and answer that cause. That’s
not going to take us anywhere. I think to a point that you’ve got to deal with those that
are here, and we address those changes. If we’re dealing with the contract portion of it
and what’s done in there, and I think that’s probably one that is different from the
standpoint of where we’re dealing with contracts with employees, that we make sure that
within that language that that spirit does not change. I think you’ve heard from the
administrator, and in saying of where if that be the cause that was done for the greater
good, if technically that’s wrong, then you assign that responsibility to the person that has
admitted that and said that. But I think overall to a point we need to look at how this can
best be worked. I also think that that while we are reprogramming – while you do some
of this, I’ve heard something about the contracting companies and the people who come
19
in. I think honestly when you get to that point you better be prepared to put somebody on
retainer because you don’t, you don’t rent on a total regular basis in a lot of these
facilities that are done, and that’s why it was done. Nobody is going to come in and get a
contract to clean one day and then the next month clean twenty days and the next month
clean five days. You’ve got to be realistic about it unless you’re going to give them the
retainer to do it and how you are going to work that out. So you’ve got some things there
that I just think you need to allow the staff people that you’ve got in place to work
through it. If you’ve got some corrections, per se, for them to do, then let’s deal with it.
And then at that point, move on with it. And it’s one of those that inherited that
particular policy, it’s one of the reasons I wanted to address it. I probably have chaired
that committee probably longer than anybody else [inaudible] and I remember to a point
when we were faced with a lot of very, very serious budget decisions and cutting back.
We didn’t have any money. The gentleman sitting next to me was serving as my Finance
chairman, as chairman of County Commission and Mr. Boyles was the director, and we
were called upon to take the most drastic cut in this whole city’s history percentage-wise.
And we solved it and resolved it without firing anybody, without closing any centers,
without closing things for the summer, and we were able to work those things out. That’s
before Recreation had the luxury of having all this great money that some of you now
have inherited to be able to go into and be able to put a center where you want to put it
and a park where you want to put it. We didn’t have that. We had no money. We took
what was left and what was given and made a department out of it. So while I applaud on
one hand what has been done in terms of meeting today’s challenge, and I think we need
to do that, you need to do what is legal and is best by law. I think we need to address it,
deal with it swiftly, with the measures in place that you want to deal with it on, and then
move on with the business of the city. Those are my comments on it and I made that in
reference to, I guess, Mr. Russell’s reference to my being here so very, very, very long
and that time is getting to be so very, very short and I’ll be so very, very glad. And that
concludes my comments on it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In taking Mr. Mays’ comments, I want to
say that this is not a directive against the Recreation Department. The department have
done a great job, there are some great things in the department but the department is not
one, Tom Beck is not the department, Tom Beck is the director of the department. I take
issue with the administrator who agreed to some of this stuff. He admittedly said that he
was a part of and he knew about. The rules can’t be applied to the, the, the everyday
worker and then people at the top can just do what they been doing for 200 years and
think that’s fine. Now we uncover some stuff. I say again Finance done a great job. I
commend them. But this is not about the department. This is not about how much
money they got. This is about following the guidelines that this board has set up for a
long. I mean the rules were broke, but the rules was set up for a long time. So this is not
about the department. And Mr. Russell mentioned about the Fire Department and the
police. They shouldn’t be brought as issue. This is a whole different game than the fire
or the police. When you need them, neither one can do the other ones’ jobs. This is
about what is happening in Recreation. My motion, Mr. Mayor, let me get that out of the
20
way. My motion is that we get Cherry, Bekaert & Holland go in and do a audit, a
complete audit of Recreation, the financial part to see what has been happened, where we
are, and what we need to do and to bring this back to where it needs to be. Now I still say
that we done, we done dismissed I know at least three people in Recreation for misuse or
for not following the rules. For breaking the rules. But now we act like that nothing
happened and we just going to turn our heads and say well, we made a mistake. Yeah,
we made a mistake. It’s like speeding down the Gordon Highway. When you get caught,
you have to suffer the consequences. If you don’t get caught, you just keep speeding
until you get caught. It’s just as simple as that. But don’t turn your head and act like that
there’s nothing been done. What kind of message that going to send to the rest of the
working staff of this government? If the top can do it, if the top can do it the bottom
ought to be able to do it, too. And if I get a second to my motion, Mr. Mayor, I’ll, I’ll
be—
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the Commissioner’s motion?
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to second that.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I think that contracts
have to be signed by the Mayor and this is not the largest amendment to a contract that
we’ve ever seen, but I certainly think that in view of the cost of separating utilities, it’s
going to be a lot less expensive to ratify or change the lease for some amendment that
would be appropriate to set the responsibilities where they have been set, if the
Commission agrees to that. The – I just don’t think you can bypass what we have as far
as contract and contract amendment and signing of contracts. I don’t think that there has
been an authority granted to Mr. Beck to sign this contract.
Mr. Mayor: The administration would have to bring back to us a request to
amend the contract to include that?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: That language. All right, we’ll start down on the end here with Mr.
Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to ask one question in conjunction with that
motion, and I ask the Finance director, I suppose, because he should be on top of it.
About what would that audit cost, David?
Mr. Persaud: It costs, Commissioner Boyles, the cost of the audit is based on the
audit. It depends to what extent that the examination will consist of. I wouldn’t be able
to give you a specific dollar amount now. It is actually based on the number of hours
times the rate and the scope of the audit.
21
Mr. Boyles: What’s the fee of the auditors, David?
Mr. Persaud: Probably $100-150 an hour.
Mr. Boyles: You want them to go look at something like in this report?
Mr. Persaud: I would probably assume that you look totally in the scope of that
report you’re probably talking about forty hours probably.
Mr. Boyles: Let me ask you something, then. Mr. Mayor, a couple of questions
if I may?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Persaud, one of your folks makes a statement in here on August,
I’m sorry, April 13, that we are now looking to see how many honest mistakes we can
find. And that’s been almost twenty days. Do you know if he’s found any other honest
mistakes? That’s his words in the trail of emails that came from your staff.
Mr. Persaud: No, Commissioner Boyles, and that’s the reason why I strongly
suggested that the auditors look at it, to give you an independent evaluation of what
transpired and to come up with corrective recommendations to enable us [inaudible]
deficiencies and to make corrective actions for process improvement.
Mr. Boyles: Do you think in this – I think the news media had a 57-page report,
and that may have been what you gave us. It’s a lot of copies of checks and requisitions
for those checks. Is there anything here that’s that big?
Mr. Persaud: The report was prepared by my staff with contribution from the
Recreation Department. I didn’t [inaudible] the report. I exercise due diligence and
objectively transmit the report to the administrator with a recommendation to give it to
the auditors to come back with a recommendation and evaluation for corrective action.
To what extent information was leaked to the press, I have no control over that.
Mr. Boyles: I was just going to ask you if you think it warranted all this much
press for something that –
Mr. Persaud: Like I said, sir, that’s beyond my control. I fulfill my duty as
director of Finance, I found the problem as financial related, I document it, and I transmit
it to the administrator with a recommendation. I think I fulfill my obligations, with all
due respect.
Mr. Boyles: Did you really feel like this needed to be out? It was an internal, in-
house matter.
22
Mr. Persaud: My obligation as Finance director, if I find a problem, I have the
responsibility to advise the administrator, who has the responsibility to advise the
Commission.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Persaud: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Persaud, aren’t we now paying Cherry, Bekaert & Holland to do
an audit of the 2004 books for this government, and does not that audit also include the
Recreation Department?
Mr. Persaud: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Aren’t we already paying for an audit right now?
Mr. Persaud: Yes, Mayor, and that’s what we call an annual financial audit. The
whole intent of that audit is to give you an expression of the condition of the financial
report. It doesn’t get into internal auditing where you do an assessment of a program or
compliance of a program or to determine problems with the program.
Mr. Mayor: But does not that annual audit test the compliance with general
accounting practices, rules and regulations with respect to purchasing and procurement
for this government? Aren’t those all taken into consideration?
Mr. Persaud: You’re absolutely right, Mr. Mayor. But it’s based on a test basis.
What the auditors would normally do is get certain information and do tests. If the test
comes back positive, the [inaudible]. If the test comes back negative, they will do more
analysis and more testing to ensure that the reliability of their audit opinion is fair.
Mr. Mayor: So what would be, what would you get different from doing an audit
as the motion requests as compared to the audit that the same firm is doing that we’re
already paying for?
Mr. Persaud: The current audit [inaudible] is required by state law to give an
expression of fairness in the financial report. I think that the motion from the floor is a
program audit to go into the Recreation Department and look objectively into the
operations to identify deficiencies and come up with recommendations and to look at any
illegal acts. Fraudulent acts.
Mr. Mayor: Well, the motion was not for a forensic audit, at least not the motion
I heard.
Mr. Persaud: Program audit.
23
Mr. Mayor: Do we not have under contract a firm to do that type of program
auditing, internal audit?
Mr. Persaud: Yes, Baird & Company.
Mr. Mayor: And that, and that contract was competitively awarded for that firm?
Mr. Persaud: They have been here since I have been here. I’m sure the bidding
was done competitively.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: The motion on the floor was to approve who to do the audit?
Mr. Williams: Cherry, Bekaert & Holland.
Mr. Hankerson: My question was, that’s an external auditor. Wouldn’t it be best
for the internal auditor to do that than the external?
Mr. Mayor: Well, that’s probably a question for your Finance director and
administrator.
Mr. Hankerson: Shouldn’t the internal auditor do that?
Mr. Persaud: Normally you would have separation of the internal audit and the
external auditor. And the answer is yes. You shouldn’t really mix the two together.
Mr. Williams: May I respond?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, just a moment. You’re the one that’s talking about
following the rules.
Mr. Williams: That’s right.
Mr. Mayor: I’ve got the Commission rules right here that said you have two
minutes to talk on this issue and you’ve gone way beyond that. I’ve been very patient and
allowed you to speak. Now I want to let some people speak who haven’t spoke and then
I’m going to come back to you.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I can wait, I can wait. I don’t have two minutes but I can
wait on that. If you want to use the rules, use all the rules, though.
Mr. Mayor: I just want to let some people speak who haven’t had a chance.
Mr. Williams: I understand that. But let’s follow all the rules if we are going to
follow them. And I’m going to see that we do that.
24
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, you have the floor. Are you finished?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, that was my question, that the internal auditor should be
doing this. And Mr. Persaud verified that. So I move that the internal auditor would be
the one that do it, keep from mixing the external, internal auditor, mixing that up. I mean
I’m with the auditing, but just the right auditor.
Mr. Mayor: The substitute motion is that the internal auditor –
Mr. Hankerson: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that?
Ms. Beard: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: The motion has been seconded. Mr. Grantham, you had your hand
up?
Mr. Grantham: Yes, I wanted to ask Mr. Persaud one question, and Mr. Boyles
got to it. Based on the findings of your staff and what actually took place, and you said it
took about forty hours. Do you think there’s any more to be found in regards to this issue
that we’re dealing with, and based on having a complete audit and the cost and the
expense that we are going to go through in order to do that?
Mr. Persaud: This is my recommendation and review of the document. I saw
where the agreement was amended by staff. I felt very uncomfortable with that. I saw
the current process of not complying with the IRS regulation in terms of 1099, and I do
not, I’m not sure how far the practice goes back. I felt in my professional belief and
evaluation it warrants an independent review.
Mr. Grantham: Right. And my point is now that you have made these
recommendations, should we go further as far as the audit goes?
Mr. Persaud: In the Recreation Department?
Mr. Grantham: Yes.
Mr. Persaud: If you do an internal audit or a program audit in the Recreation
Department, the scope of the audit will cover the entire operation. It becomes also an
operational audit. And if there are more deficiencies or problems, the audit should find
those deficiencies.
Mr. Grantham: So you’re recommending it?
25
Mr. Persaud: That was my original recommendation and I stand by my
recommendation. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And here again, I have to agree with our
Finance director. It’s not – I don’t think that there’s any ill intent here at all. I think what
we have is some institutional practices that are entrenched and have been in place for a
number of years. I would like to see a performance audit in comparison to best practices
within the industry to act as – I guess to help this department to come into compliance
and to be kind of a role model for the remainder of the models, because the word within
the work force is Recreation can do what they want to and they’re going to get away with
whatever they want to. And that’s no reflection on the director or the performance of
Recreation. I’ve been one Recreation’s most outspoken advocates since I’ve been here.
The bottom line is to create a role model of best practices within the financial realm of
operations, to also send a message that all departments are expected to work with Finance
to have accurate and timely accounting, that a performance audit would be a plus, could
provide lessons learned and help correct the problems from occurring. You know, this
document I’ve got here from the IRS, I think it’s dated ’97 or so, and so I have I guess
doubts about some of the audits that have been done in that they never uncovered these
irregularities, and I believe if you look at the 57-page report, it’s a 15-day window of
findings. So I mean – and again, I don’t think there is any ill intent by anybody. I think
it’s just business practices that need to be improved and a performance audit against
industry [inaudible] practices might be the best way to deal with it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, thank you for my two minutes. I am going to try
[inaudible], but let me just share one thing. I remember in this government, and y’all
taught me an awful lot when I come down here. I remember we paid $500,000 for a
Christmas tree farm, then gave the man the trees on the farm. But we talking about
saving money. I remember when Purchasing was audited five or six times, I remember
when IT – we brought a specialist in to audit IT. But nothing like this. Then we sit here
and act like we’re talking about saving some money. I can tell you about private property
that we done spent – went on private property and spent over $100,000 on, that this
Commission voted for. And you talking about saving money? No, I’m not going save
anything, I think we done let trash go on for so long that they thing they can just keep
doing, throwing trash everywhere. Andy, this is no direction against anybody, but it’s
time to start fixing some of this stuff that we sit here and act like we don’t know what’s
going on. Now if you going to worry about saving money, I rather spend money with
Cherry, Bekaert, Holland. The reason I put those out, Mr. Mayor, [inaudible] we done
send J.T. Cosnahan in Recreation in all over this government a hundred times and not one
time has a report came back that was showing us where it was some deficiencies or
something wrong. I don’t ever want them to do anything for me, won’t ever get my vote
26
to do anything to do anything here. They have not done not one time all the time, go
back, when I tell you about Fleet Management and what we was being double-billed. I
carried documents in my hand to J.T. Cosnahan, who said this is all we need, all we need,
come back it was clean, it was just some minor stuff that need cleaning up. I asked for
Cherry, Bekaert, Holland. They are the auditors that still can come in here. Since they
external, they still can do internal work if we ask them to do it. Now we can’t contract
with them to do all our internal stuff, but we can get them to do it. And we done, we
done, we done send some folks in who hadn’t shown us nothing hundreds of times. We
are supposed to put documents in place to prevent stuff. Not just in Recreation, but all
over this government. Has not happened one time yet. Not one case have been proven or
one time some have been implemented that the internal auditors have recommended.
They are still doing an audit for us right now, Mr. Mayor, that we haven’t got back yet.
Housing and Neighborhood Development. I see Mr. Smith back there. They did some
other stuff. They ain’t came back with nothing yet. But we, we paying them a lot of
money. We ought to bring that up. We ought to bring up how much money we done
paid them in the past five years I been here it has been done. That’s why I asked for
Cherry, Bekaert, Holland to go in and do that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, I think if you’re going to actually look at a program
audit, what needs to be included is not to focus on Recreation, as much as it is our focus
on our other financial systems that need to be checking these things. Obviously in
Recreation we’ve done some things, but there are also things in Finance, there’s things in
Personnel that should have helped us catch these particular items that have gone wrong.
In addition to that, it seems to me that what you are asking people to audit are our
policies and procedures on how we do this and we’re neglecting the fact that we don’t
have written policies and procedures that would help us get there. You know, I agree
with Commissioner Williams, it might be time that we need to take a look at this, but we
need to look at the full picture as opposed to just specifically the items that are in front of
us here. And I think what would be more helpful to us, if we’re going to invest that kind
of money, is to invest it in a situation where we would have somebody come in, not only
look at what we’re doing, but help us develop – I mean David is here working real hard,
but you can’t get things done overnight. And when you start with a blank slate, it’s hard
to accomplish everything very quickly. And I think what we need to do is not so much –
we need to solve the problems that we’ve found. I agree totally with that. But in addition
to that, we need to develop policies and procedures, as Commissioner Williams has
mentioned a couple of times, that would help us keep these problems from happening.
Our lack of that specific policy and procedure, our lack of methods that would make this
not happen is where I see the major deficit. And I think that is where we need to
concentrate our efforts.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We’ll go ahead and take a vote on the
substitute motion. Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I had one question, if I may ask the Administrator.
27
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Hankerson: Am I hearing you say that you are planning on putting something
in motion where the departments we need to perform their audit on besides the one that
we discussing today is what you recommend?
Mr. Russell: What I’m concerned about, sir, and what would be my major
concern at this point is we discovered a problem in Recreation, but we’ve also discovered
problems in Finance and Human Resources that did not help us come to the conclusion of
that. We’ve been writing these checks for numerous years to people. We’ve been
writing these contracts to people. And my concern is are there other issues out there?
And I think what we would probably be better off doing would be to move forward with
the policies and procedures and develop those as we move forward. We’ve got people in
Human Resources and Finance that are working well and we’re doing things we’ve been
doing in the past. But we don’t have the formalized policies and procedures that would
help us move forward in those particular areas, and I think while we need to correct the
problem we found in Recreation, what we need to do is continue to move forward and
develop those other policies and procedures that would eliminate something like this
from happening. And I don’t, I think Brenda and David could both speak to that.
Mr. Hankerson: Would that include – also we discussed about the contractual
staff and we discussed about how much more it would cost us if you do it differently
from the way it’s done now. It seems to me, and I know it’s not a long time ago, from
what I’m hearing that the method that’s in place about the employees of Recreation
working extra hours or so forth that they were just paid and this issue about the Internal
Revenue. But I guess the Attorney could answer this, too. Is there another way, is there
a violation of the employees working the extra time and getting paid and have to do their,
asked to do their own 1099? Or you got a Recreation Director to clean up the building
afterwards and all you have to do is ask them to file their own 1099 and wouldn’t that
save the city money without going outside, doing an outside privatization? I see that is
going to be very – look to me it’s going to be very difficult where you have a function
over here that’s ending in two hours and one over there ending at 11:00 o’clock or 12:00
o’clock, to have somebody specifically to go and clean up those places afterwards?
That’s the issue I’m looking at, whether or not we do away with that is another way to do
it that because it really seem to me that it was put in place to save money. And my
question is can a staff person, an employee for this government, if it’s Recreation or if it’s
the Sheriff’s Department, receive their own 1099 and file their own taxes?
Mr. Shepard: This issue was brought to my attention, Commissioner Hankerson,
this afternoon when Mr. Cheek handed me the memorandum from the IRS. So this is the
first time it’s been brought to my attention, Mr. Hankerson. Mr. Russell asked me to
research the matter in his presentation a few minutes ago and I was thinking that was my
charge, to look into that. I would rather first comment on it in legal rather than here on
the floor. And I would be happy to do so at that time. And I think it’s the kind of
situation that if it exists in other places in government that it should be something that is
28
not done off the cuff but is done that with some thought, because I know that other
things, it seems we rush to judgment and we don’t always get the right answer. But I
would, I’d like to comment privately on that and then make a formal ruling, since I’ve
just been requested to do that today.
Mr. Hankerson: I appreciate that, because this is what I just received today as I
came in and the Administrator’s issues, some of this is really new to me on this. These
need to be addressed, but I don’t know if I’m comfortable of making a decision of what
direction to go in right now with everything that I have and what I’ve heard and the
Commissioner’s concerns, Commissioner Williams’ concern and so forth. I think that all
that need to be considered and at one time. We talking about audit and all of that. That’s
an expense. But then we are talking about more expense to hire people, whether they’re
private or not, to come in and do it a different way. And then we could do it the same
way and issue a 1099 seem like to me. I’m not a lawyer, I’m not one of your partners.
But seem like to me, you know, that could be done, so I’m willing to hear that later on
from you.
Mr. Russell: Commissioner, if I can correct a statement I made previously. As
far as involvement with Human Resources, it seems that the process was developed prior
to their involvement, and on the day-to-day operation they don’t, they didn’t have any
involvement as far as the charging against the revenue account. And that’s one of the
reasons that that was able for that to go on without them monitoring that particular
situation. So I misspoke on that. But the problem was, it was developed in a vacuum.
Not a vacuum, but it was developed and we haven’t been continuing to look at that. So
it’s all strung together and we need to make sure we all make it work together.
Mr. Mayor: Are we ready for a vote on the substitute motion from Mr.
Hankerson?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just one more thing. Briefly. I think our Administrator
has the nutshell. This is more of a systemic problem than it is strictly with the Recreation
& Parks Department. It’s just, it’s an institutional method of accounting that has been
accepted for 20 or 30 years that could use an adjustment. And I don’t know how we get
to where we do, as Fred has recommended, from where we are right now. But if we are
able to get through these two motions, you know, without doing anything drastic, I think
the solution to the problem is doing exactly as Fred has mentioned and look at the
comprehensive nature, put in place the policies and procedures that are going to dictate
the interaction between the departments and Finance and Human Resources, because this
situation did involve all three departments, and there’s probably more. If you did a cross-
sectional cut of 15 days of accounting from a lot of other departments, you’d see
probably a lot of similar things. But to go back to what was mentioned earlier, again, in
the IRS home page, www.irs.gov, it tells you the difference between an independent
contractor and an employee. These are employees. We are in violation of federal laws.
Right here. I don’t care if it’s a sheriff, judge, commission, mayor, take it up with the
IRS. We can correct this. We’ve lost a lot of money in dealing with overtime pay and
everything else. And we saved a lot of money. Look at the ’98 pension fund, and our
29
employees suffer. If we need to pay them overtime, pay them overtime. The bottom line
is, though, and I intend to make a motion if both of these fail, that we turn this over to do
the review recommended by the Administrator to get to the nut of the problem and crack
it, rather than just focusing in this one area. Cause it is really comprehensive in nature.
Ms. Beard: Could we have another motion, a third?
Mr. Mayor: No, ma’am. We can have only two motions on the floor at any one
time.
Mr. Hankerson: Can I withdraw mine, with consent?
Mr. Mayor: With consent of the body, you can withdraw your motion.
Mr. Boyles: What was the motion?
Mr. Mayor: The motion is to have the internal auditor do the [inaudible]. Any
objection to withdrawing the substitute motion?
Ms. Beard: I think I seconded it. I wish to withdraw it.
Mr. Mayor: I hear no objection so we’ll consider the substitute motion
withdrawn. Mr. Cheek, we’ll recognize you for the purpose of a substitute motion.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, what I would like to do with this, and I felt very
uncomfortable about the whole thing, is I’d like to make a motion to instruct our
Administrator, our Finance Director, Human Resources Director to review the
financial policies and procedures to implement a policy and procedure manual for
financial operations of this government using this example as a tool to both review
and instruct and correct problems within our government.
Ms. Beard: Second that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think we forgetting there’s two issues here. I think
what Commissioner Cheek said is right. We need to address the fact that there needs
some procedures be put in place. But [inaudible]. I hadn’t heard anything about – in
other words, I’m hearing that we need to put some procedures in place and just forget
about this. Well, if that is the case, what about the other employee, John Botham, who
was at the Aquatics Center, Lula Bush who is at Savannah Place, the other lady who was
at the other place, who broke the rules, and that all they done? So if it’s good for the
30
department head, then why is it not good for the workers? So I’m agreeing, we need to
have some procedures put in place. But if you break the rules, you break the rules. And
it ought not be a rule for Bob Young and then not a rule for Steve Shepard, or vice versa.
Or Tom Beck or not one of the regular workers. We have not addressed that issue as of
yet. That’s my comment, Mr. Mayor. That’s why I think the internal auditor need to go
in, I’m sorry, I think the external auditor need to go in because there are some things that
are covered up, that we need to uncover while we got the covers moving to see what else
is there so we can put everything in perspective. We have not done that. Not officially
anyway.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, I believe that we’re at the point where we’re not going
to get any further unless we do have somebody from the outside to come in and take a
look. I believe – initially I thought we could do this administratively because I saw
policies and procedures issues, which I still see. I see mistakes were made, and we do
that, but I believe to move this forward we’re probably going to have to expend the
dollars to go ahead and have somebody, third parties, just as Commissioner Williams
suggests, and do that audit. David and I talked about that. I did not think that was
necessary at the time. Based on the conversations today, I’ve changed my mind and
would recommend that we go ahead and allow a third party, be that the internal auditor or
a third party auditor that we do would hire – I do have problems having our external
auditor doing internal audits and that’s just a problem that I have and I think David would
concur with that. But I do believe to get this off the dime and to move forward that we
need to go ahead and move forward and audit the numbers, audit the policy, and let the
chips fall where they may and take the appropriate action that’s necessary, or we’re going
to continue arguing about this point for a long time. I agree with Commissioner
Williams, let’s go ahead and do it, make it happen, and see where it falls and let’s get it
over with and move forward.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on the substitute motion?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, since I’ve been here, I know that we’ve done audits and I
don’t disagree with what the Administrator is saying. But the bottom line on all of this is
this is not something that occurred overnight. The substitute motion puts us in a position
to where we are instructing our staff, from our administrator to our three principal
department heads over personnel and financial issues to develop policies and procedures
consistent with generally-accepted accounting practices which are a baseline for
accounting principles and to do it in a timely manner. That hasn’t been done in the five
years I’ve been here, and based on some of the things that have been seen, we haven’t
been conformant with nationally-recognized accounting standards probably in a long
time. So while I would like to see us do a performance audit, I would like to see us put
31
some procedures in place that will give some guidance, with consistency from one
department to another, which is what we don’t have. And that’s why everybody is doing
what they did for the last 20 years. Before we do that, before we go to the audit, I’d like
to see the departments have a chance to get in line, which I think they will if they’re
given one consistent standard, which is consistent with a national standard, to go by.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor of the substitute motion from
Commissioner Cheek, please vote with the usual sign.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Williams votes No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 7-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us now to item number 12.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
12. Discuss the Augusta Housing and Economic Development Department.
(Requested by Commissioner Williams) (Referred from April 11 Administrative
Services)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. With your guidance we met with HUD,
we met with the CHDOs, we had I think a good meeting, but there is still some unclarity
as to where we are and what we doing. The director of Housing & Neighborhood
Development informed us that they was there just to be observers and not to interact with
the CHDOs and to respond to any of those things. So Mr. Mayor, I’m still not clear as to
where we are, what’s, even where we are going, I guess from that point. So I’d like, I
mean I see Mr. Smith here. If he can advise us, if somebody can tell me are we on track,
the CHDOs, [inaudible] working, everything under operation as it supposed to. I heard
that we going to work together and we going to do all this, but all of the controversy, all
of the things that happening, and I think on yesterday, you talked about Macon, Mr.
Mayor, that still having some problems with their Housing & Neighborhood
Development. But I just need to know where we are. What’s the next step? Where are
we going?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith, can you respond?
Mr. Warren Smith: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I thought – and
again, with all due respect – I thought that the meeting that we had with HUD and the
CHDOs and other parties was excellent. It was an excellent time to hear and get
feedback from our funding agency on issues that have come up that we’ve been kind of
32
confused on, issues that maybe we have not addressed properly in the past. We got good
feedback in terms of directives that the Department of Housing and Urban Development
had provided us guidance on in the past. They were very clear as to the guidance and
how we had implemented certain things to move forward. We were given guidance to
pull back, correct, review, [inaudible] which are very important. We responded at the
time they give us that directive and very clearly, I thought, I really thought, that Stella
Taylor was very clear about that. She outlined certain things that had happened last
summer, she outlined information having to do with some major findings that came out
of reports. She encouraged us, first of us, that the bottom line right now is that we need
to be moving forward. We need to put the past in the past, work together. We need to
look at hopefully getting the CHDOs to work together from the standpoint of
cooperation, of sharing resources in an age and time of scarcity. We’ve got a lot to do
still in this community and she encouraged them and us to work toward that. She was
very clear, I thought, about making sure that we stop pointing fingers, making sure that
we just take a look at ourselves and agree to work together and make this thing happen.
And one of the things I mentioned was that we have gone back, we have revised
contracts, we have – it’s not going to be perfect, I mean this is a difficult program to
operation. We are going to work with the existing CHDOs. She felt that the way that we
were handling things in terms of not having the City to take the lead, of saying we need
to go in an assertive direction in terms of revitalization, and challenge and require that the
CHDOs decide that they’re going to respond to, let’s say, a directive from the City, that
the City sets the directive, and we and the CHDOs – not just the CHDOs, but others, but
that we have a group of resource programs out there that help us to implement the vision
for the city. She thought that that was very important, that had to be done in the form of
some kind of competitive approach to things maybe next year we could pursue it that
way. That’s, I think where I believe we are. Maybe I’m mistaken. I think that’s where
we are. We are currently a department being audited. We are very cooperative in terms
of giving information out to the auditors. One of the things that we’ve provided to the
auditors was a single audit act. We have two audits a year and we provide all the
information from those audits. They’re looking at this audits and they’re going to be
doing an independent assessment and reporting back to you. But that’s where it is right.
We have got to put the past in the past and move forward. And I’m ready, willing and
able to try to do that.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, and I think Warren for his comments, but I was – my
question to him was where are we as far as Housing & Neighborhood Development in
this city. I was, I facilitate that meeting, Mr. Mayor, case you had to leave. It was a very
good meeting, I thought. Some of the CHDOs come up with some questions and stuff
and we ended the meeting. Ms. Taylor did say that she could not run our program for us.
She could not come to Augusta to run our program. We had to run our program
ourselves. She did say that we had a great number, her and the gentleman that
accompanied her, said we had a great program with all of the CHDOs that we have here.
So we realize that. My question to you is, Mr. Smith, if anything is on board, we on
track, not what Stella said, not what HUD has said, cause we was there to hear that. I
need to know the relationship between you and the CHDOs. Not you. The department
and the CHDOs. Are we on page, are we on track, are we still proceeding, is everybody
33
got their marching orders, they got their contracts, anybody been held us? We had a lot
of conversation about your department. We met several times, through Administrative
Services and everywhere else. We met at the Board of Health a year or two ago.
Commissioner Mays and I remember that. And there was some questions that came up. I
need to know as the person who is in charge of that department, in your mindset, are we
ready to go forward from this day on, not, not, not from what they said?
Mr. Warren Smith: Well, I can speak for myself and I can’t speak for the CHDOs
totally and completely, but I can say that I’m working directly with the CHDOs now, I’ve
got good staff that is assisting me with that. I believe that we have worked with each
CHDO. There’s going to be issues that come up. It’s a complex program. The HOME
program is complex, but good resource for housing production, for affordable housing
production. We’re working with them. We have – outstanding right now we’re
recertifying the CHDOs. It’s a requirement every year we have to recertify in terms of
their eligibility as a CHDO, having the proper board structure, having the proper things in
place to manage funds, and all of them are getting that feedback to us. Actually I’m
meeting tomorrow with Laney-Walker, I think it’s 10 a.m. tomorrow. We have some
issues that we need to [inaudible]. So all of that, again every day we’re making progress,
every day we’re committed to trying to move this city forward in terms of revitalization.
We have a revitalization districts ordinance that we need to be putting more time and
energy into, and focus there, and I think that that is going to happen. I think we’ve got a
good – and I don’t want to be too specific on some other things – we’ve got a good model
project that we’re moving forward on, with the leadership of Commissioner Cheek,
[inaudible] we’re going to be doing the next project in Commissioner Beard’s district.
We’re [inaudible] demonstration. We’re going to be doing a project in Bethlehem that’s
also going to be picking up under a model that we’ve established for Dover Street. So
there’s room for all of us to play in this sandbox together, and that’s what I want to do. I
want to play in this sandbox together as a team. And we’re going to move to do that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson had his hand up. We’ll let him go ahead and then I’ll
come to you, Ms. Beard.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In our last meeting, I think it was very
fruitful when HUD came down and the CHDOs had the opportunity to speak and I think
at different meetings as we had throughout the day. We closed the meeting, I asked the
question to all the CHDOs that was present whether everything was carried out as we had
instructed it to, and they had received their contracts and so forth that was held up, and I
asked each one of them individually and all of them gave a positive, said yes. The
committee – and Commissioner Mays also spoke – we agree that we wanted to put this
behind us and move forward progressively, and the things that have happened in the past
we agreed to leave it there. So we also, the committee will be coming forward later with
some suggestions, you know, for future planning of things, how we are going to handle
things in this department. I think that we have a policy manual that we was waiting to
come forward that will be, that will answer all of these questions, so it would not be
coming from an individual but it will be coming from this Commission. We said there
that all these plans that you hear the director talking about now, he can’t go forward with
34
them without them coming before the – discuss the citizens advisory board. And also we
said that the Commission. So it would be the Commission, the citizens advisory board
and the director will give the direction of how we want the HED Department to go as far
as housing, as far as areas that we selected to start working in. I think Ms. Beard chaired
a subcommittee, got something in place there. How we going to work. And we want
these things implemented. And they will come before the Commission, the committee
and then the Commission, to look for final approval to move in that direction. So we
won’t have business as usual, that – if there are individuals thinking that it’s just HED
Department or trying to withhold things from them or working against them, we want to
make sure they have our endorsement also that it work smoothly. To my
acknowledgement, I haven’t had any calls from any of them saying something, that they
had a problem, that something wasn’t carried out from the last directions that we gave the
HED Department. So I think we’re moving in the right direction, and if there are some
other things we need to do, that it be brought back to the Administrative Service
Committee and we could address it at that time.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I just wanted to mention I attended that meeting and I thought it was a
very fruitful meeting. What I got from it was that we have had a lot of
miscommunication this year. And it was much easier to understand why HND was
bringing the type things that they brought before us, because actually they had gotten it
from HUD. Now HUD was not pleased with the way the funds have been divided, you
know, between the different CHDOs, because he said when you’re doing such small
projects it’s hard to see what is being done. And it’s their opinion that the CHDOs, that
all of us can come together and do projects that will really make a difference in this city
and end up in the most blighted areas of this city. So I thought that was very important to
us. And it may be that when they come before us they may need to bring them in, too,
until we are comfortable with what we are doing.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham:
Mr. Mayor, thank you. I, too, attended the luncheon, and it was
somewhat rewarding to know that our HND Department had been doing what they had
been instructed to, based on federal rules and regulations. And I feel like that what we
are seeing now is a spirit of cooperation that is going to bring all of this together and
make a much better and improved community from what we had seen in the past. And
Ms. Beard is absolutely correct, that they had been and we had been spreading ourselves
too thin with the dollars that were given to us, but by taking those and allocating larger
amounts to the various CHDOs that could be used, then we can get into certain areas.
And it was also recommended that you concentrate on certain areas within the
community and do a good job there and then move on to another one and another one.
As to how that is going to be selected, I think it’s going to be left up to the department, to
the CHDOs, based on their recommendation. But with that in mind, I feel like we’ve
35
really worked on this horse pretty badly and we’ve come to a conclusion that once you’ve
got everyone into the room, it made a difference. And then everyone is on the same page
and playing with the same ball. And by doing that, you know, we can come out knowing
I’m going to make
that what we have accomplished is going to be fair for everyone. So
a motion that we receive this as information and that we move forward with the
recommendation from HUD and with the department based on our administrative
chairman as far as getting the policies and procedures in place.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there discussion? All in favor of the motion
then please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: At this point we will take a five minute recess.
[RECESS]
Mr. Mayor: We’ll come back to order and we’ll call item number 34.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
34. Motion to approve: (1) Construction Agreement by and between CSX
Transportation, Inc. and Augusta, Georgia for the replacement of the existing CSX
Crossing over the Augusta Canal between 9th and 10th Streets; and (2) First
Amendment to the Construction Contract and to Remediation, Restoration and
Indemnification Agreement by and among Augusta, Georgia, Williams
Environmental Services, LLC and Atlanta Gas Light Company.
Mr. Mayor: You had a question about this, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, after discussing this and having it brought forward to
Engineering and finally we get clarity on this maintenance agreement and all, I just want
to be assured – cause I got a different signal when I got out here – that between the City,
between the subcontractor, between CSX, that we have an agreement to maintain what is
under contract here and that there is no confusion about that.
Mr. Wall: The subcontractor, Williams, has no ongoing responsibility. The
responsibility is that of the City.
Mr. Cheek: Now, Jim, that’s not what you told me. I asked you did they
maintain it forever and ever amen and you said yes.
36
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: I apologize for butting in, but this is the thing that frustrates the heck
out of me when it comes to this canal, is it is a never-ending circle. Now we’ve got to
cost or allocate personnel resources to maintain this stream and I want some clarity. I’m
not against this contract. But I want to make sure that we are in fact going to be able to
remove the dad gum logs and things in this canal because we want to maintain trees, as
well as the other junk that we have the resources to do that and it’s not going to become a
filthy water way, which is has become for the last 50 years.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, reading from the agreement that’s in the backup, it says
by agency – that’s us – agency shall maintain at its sole cost and expense the opening of
the box culvert structure shown on the plans, keeping same free and clear of debris. CSX
shall own, and at its sole cost and expense, maintain repair, replace and renew after
construction the box culvert structure and its track over the new structure on its property
and easement. So that’s it. It’s pretty clear.
Mr. Cheek: It’s plain language, Mr. Mayor, but there are trees at the base of
Hawk’s Gulley crossing on Broad Street that have been there for years. Nobody takes
accountability. It’s been a continuous circle of utilities, public works and the Canal
Authority pointing to each other, all of them saying they don’t have the personnel or the
resources to do it, and I want to get that question answered today because I’ve seen it for
four years now and I just want to make sure that we have someone to tag as a person in
charge of making sure this is handled in a timely manner and if they’re allocated
resources is that going to take resources from another area of responsibility? I just want
to get this ironed out. Because while this agreement is great on paper, in reality the
follow-through and the execution of it, it hasn’t been maintained in 50 years. We
[inaudible] canal crew [inaudible] haven’t maintained it since then, and I just don’t have
any feeling in my heart that it’s going to change just because we have it here in writing.
And I want to see this thing handled where we can move on to other issues and this canal
can become the beautiful waterway that it potentially is.
Mr. Wall: Well, first of all, perhaps I misunderstood your question in committee,
but my understanding was you were asking whether or not the City was going to be
responsible for the maintaining of those culverts forever. And that’s what I understood
the question to be and that’s the reason I said yes, so long as the crossing in there. And I
apologize if I misunderstood the question. Also understand that this agreement deals
only with the CSX crossing. You’re talking about a section of pipe currently in excess of
200 feet. When this crossing is put in, it’s going to be approximately 50-55 feet. So that
is the area that the City has agreed under this agreement to be responsible for maintaining
those culverts in that section free so that water can pass underneath that. That is an
obligation that we are taking as to the relationship between the City and CSX. Now as
far as Hawk’s Gulley and other areas of the canal, I mean I’m not here to address that
today. And I understand your concern about those areas. But this agreement today only
deals with that CSX crossing.
37
Mr. Cheek: And I fully support moving forward with this, but my question is if
we’re going to obligate – and here we are, we’re saying “the City: -- well, “the City” is
supposed to have maintained the third level of the canal, as well as the remainder of it, all
of these years and it just hasn’t happened and I would like to get some ownership,
somebody step forward and say we will have a convict crew or we will have a public
works crew or a utility crew or somebody establish a maintenance program. After all,
this is only about $26 million in improvements to the third level in that area, and I’d like
to at least see it maintained clean and beautiful as it’s left to us by these contractors.
That’s the question that’s a companion to this, because we’re obligating the City and I
want to know if we have the resources to follow through on that obligation.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Cheek, as I read this, it becomes our responsibility that we do
do that and that we allocate sufficient resources to get that done. And it’s my job to make
sure that it happens. So we’re going to do that.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Russell, my message to this board is you in your infinite wisdom
and many fine qualities can’t make something out of nothing, and we need to have you
supplied with enough crew to deal with this. Because it just hasn’t been dealt with.
Mr. Russell: I will be bringing forth whatever recommendations, I will be
bringing forth the recommendations I need to make sure that happens.
Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Is there a second?
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote
with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Wall.
Mr. Wall: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see, the next item I believe – Mr. Cheek, you said item 14
would not take much time. Let me get the Clerk to read the caption and then we’ll see if
we can dispose of that.
The Clerk:
14. Report from the Land Bank Study Committee.
38
Mr. Cheek:
Mr. Mayor, what we have to present today is information to be
referred back to Administrative Services, is the report back from this committee. We
have developed a comprehensive plan that addresses the shortcomings within the current
land bank authority, addresses corrective actions, as well as a funding mechanism,
establishing as a goal within two years to make it self-sustaining as far as budgetary
impact by revenue generated from property sales. The department personnel and others
involved with this process have developed a package that will help us, enable us to
collect properties, assemble them if necessary, and then release them back for
make a motion that this is submitted as,
redevelopment in a timely fashion. So I just
for information to be brought back to the proper committee which is Administrative
Services for review and comment at the next committee meeting.
Mr. Hankerson: So move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there discussion? All in favor,
please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Chief, are you here for item 15?
Mr. Willis: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: If we could, let’s take up item 15 so the fire chief can get back to the
fire house.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
15. Presentation of information to the committee on the Staffing for Adequate
Fire & Emergency Response Grant (SAFER).
Mr. Mayor: Chief?
Mr. Willis: Good afternoon. This is just for information. This is something
we’ve looked at the last couple of months. It’s staffing for adequate fire emergency
response grant. This would give us an opportunity to hire some fire fighters and
personnel into the fire service with federal funding. It’s kind of like the old COPS
program or the [inaudible] program that was developed several years to. It’s a four-year
program. The first year that the program is put on, we can do each firefighter up to
$100,000 for four years. The fifth year we have to take full responsibility of those
firefighters in our services. The first year it will cover 90% of their salary, the second
th
year it would cover 80% of their salary, and 50% the third year, and 30% on the 4 year.
39
So it’s a decreasing amount that we would have to put into our funding for employment
th
for firefighters over the four years, and then the 5 year we would take the full amount.
But possibly through attrition we would we would end up probably keeping the personnel
on the Fire Department with the increase volumes of calls and all. We’re going to be
presenting some information to you for increasing our staffing levels. Now the NFPA
standard [inaudible] 1710 are some issues that we look at in the fire service and that’s
nationally as well as locally here, too. So we’re just bringing this to you for your
attention, to take a look at, and at any time if you would like to take a look at this, we can
take the numbers and get back to you and give you some information on how many
firefighters we could possibly support on this grant funding operation as well.
Mr. Mayor: Any questions? Betty?
Ms. Beard: With this new ruling –
Mr. Willis: Yes, ma’am?
Ms. Beard: -- have you been looking at bringing on more employees?
Mr. Willis: Yes, ma’am. The National Fire Protection Association standard
addresses those issues and we are certainly always looking at that. We have the two-
in/two-out program that we have to look at as well, too. With the ISO ratings and all, we
are trying to get at least four firefighters on all aerial apparatus and a minimum of three
on our pump apparatus as well, too. But with the increased responses with fire operation
and [inaudible] medical responses, too, adding additional equipment we’re right at our –
what we call our bubble on manpower operations at this time.
Ms. Beard: What about your funds?
Mr. Willis: The funds right now, with our funding being the cap that is on our
funding that we get through the city, this would help us get some additional firefighters
without impacting funding a great deal. Now like I say, over the next five years, with
people coming and going in the fire service, we would probably end up taking those
people on in fulltime operation over the years.
Mr. Mayor: Marion?
Mr. Williams: Chief, we talked briefly in the committee room about this, and I’m
in support. But I remember when we did similar to that situation with the Police
Department and we took on additional officers, and then after the funds ran out we had to
absorb them, and that’s what you said earlier. But where are we now with the manpower
you wanted to put on the apparatus? The aerial trucks and the pumpers? Are we close to
or can you give me an estimate of how many people you’re talking about? I mean I
would hate to do this and get a large amount. I say a large amount, a great – [inaudible]
all the apparatus with the manpower we need and then when the grant run out, then the
fire department, which is part of public safety, says to us, you know, what are we going
40
to do now? Where are we, I guess, with what we got? How far off are we? How many
people you talking about?
Mr. Willis: Right now we are in the process of trying to hire 15 firefighters.
They’re going through the testing processes and all at this time. In the past history, over
the past several years we average losing four to five firefighters a year in the fire service,
either to going to industry or to better jobs, other locations, just relocating their families,
whatever reason it may be. So at no time in the history that I’ve been in the fire service
have we ever had a capability of saying that we are at full staff. We are always looking
for extra personnel. With the increased growth in the city and all, we are looking at
possibly submitting an application to you people for two additional fire stations to help
our ISO rating that will be coming up shortly. And it’s a situation where I can’t give you
a firm answer where we will be in two years from now or three years. But we are always
having staffing problems and keeping people. With the increase in staffing as well, too,
when we have vacations and holidays and things coming up, and we’re coming up to this
time of year when that is prevalent to us, trying to keep the staffing up, it will help us cut
down on some overtime possibilities, as well, too. To answer your question, to be at full
staff, we’re looking at 16 people right now.
Mr. Williams: And that’s going to give you the manpower you want on each
machine for your OSI [sic] rating and everything else?
Mr. Willis: Yes, that would help. In addition to that, to put on new machines and
everything and to get these people through this grant process, we’re looking at about 15
people.
Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me say this. And it may be a tiny bit premature, but
it’s going to be a lot more mature than maybe we think. And I think this is something I
brought up more than once. I had an opportunity to speak with the chief about it. And to
speak with the Administrator about it and to speak with this Commission about it. I think
it’s great that the idea is being brought forward today. I hope the sooner we can get to it,
the better off we’ll be, and it will be for more than just one reason. Oftentimes when we
look at grants, and in terms of where they are in a descending order in terms of the
[inaudible] government picking up full responsibility, that is only one side. But I think
the positive side of it is it allows, if we’re creative enough to do it, it allows you the
opportunity, quite frankly, in some difficult times to be able to get the financing correct,
at a point of when you really need to get to it. And the fire service is one area that we are
going to have to face that responsibility, probably a lot sooner than later in terms of the
[inaudible]. And this is one of the things I was talking about when we talked about the
difference in suburban and urban tax districts and while we’ve got to get to that idea in
terms of one formula of how you deal with the taxation. We, quite frankly, outlived the
formula in terms of how we deal with funding our fire service. So it can be a tool that
41
serves as more than just getting the immediate firefighters on board. This is something
that can actually help us to prepare in terms of getting a serious discussion with this
Commission, whether we’re dealing with it with outside task force to bring it back to us,
to tell us what we know reality already is or not, and that’s one way we can do it. But the
bottom line is going to be that we are going to have to do something that sets a permanent
course to be able to deal with [inaudible] as this community grows and the amount of
people that we are going to have to protect. So I think it’s an excellent idea to move in
and in terms of taking advantage of the grant. And also, it will give us time then to put in
motion those things that we are going to have to do in terms of changing the systems.
Because it cannot stay in terms of where it is right now. And that would be one
[inaudible] I won’t have to deal with. But it’s to a point, particularly those of you coming
back, whether you got two years, four years, or a whole another term, it’s one that’s
going to have to be addressed, I think that we in the government, it’s been there, we have
been very fortunate to, I think, provide the level of service in terms of fire protection that
we have, looking at the way the system is set up. This is just one aspect of an
opportunity that I think gives them some breathing room, it gives them an opportunity to
do something new that’s in that training area, and also will help us, if we utilize it
properly, to be able to given them possibly, Chief, some of those funds to free up that we
do have that will be able to help us in some other advanced training areas and education
that we want to do within the fire service. So I think it’s a good thing to bring forward,
whether it’s going to be brought forward fully today, and I think you’re giving it to us for
the information purpose today, but I think the sooner you can get it back to us, because
obviously this will be a budget season item to deal with, and if we can be on board to get
some of this money in order to do it with, the better off we are. And I think the history,
too, with grants is that the sooner you can get on board in terms of dealing with that
money – we’re not the only people who need it and want it – and the quicker we’re able
to exercise that and allow the people in the department to do that, the better off the city is
going to be. So I welcome it here today, I welcome it coming back, and I hope I’m here
long enough to see is supported, implemented, and put that money in place.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I just – I don’t know why but I was kind of thinking that it was –
these [inaudible] would have be in addition to what is already there. I mean to give you
an example, if we have 300 employees, then this, it would have to be an additional 10
that you could not use them in place of the 300.
Mr. Willis: That’s right. It would have to be an additional 10 firefighters or the
15. Whatever the numbers will allow us to do, that would be the additional.
Ms. Beard: So that means in the end we will need to pay for these additional
firefighters, the city?
Mr. Willis: Yes, ma’am. And this grant will pay up to $100,000 per firefighter
for four years, and then after the fourth year we take them on, we can absorb them into
the system, as well.
42
Ms. Beard: So I guess we really need to know if the fire department will be able
to, you know.
Mr. Willis: Right. Like we’re saying, this is for information. If y’all would like
for us to carry this forward we can bring some numbers back to you and look at that to
see if we can support those firefighters, see how many we can support through this grant
program, and we’ll certainly be glad to do that. The grant process opened up on May.
We can certainly put our applications in. And that’s why we are bringing this to you
now, if it’s something y’all wish to do.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think it’s a good program when it
gives us the opportunity to hire additional staff. As Mr. Mays stated, and I know our
Finance chairman down there is probably focusing in on it, too. I know that with ten
employees, that sixth year, we’re talking about $400,000 that we don’t have to look to
continue to keep those on staff.
Mr. Willis: That would be the fifth year we would have to pay the full amount.
Mr. Hankerson: Right. The fifth year. On the fifth year, we’d be paying the full
amount, $400,000. So all that need to be taken into consideration, whether we want to
pursue that or not, that many. Second this is have we looked at, in hiring these ten new
employees, I’m concerned about – I know the issue came up before the former chief left,
about – I was very concerned as Administrative Service chairman about firemen now
able to pass the test, and it sort of threw things out of balance. Before Chief Gillespie
left, I know I talked to him about it and talked to HR about it, the hiring process, that it
seemed to be very unbalanced, that they had a problem with a lot of minorities passing
the test and we wanted to work on some ways to look at the process to see whether or not
something on our end or what the hiring process. And so that, you know, I wanted to see
a change in that, and I think I heard something about training in the high schools or
something like that. You want to elaborate a little on that, what you planning on doing in
that area?
Mr. Willis: Yes, sir. We have had some conversation within the department
about doing some training, what we call a cadet program within the high schools, the
local schools, the technical schools and all in our area, to enhance the capabilities of
people being able to come in and pass the testing process and all, as well, too. Through
this grant program, that is one of the issue that is addressed in there as well, too. Looking
at our minorities and making sure they have a fair opportunity. And that is something we
are going to definitely look into and we’re looking at on a daily basis as well, too.
Mr. Hankerson: I suggest that you seriously look at it. I was very concerned not
only in that department, but all the department, the hiring, if there is a problem there with
the testing, that we need to look at the way the test is given or the process or whatever.
43
But when you have a five minorities in a fire department hired in the last four years out of
50-something, that’s sort of a low ratio. So it may be something that we can do in that
area, whether it’s additional training and through the school. I like that idea. Something
to look at there.
Mr. Willis: Well, one of our key things that we’re looking at, and we’ve looked
at it for a number of years, is getting a good training facility here for our city. And not
only for our city, but for all fire departments within this area. We support each other so
we want to enhance the training and to enhance the capability of our local people here to
get into the fire service. It’s a very competitive occupation at this time. I can understand.
I’ve been in it long enough. It’s certainly a good job to have. We certainly want to look
at our local people and the minorities and make sure that they have a good opportunity
and have the background to help support them in passing these tests and serving the fire
department. And our main focus, like I’ve always said, is for our city, to see it grow and
enhance our city. And by enhancing our people within our city, they have an opportunity
to live here and have a good way of life in our city, and this is one of the ways I think we
can do that, too.
Mr. Hankerson: That’s very good. And I just want to make a point, make it clear
that in the list that I received, the information, I’m speaking of – when I say minority, I’m
speaking of women, Hispanic, Blacks, I not speaking of one particular race –
Mr. Willis: I know that.
Mr. Hankerson: -- as a whole, as minority in the department. I think it’s good if
you look at some ways of training and looking at the testing process and so forth to kind
of see what we can kind of do in that area. But really I think, Mr. Mayor, we need to get
information from the Finance Department of what kind of financial impact this is going
to be. Also make it clear that if we accept this, that those particular firemen should know
up front that when the grant is gone, it’s no guarantee.
Mr. Willis: Right. And that’s something we can address with them when we do
the hiring. But I can’t stand here and tell you 100% that we would probably absorb them
into the system, but with the turnover and the growth of our city and the growth of our
department, they would probably be absorbed right into the system over the period of
time.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Chief, you may remember several or many years ago – you may
have to go back a ways – but there was a program similar to this called CETA. C-E-T-A.
Comprehensive Education Training Act. And all of the old county departments, former
county departments, were involved in that. And it was something like a four year grant,
and we made certain that the people that we hired on that program were phased into the
44
regular staff at the end of the four year period, and I think it may have been the Nixon
Administration, but they didn’t renew the program, and it didn’t cost us anything, but
what we had to pay for that little 10%, for those four years. It may have been a five year
program then. I don’t know. I’m not sure of that.
Mr. Willis: I think it was a five year program.
Mr. Boyles:
But at the end of five years it would just wipe right across the board
and we had those people that had applied, because I know I had a lot of them in the
recreation program out there, that they had applied for jobs, we took them in, and then
when other folks either left, retired, got fired, whatever happened to them, these people
I’d like to make a motion that we
were phased right in and it worked real good. So
pursue the information that Chief Willis is asking us for.
Ms. Sims: I second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Mr. Boyles: Pursue the information. Then we’ll look at it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, just one point of wrapping up, that I think we need to
keep very seriously in concern and I think everybody is concerned about the finance and
about what happens when the grant runs out. But I do think you need to keep some
emphasis on the fact that one difference is that you have an advantage in terms of not
only seeking information, but of trying to deal with implementation, is the fact that if you
are already short and you know you’re short, then at some point you’re going to have to
bring up the standards. You will not violate the spirit nor the law of the grant because
you can draw the line, quite frankly, at where you are within terms of your work force
that’s in place. You hire the people that are new and I hope to God that by the time the
grant runs out that whatever Commission and whatever Mayor are in charge, that you
ought to be able to figure out in four years how you then are going to pay for a fire
department which is, by the way, a necessity, to a point of being able to fund it at its
fullest level. And this is actually in terms of, quite frankly, a reprieve and a gift if you
move forward and you’re trying to deal with it. So I think you need to look at that aspect
of it. Because if you’re down, and even though I drive a Ford I go with Commissioner
Williams, my Chevrolet man, [inaudible], that you pay now or you pay later, and you can
deal with it on that basis of how you do with it, whether or not it’s [inaudible] property
owners in terms of whether or not those ratings get higher than where they are and to a
point they assume it in insurance premiums of which they pick up and how they deal with
it. So you actually are giving the taxpayers of this community, quite frankly, a break.
You’re giving the government a reprieve to a point of getting its act in order. And then
reminding you also that some areas of public safety – and I voted for it – do not mind the
support I’ve given it. But we have areas where we have increased that millage in order to
deal with one side of that. Whereas, we’re looking at another one whose structure is
45
basically crying out to say hey, give us some help. So I think we’re moving in the right
direction and I hope that when the information comes back that, quite frankly, it will be
much prior to budget season, it will be something we can vote on, and something that we
can get them quickly to moving on because we will not be the only fire department in
America that will be asking for grant funds. Those that come to the table first, I think we
can look at the past history of the COPS program in terms of what was not sought after.
Those communities who went after law enforcement very early in that program got a
different formula from those who went at it very late. And those who got it late didn’t
get as much and they were not able to be as flexible within the money. So that is a good
lesson already learned by this government. And that was where we had two of them. And
so I would just like to say I think it’s a good idea to move forward with it and I hope to
hear from it quickly from my standpoint.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We’ll go ahead and vote on the motion then.
All in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Willis: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s do item 16 next, if we could, please.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
16. Consider a request from Recovery Fest, Inc. regarding city sponsorship of
the annual Recovery Fest on May 7, 2005.
Mr. Mayor: What’s your pleasure?
Ms. Beard: I so move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: I think you need to specify an amount. And source for the funding.
Ms. Beard: What do we normally –
Mr. Shepard: Usually we have a contract for these type of entities. I don’t know
where your funding source is going to come. Commission Other probably has some
money in it and Contingency probably has. I defer to David on that, but I think we have
a contract for improvement of community health [inaudible].
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
46
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: I’m looking at the backup material, and it looks like May 7 is the
date that’s designated for Recovery Fest. And so it looks like everything is already in
place and planned, so I’m going to second Ms. Beard’s motion that we go on and get this
thing done.
Mr. Mayor: Well, you need to specify an amount and source for the funds.
Mr. Grantham: What was the request for?
Mr. Mayor: There is no specific request.
Mr. Grantham: What have we done in the past?
Mr. Mayor: Just says we need your support and financial assistance. I don’t
know.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I think in the past they used the Lock and Dam Park. I
think that in the past – I’m going from memory now – I think that may have been our
contribution to it. Cause I’m like you, they didn’t put an amount in here. And whatever
the charge is at the Lock and Dam, that may have been what –
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, as much as I hate to say this, I think we’re in a situation
now where we’ve got one of many wonderful groups that have come to us for
contributions and I know they all have worthy causes and everything. But I think
traditionally in our last or so of operation, we’ve not given responses [inaudible] given in
this particular case, and I would suggest that we not offer any funding for this at this
particular point in time. If by chance we have worked a relationship in the past where we
gave them the use of the facility, I would encourage us to do that, but I do not think
we’ve done that, either.
Mr. Boyles: You may be right. I’m just going from what I think may be memory,
but I think the policy you talked about is probably the correct policy. And not contribute
financially.
Ms. Beard: I have no problem going along with that, you know. If they should
come back, if we should be contacted and we have been doing something in reference to
that in the past, then that we take care of that. The park.
Mr. Mayor: So the motion would be that we take care of the fee at the park?
Ms. Beard: Yes.
47
Mr. Mayor: Waive the fee?
Mr. Boyles: Well, I didn’t make that as a motion. I just threw that out as a
thought.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard had a motion. I was trying to clarify what was in the
motion.
Ms. Beard: If it’s Saturday, they don’t have a lot of time so you would think
someone would contact us to see if we would be doing something. But I’ll go on and
pass this to Willie.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I might just ask a question, I think we should try and
help. I was going to ask if we got some other items that we need to cover that maybe we
could come back to this one. Because what I’m thinking is that it might give staff some
time to check with Recreation & Parks to see what is in line for lock and dam and with
this project on Saturday. It may be where there is a commitment that’s in place that they
have schedule that’s there. I’m thinking we need to find out from them what’s on tap,
whether they got the whole park, what we do in terms of relationship or how we deal with
other entities who want it for non profit and be able to come back in the same meeting
and give that information to us, if we’re a little unclear on it. Cause once we give the
signal ?? waive, then if something else has been discussed, and I don’t see them in the
room right now, I think the director’s gone, but that may give one of the assistant
administrators time to contact them and just see what that status is, bring it back in here
and then we make some kind of decision we can keep firm with whoever else that we
have to deal with this again, that we not set an unusual precedent but that we be able to
help them at the same time. That’s my suggestion on it.
Mr. Grantham: Motion to table until we get information.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to table, which is non-debatable. All in favor of
tabling this item, please vote with the usual sign.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Colclough not voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 20, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: What number?
48
Mr. Mayor: 20.
The Clerk:
20. Approve the sale of One (1) Excess Police Vehicle to Augusta Regional
Airport – Security Division for $2,500.00.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote with
the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, next let’s take up items 13 and 22, which is the same.
If you’d read the caption we’ll deal with that. 13 and 22.
The Clerk:
13. Approve new positions, reclassifications and salary adjustments in Utilities
needed as a result of reorganization, additional responsibilities and salary
inequities.
22. Approve new positions, reclassifications and salary adjustments in Utilities
needed as a result of reorganization, additional responsibilities and salary
inequities. (See background information under Item 13 under Administrative
Services)
Mr. Mayor: And you had asked for that to be pulled, Mr. Colclough. Go ahead.
Mr. Colclough: Ms. Pelaez, there was nothing in the backup. Could we just get
something passed out to us? Could you help me out with this since you are Human
Resources? What does the Human Resources Department - what is their position?
Ms. Pelaez: The part that the Human Resources Department agrees with is the
actual reclassifications and organizational restructuring of adding additional positions.
The once that you we ask that you give us some additional time to review are the pages -
there’s a page that they’re handing to you right now with a list of the employees and the
salary increases that they’ve tried to give incremental increases to correct the salary
disparities. We need to review how that will impact the entire organization other than
just Utilities.
Mr. Colclough: I’ve got a whole lot of paperwork here with numbers and names
and a nice color chart here. And what I see is reclassification is a number of supervisors,
coordinators and managers.
49
Mr. Mayor: Richard, we can’t hear you down here.
Mr. Colclough: Number of supervisors, coordinators and managers. I would like
some time to review this. I mean I’ve got all these papers that have been handed to me a
few minutes ago and there’s no way in the world I can read them within ten minutes and
find out what’s going on. And you may be able to tell me, Reverend, but -
Mr. Hicks: We have a very unfortunate circumstance we just happened to notice,
and that is all the even pages are missing in your documents. You’ve got 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11,
13, 15.
Mr. Colclough: I just need some time to look at it.
Mr. Hicks: Insofar as the color copies, you’ve just got them handed out to you,
but we were just sitting over there noticing and saw that all the even pages are missing.
Mr. Colclough: I’d like to make a motion that we send this back to Finance
until our next meeting so we can get all the documentation back where we can
review it.
Mr. Hicks: You mean Administrative Services?
Mr. Colclough: I’m sorry, Administrative Services.
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second to send this back to committee.
Discussion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I don’t have any problem sending it back but
I do think we need to discuss this for a minute or two. And the reason I say that, I asked
for a minute or two is what I said. I asked for this to be brought forward and I’m very
disappointed as to what’s been presented to us from the Administrative, management,
managers and director and all this stuff. I asked for something to be done for the meter
readers, the secretaries, the lower level employees. Now we done brought, Max, you and
me done talked about this before, we done brought several times upper positions to come
in. Now I asked you to bring something forward and you said you’d be more than happy
to, you would like to bring them all. I said I don’t want them all. I think we done done
too much. Just my personal opinion, for certain positions. And with all this money we
got in Utilities. All this money that we done created and brought in. The people who
actually brought that money in, the people who actually keep this government afloat has
not been considered. And I wanted something to come to this committee to consider
those people first. For one time in the history of Augusta we ought to go back and say
look, we going to look at the everyday worker first one time. Now we done brought
several people, maybe not all of these people, but the upper level have been brought to us
50
with evaluations, reclassification and evaluation and even some increases. We have
never, ever, with all of the stuff that we come out here, Mr. Mayor, and we talked about
the awards that we got, and the people who really got that award are the everyday worker.
That’s how come we’re able to get those type awards. I’m not going to support. I’m just
one, though. Y’all know that. That’s not going to make a lot of difference. But I’m just
one who not going to support everything over the level of supervisor on a truck right
now. Cause we done look at other folks and there ain’t no sense in throwing everybody
together. When we asked for the study that was done, Max, you picked out, I say picked
out, you brought to us a select group, upper level. None, not one, not just, not nobody
who work overtime [inaudible] nobody was brought. And I think it’s unfair. I think we
need to look at those levels. And my little investigation, checking, I talked with the
Mayor, the Administrator, along with the Attorney on yesterday morning. There are
some documents that I’ve got that I’m going to [inaudible] I want to sit down and talk
with you about it to show you what I found, how people who come in in this government
and start to work make the same amount of money that folks who been working here for
10, maybe from 5 to 10 years, cause the level [inaudible] coming in where they have not
been increased, we got some serious issues. But now we got a lot of money. We want to
go to IT and do some work, we want to do some other things in that department, we
talking about buildings. I’m in agreement, Max, but I think we need we to look at those
people that have not been considered at all. Secretaries, the meter readers, the truck
drivers, the lower level people who have not been supported at all. But all the money that
the water system done produced for us and brought in to this government, people don’t
know anything about Enterprise and where the money come from that department. They
see raises. Commissioner Cheek said we ought to do it for those that we can and try to
find some resources for the other ones. I agree. But if we going to do something,
everybody above that ought to be held back, just for a moment, take these other people,
let them know, cause if you going to give percentage raises and those who already
making money is still going to make more money and those other percentage that have
not been brought up. And I think it’s very unfair for us to sit here and consider
everybody when we have not done anything for the [inaudible] person. I got no problem
sending it back. I didn’t make it to the meeting the day, I’m sorry, to express this in the
meeting cause I was late. I’ll be at the next meeting. I’ll try to express it [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Richard?
Mr. Colclough: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I would just like to make one request from our
Director. Could you all get with Human Resources so when we come back with this
thing, we can all be on the same page?
Mr. Hicks: Commissioner, if you’ll notice, Human Resources did in fact sign off
on the agenda item. The only one that they had question about was the one that deals
kind of with what Commissioner Williams is asking, and that is with our meter readers
and our maintenance worker I, and again, all I can do is apologize that all the pages
weren’t printed, and I won’t get into that, but they just weren’t printed and we were
trying to hand them out and I’m sure that you’ll have them before the next time that you
can get together. But the main one that Ms. Pelaez had a problem with is the one that I
51
can show you. It has to do with maintenance worker I and meter readers. It’s that page.
That’s the main one that Ms. Pelaez has a problem with, and that’s the type of increase
that Commissioner Williams is asking us to do and that we took into account for the
meter readers and the maintenance worker I in that those are two of our lower rated
groups. 36 is the very lowest salary grade position that we have. These are all 38s, and
what we’re trying to do here is adjust for the fact that some of the folks used to work for
the former city and some used to work for the former county, and this is what came out
real clear in the Administrative Services meeting the other afternoon, and that is that
you’re going to have a similar problem in public works, where you have—not with meter
readers because they didn’t have any meter readers, but they did have maintenance
worker I. And if you have a maintenance worker I for the former city and a maintenance
worker I for the former county and they came together, then when the salaries were
adjusted those with the former city were brought up to a minimum level, that is to entry
level of salary, and the once for the former county as a rule didn’t get that much, and it
caused a lot of resentment at the time because most of the money was used up to bring
the former city folks up. Well, that created a position still, though, where you had a
position where you had—if you look at the very bottom of the meter readers where
you’ve got Carl Baldowski, who has been there for 28 years, then you’ve got Donald
Williams, who has been there for 27 years. And Mr. Williams makes almost $5,000
more—well, a little over $5,000 more a year than Mr. Baldowski, and that’s because of
one’s former city and one’s former county. One has been with us 28 years, the other one
27 years. And those are the kind of inequities that we were trying to overcome with this.
But as Ms. Pelaez so aptly pointed out, if we try to overcome those inequities with this
group, what’s going to happen with the other folks in the rest of the city. And the
Attorney is nodding his head, and I know Ms. Flournoy is nodding her head. And
everybody is nodding their head, but we were trying to do the right thing and bring them
up. And Commissioner Williams, in direct answer to your request, as we came in—in
other words, I’d like for this to come back to you with the colored charts, everything,
even pages and everything there and you can study it and see what you really need to do.
Basically what we’d like to do is be able to continue with our reorganization and created
the new department. Y’all vote on the department head for that when you approved
the—that was a couple of weeks ago when you approved the one for the assistant director
of water distribution and wastewater collection. That one was already approved, but now
we need to set up the organization to go with it. And then there’s others that we’ll need
to deal with that has to do with reorganization. And then we’ll deal with—and the
reclassifications have to do with employees having more responsibilities. And Ms.
Pelaez was all right with that. We had discussed all of that. But the ones that caused the
most heartburn were the ones that had to deal strictly that there’s no reclassification, no
increased duties, just trying to make things right. And that’s basically what you’re after,
Commissioner Williams, is trying to make things right. And how to do that is the
problem. I had asked, as a matter of fact, before we started the meeting, I had asked Ms.
Pelaez and Ms. Flournoy, maybe it would be a good idea if the three of us got together to
determine, as was so aptly put, what constitutes rank and file. And to come up with a
method of salary adjustment that would be applicable not only to Utilities Department,
but the various departments in this city, because I know that’s what’s going to have to
come forward before ever Ms. Pelaez and Ms. Flournoy or the Attorney would sign off
52
on this. I know that it’s up to the Commission to approve it and I know if I can get six
votes that would be a done deal, but I noted there is a lot of concern about what would
happen. And I would like to come up with a program that would be appropriate not just
for Utilities, but would be an example. Now I made a suggestion in the Administrative
Services meeting to go ahead and approve these as they were, then that would be the
exampled, and the esteemed Chairman didn’t go along with that, and so we quit. But I
would, I would like to have something that would be good for everybody. I really would,
sir. That’s what I’m sure Ms. Flournoy and Ms. Pelaez would address, and that is that
when I bring something to you that involves rank and file it would be a method that could
be used for the rank and file in every department. Because I know that’s what they’re
going to want to do. And with that said, I’ll hush, gentlemen. But I would, I would like
to see the reorganization and the reclassifications get approved, and I would like to even
see the meter readers and the maintenance workers be made equitable. You can see that
Mr. Baldowski has been here for a year longer than Mr. Williams and makes $5,000 less
doing the same job. It’s kind of a tough thing but we’ve got to overcome it. That’s what
we were trying to do.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I guess it’s kind of like my good friend J.R.’s
business card says, it’s all about money. Let me say first I support the Mayor Pro Tem’s
concerns in reference to what he has within this department, as well as to how it carries
over into others. Let me say one thing to him, and I’m going to yield to the Chairman of
Administrative Services, at least he has his hand up, among others, Mr. Mayor. But one
thing I did want to say, Mayor Pro Tem, we didn’t have a meeting today, but on the
meeting that was last week, which there was not a quorum, I thought it was very
interesting that we kept the meeting over. And while no decision can be made in the
absence of a quorum it was very interesting that the same things you echoed here today
on the floor, those are the things that we talked about in information and in sharing
during that committee meeting. And I think the chairman in his leadership was very
adamant. Mr. Hicks put it mildly in terms of how that was going to go. I think if it had
been a quorum the other day, it was not going to come to this Commission with a
recommendation, quite frankly, [inaudible] because there were some concerns that were
opened that I do think that at that committee, and [inaudible] we don’t mind hearing it
again, but I think it would be informative to others, non-committee, maybe even to a
point of when we discuss some of this possibly with a joint situation of both Chairman
Hankerson’s committee, along with Chairman Boyles’ committee, because there are
some issues involving personnel and legal to a point of when you open that I don’t think
can be as simply addressed and say we’ll do part and then we may do the other. The
question is, if you do part, if you listen to what your Attorneys and your HR director will
tell you, I think you are going to find that when you do one, you’re going to do the other
one, whether you’re ready to do or not. Now that’s the question that you better get
prepared to answer, because there are some issues there and they do lie, quite frankly, as
you were talking about, Commissioner Williams, a lot of them with rank and file, but
then there are some areas that have still not been done by the consolidated government.
So, I guess, Mr. Mayor, I kind of laugh [inaudible] all my friends out there that might
53
think that abstaining is the biggest problem you’ve got in this government. We’ve got a
[inaudible] problem that hasn’t been addressed from a system standpoint that are far more
serious than the way somebody votes. So I think that that’s going to become an issue that
we’ve got to deal with. It’s one that goes beyond committee or two and we’re going to
have to address it. While I think probably they may have the resources in the department
to do some things, its impact of where it takes some other departments, or more
importantly where it doesn’t take them, or whether [inaudible] do you answer those
questions [inaudible] and to do them, it’s giving HR nightmares, it’s giving your
Attorneys some bigger nightmares. So how y’all deal with that remains to be seen, but
there is concern about it, and we’re not trying to punish one department for having some
[inaudible], because they’ve got some in there that they’ve got to equalize. It’s going to
have to be done, Marion, in that area that you actually talking about. That’s going to
have to get done, even in that department, in that lower level, it’s going to have to get
done. But then we are also going to have to answer the question that once we open that
door, to a point of when you send that invitation, you are going to need to be prepared to
deal with the other. And that’s why a few minutes ago I mentioned that about the fire
department. We are going to have to be creative in this world of ours and I won’t have to
answer that for long, but you are going to have to deal with that to a point you’ve got far
more requests out there than there are monies, and you’ve got some things you are going
to have to do, that the law says you are going to do. And you are going to do them
whether you want to do them or not. The jail building is not the only mandatory thing
that you are going to have to end up dealing with on some stuff. You are going to have to
answer some fundamental questions that are about personnel of the city and how you are
going to deal with it. At least they do have some money to deal with it. But I agree with
the Mayor Pro Tem. We need to have a path forward out of it, and that’s why the
chairman of our committee is so adamant to a point that he wants to make sure it moves
solidly in one place, it does not get us in a bunch of legal ramifications just because we
may have the money to cure part A. We got part B, C, D, and E that we still have got to
deal with as a city, and I just wanted to throw that out there, even though we didn’t have
a formal meeting, [inaudible] ideas were brought forth in the discussion period and they
are concerns.
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to get to everyone that has your hand up, but I want to
remind you that the motion is to defer this discussion back to committee. We can talk as
long as you want to. May not have anything left to say in the committee meeting. Mr.
Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: That was my point, Mr. Mayor. I thought that’s what the motion
was, to send it back to committee. We didn’t have a quorum when we had the
Administrative Services Committee meeting this past week, but we did open up and
discuss these things and a lot of [inaudible] information came out of that and a lot of
things that we need to address. But I can’t see how we can go forward with this today
anyway. I hope that we’ll call for the question and go ahead. If we don’t bring it back to
Administrative Services, then that’s what we should do. But if not, I would be, I’ll feel
good if it doesn’t come back to Administrative Services now if we go ahead now and
continue discussion and vote it up or down. Don’t bring it back, because we have already
54
discussed it thirty minutes after the motion. So I would love for it to be resolved and not
come back to Administrative Service and go ahead and continue, and if I need to put that
in the form of a motion I’ll do that so we can go ahead and continue to ask the questions
about it and do whatever we want to do.
Mr. Mayor: Let me recognize some of these uplifted hands we have here at the
table. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a couple of questions, and I’ll try to be brief.
Everybody knows my opinion on this thing. It’s well spread upon the minutes of these
many meetings. When was the reclassification study done? Was it two years ago or
three years ago?
Mr. Hicks: I thought it was farther back than that, wasn’t it? Brenda? Three?
Three.
Mr. Cheek: Three years ago. As a Commissioner, I’ve sat on this board and we
are going to study, we are going to think about, we are going to do something to help the
employees and we’re going to get to that reclassification one day. We haven’t done a
damn thing. [inaudible] use the burning building analogy at this point in time. We’ve
got an opportunity to help some employees who have grossly been left aside, and the
reason they have these inequities is because we are always going to get to it. Well, we
haven’t got to it. And I hear about this probably a lot more than the rest of you do. I
mean I live with it every day as far as general fund versus enterprise fund, and these
recommendations. But the bottom line is, and what we’re saying today, is by continuing
to defer this for another—no reason to believe it won’t be three more years—is that we’re
not going to do anything for anybody, rather than trying to help those that we can help.
That’s the bottom line. What we need to do is help those that we can help, as Max said,
and use this as a model and then go out and find the money wherever necessary to help
these people. Some of these people are making very little money who are long-term
employees, who have skills, who are in fact leaving and going to other areas, so we’re
once again becoming the training ground because we refuse to adjust salaries to
compensate for the market in this area. They’ll even go other places. Y’all saw this—
hadn’t been but a couple of hours ago—the parade of award that Utilities has brought to
this city. Unparalleled in the history of the Utilities Department. Now, we get a chance
to help one of the highest performing departments, recognized stated and nationally, for
their productivity and performance, yeah, it will be a desired place to go, yeah, it’s
terrible that we can’t raise money to fund every general fund and reclassify that. But
ladies and gentlemen, it’s three years old and we hadn’t done a thing but delay, defer and
deny. And what we’re saying today by continuing to take that course of action is because
we don’t have the intestinal fortitude to raise revenues to compensate the remainder of
the general fund then we’re not going to help anybody. That is the bottom line and that’s
not by work but our actions back that up 100%.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles, then Ms. Beard.
55
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, just as a form of comment, following Mr. Cheek. I think
that at the start of this year we were able to cut our budget 6.9% and it looks to me like
we’re still operating and we’re into the fifth month of the year. We could cut that budget
another 1%, I think, Fred, and that would raise us $1.1 million and that might be what it
would take to put this study into effect, because this is coming from the enterprise fund. I
just throw that out as a suggestion, if you want to use it when the committee meets, Mr.
Hankerson, when your committee meets. You know, if you want to get it off center, do
something. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I know this is generalizing, but it seems to me we have been into
consolidation for about ten years, with the two different governments, and it’s totally
unfair for people to be doing the same job and making different salaries. I honestly think
we need to bite the bullet. Okay. Make this one government, bring the urban and
suburban into one, and do what is necessary in reference to our employees. Do you
understand? I’d like to see us actually begin to work toward that and get it done.
Mr. Mayor: Point well taken. Mr. Hicks, you’ve had your hand up for a while.
Mr. Hicks: The main thing I wanted to ask, gentlemen, is that we really have on
this agenda item two items that both we and Human Resources fully agreed on, and that
had to do with the reorganization and the reclassifications that were there. The one item
that we’re addressing and we’re running into most difficulty is trying to do what we’re
trying to do, and that is take the maintenance workers and the meter readers and adjust
them because of the differences that occurred due to where they used to be. I would like
to, with your permission, make two separate agenda items when we come to you, to the
Administrative Services Committee. I’d like to have at least one be a straight discussion
about our reorganizations. We would like to continue to move forward with our
organization the way we’ve been doing and that is we then need to handle the
reorganization of the engineering/construction division, break into two, which is what we
proposed, and then when it comes to the water production end of it, consolidate those as
we propose to do, and then when it comes to the customer services and administrative
services, consolidate those efforts. Those have nothing to do with across-the-board raises
or this sort of thing. They will open up positions for rank and file to apply for if things
go the way they normally would and we have the good applicants that we do and make
promotions. But I would like to, with your permission, separate it and then this item
about the meter readers and the maintenance workers could be lumped together with what
Commissioner Williams is asking for, and that is a consideration of rank and file. And in
that aspect, Ms. Pelaez, Ms. Flournoy, or somebody in Mr. Shepard’s office, whoever he
might want to appoint to do it, we could look to develop something that would be
applicable, not only to maintenance workers and meter readers, but to all of our folks,
which is what Commissioner Williams is asking about. I’m all in favor of it, but we’ve
got to come up with something. It was made perfectly clear to me the other day that
whatever we come up with has got to be something that can be applied to our other
56
departments, that is, the procedure and the approach for it—is legal the right term?—for
it to be—
Mr. Mayor: It’s always a good term to use.
Mr. Hicks: --for it to be legal. I mean I found out that the other day, it would be
illegal for us to do certain stuff. I had no idea of that.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got plenty of lawyers in here who will walk us through that.
Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I was at the
Administrative Services Committee meeting and we did identify these salary equity
issues. Ms. Flournoy has done some work on it and is prepared to address it generically.
I received a list today of what the consequences would be in the non-enterprise fund of
departments and right now from the information that’s been furnished me, there would be
46 which would be totally affected, 13 in AUD, which we do not have a funding
problem, that leaves 33 left in the other departments. Then in terms of the others, there
were three secretaries and administrative assistants affected in AUD and 50 in the rest of
the organization. So I have asked them to work toward an impact statement. So if you
do the right thing, which I’m not saying not to do, you have your funding in place for the
others. Because if you do Max’s piece and don’t address the others, it’s my opinion that
you are handed cause of action to others similarly situated throughout the organization.
So I think that, Mr. Mays, J.R.’s business card says the same thing that Randy Clements,
who used to be a GMA staffer, told me when I first showed up at GMA. He said about
all of the answers to most of the questions in local government law or local government
operation is money. So that’s, if you know where you’re going I think it’s fine, but I
think we’re on the cusp of a comprehensive statement which would show what the impact
would be for doing what Max suggests inside of Augusta utilities, and you would know
what you would have to do outside. That information was just furnished to me today.
Mr. Mayor: Chairman Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays. I mean Mr. Mayor.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: We do often get mistaken.
(Laughter)
Mr. Hankerson:
We will discuss this commotion as old and cold. Now, I do
agree with what was said by my colleague. The Commissioners haven’t been that bad. I
agree that we have delayed, we have deferred, and we have denied. I guess we are the 3-
D Commissioners. But one thing we didn’t do, realize that we did not fire or we did not
lay off staff. We did not do either one. This Commissioner have already voted down the
57
idea of enterprise departments receiving pay increase. We listened to our HR Department
in saying that they were trying to get things that all the employees would not create these
inequities by receiving these enterprise raises. But here we getting ready to do it again.
And as I said to the director, when we discussed this last week, he asked all of these
things that he’s asking for. If we do them, if he get that passed that he would be the
director of the year, because he would have worked a miracle and created a big problem
with the other staff. You still going to have one secretary sitting by another one in the
restaurants eating, and one say I got my check, I got my raise. The other one say how did
you get it? And until we are able to do all of them—we realize the fact, we wanted to do
reclassification three years ago, we wanted to do it two years ago, but each time we were
confronted with monies, of not increasing taxes in order to do that. So that is the
problem. As we listened last week, we know that there are a lot of inequities, some of
them was created when consolidation—you have city employees I think make the larger
amount, the smaller amount, and the county employees, the larger amount. That’s why
you see those differences in those salaries. That has not never been corrected. So we
talked about that. . If we work on even just doing that, that’s not reclassification. That’s
resolving the inequity problem. So that’s a problem within itself that’s going to cause us.
Now we talking about a reclassification. We promised all the employees reclassification
so I think if we were going to do one, we would look at reclassification of all the
employees. I’m willing, I’m ready for next year to say okay, let’s go ahead and give the
employees what we have promised them. Everybody reclassification. Then HR will go
back and work on these inequities here that we have with the city employees and the
county employees, that sort of thing, the ones that not resolved in the reclassification. So
I think we talked about it long enough. I don’t really even want to see it come back to
Administrative Services cause we’ve already, we’ve already discussed it. Why be
So I’d like to make a substitute motion that we deny
redundant? Time is money, also.
this and when
we work on our reclassifications, we will address all these problems.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Ms. Beard: I second it.
Mr. Mays: I’ll second it, too.
Mr. Mayor: Motion has been seconded. All right. Discussion? I think we’re all
going to be ready for Recovery Fest here.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just want to stand up an [applauds] give doing nothing a
standing ovation.
(Laughter)
58
Mr. Hankerson: You’re clapping for yourself.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me say this. We talking about
reclassification, and I said earlier I did not want to see all of this come back to us,
because we done, we brought a portion of this before [inaudible] upper part of this
before, not just before, several times it come through here with the upper part. We—Max
admitted we passed a position that’s going to build a whole other department there
because they need it, but we have not done anything. Now, we not talking about
reclassification. We talking about justification. Justifying that those people that been
working for us who been keeping this government going, who have not had any attention
brought to them, but we want to lump them in with everybody, say we need—the
Commission is on our case about these lower level or—what’s the name we using for
them, Max?
Mr. Hicks: Rank and file.
Mr. Williams: Rank and file people. So we going to put everybody in there, we
get the rank and file, too. I disagree with that. We need to justify why we have not done
with all of the monies, now, that we got. It’s not reclassification. All the monies we got,
and that particular department, we have not done anything for those who keep us afloat,
those who get cursed out over the telephone. When they call and the water been turned
off [inaudible] for whatever reason and they call the water department and want to know
why and some contractor done went in and did something. Those folk who go out there
and open the meter and turn it on and find out it’s nothing wrong with the meter, it’s
something that somebody done done. Those are the people that I’m concerned with.
And I can’t support any of this until we look at those rank and file that we been talking
about, whether it go back to committee, go back to full Commission, we need to look at
those employees for one time first before we look at everybody else. Now, I think it’s
unfair. The percentage [inaudible] percentage raises, reclassifications, those who gotten
money, 10% of 100 is still 10%, is sure better than 10% of 20. So we need to understand
how important it is to go back and not reclassify but justify those people who have been
working with us. And Max, I hope we can get together, either end of this week or first of
next week. Let me show you some data that I’ve collected, some information that I’ve
put together, where I think you going to really see some serious issues that we need to
address [inaudible] different situation [inaudible] Attorney involved.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We can go ahead and vote on the substitute
motion from Commissioner Hankerson. All in favor of that motion, please vote with the
usual sign. The motion is to disapprove. Disapprove the reclassification.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Cheek votes No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Ms. Sims out.
59
Motion carries 7-1-1.
Mr. Hicks: I gather, then, that this means that we can’t go forward with our
reorganization?
Mr. Mayor: Not today.
Mr. Hicks: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: We need to go back, Madame Clerk, to item number 17. I have so
many scribble marks on here I went right by it.
The Clerk:
17. Approve use of $206,250 from Third Level Canal, SPLOST Phase III funds
to match a DOT grant of $815,000 for the extension of New
Bartram Trail.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just a couple of questions. This, I believe, is the figure when we
were reviewing sales tax remainder of money that we were looking at doing the
remainder of the clean-up of the remaining portions of the lower third level and the upper
third level towards Phinizy ditch. You know [inaudible] for the distance we’re talking
th
about, adding the trail from 15 Street at Reynolds to the other side of the [inaudible] at
Sibley Mill, that’s not a mile. And you know, last time I looked, I think public highway
costs about that a mile. Again, while I hate to—I’ve just got some questions. I’ve got a
building on a [inaudible] coming off of Walton Way that’s collapsing in the canal. The
city is probably going to get sued off it cause it hasn’t been maintained. I’ve got $26
million worth of improvements on the third level. The bottom end of the third level is
plugged, overgrown, and covered with junk. The upper end going back to Phinizy ditch
is plugged with weeds and so forth. We had identified or talked about in those meetings,
I believe, these funds to deal with helping supplement the clean-up of those areas. And I
guess question one, are these those funds that we talked about? Question two, why in the
heck we’re taking credit for—if you look at the backup—improvements made from the
head gates down to, all the way down to Riverwalk, just about. And quite frankly, ladies
and gentlemen, if you cross over from the pavilion, across the head gates, there hadn’t
been a darn think done to that tow path that I’ve seen. And I’ve been up there several
times. It’s like stepping from West Lake to Dover Street in that area. And so I’m just
kind of concerned about us getting a bang for our buck. One, I don’t want to turn down
money, the matching grant, but I don’t want to leave the upper and lower end of the third
level unfinished. This is the same issue as before. We can say we’re going to do it with
convicts, but you got to pay the guard. You got to dispose of the waste. These are cost
items that need to be identified with a funding source, and if we’re diverting these funds
then the upper and lower end of the third level are going to be cesspools, which they’ve
been for a number of years. And I’d just like some exlplanation from the Canal
60
Authority, from staff, from somebody. Are these those funds that we identified at the
SPLOST meeting?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Cheek, I—Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Cheek, I do not know the answer to that question. Be happy to
get that for you from Mr. Sherrouse.
Mr. Cheek: You remember, we looked at remaining money in each category.
Mr. Russell: I remember the conversation but I can’t specifically speak to this. I
apologize.
Mr. Cheek: You know, you hate to turn your back on $1,031,000, but—
Mr. Mayor: You want to defer this for two weeks, Andy?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, if we could bring that back to Engineering Services or
the appropriate committee I would appreciate it.
Mr. Russell: Finance.
Mr. Cheek: Finance is good.
Mr. Mayor: Is that a motion?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, it’s a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, there’s a second. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, just out of curiosity, I don’t see it, but is there a time line
on the grant?
Mr. Mayor: No, this grant is some reprogrammed money that Mr. Kuhlke has
obtained for us. So there is no—
Mr. Boyles: So he doesn’t have a deadline?
Mr. Mayor: No. It can wait two weeks.
61
Mr. Grantham: I thought it had already been received.
Mr. Mayor: It was received for another project. It’s been reprogrammed. It’s not
like we’re gong to lose it next week.
Mr. Boyles: Okay.
Ms. Beard: May I ask what project it was to go to?
Mr. Mayor: It was some beautification project. I think it was out at I-20 and
Bobby Jones or something, which is going to be redone anyway.
Mr. Grantham: Where the loop was.
Mr. Mayor: Some money that they weren’t going to need, so instead of taking it
back and sending it back to Atlanta, reprogrammed it to this.
Ms. Beard: [inaudible] beautify Sand Bar Ferry Road?
Mr. Mayor: Talk to Mr. Kuhlke about that.
Ms. Beard: Don, would you do that for me?
Mr. Grantham: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a lot of side conversations.
Mr. Grantham: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. All in favor of the motion, please vote
with the usual sign. The motion is to send it to Engineering Services, or Finance, I guess
it is. Finance. Send it to Finance Committee, get those questions answered.
Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Madame Clerk, does that take us to 27? Is that the next
one, by your count?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk:
27. Discuss the reorganization of the Public Works Department. (Requested by
Mayor Pro Tem Williams) (Referred from April 19 Commission meeting)
62
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, we had this discussion in committee
[inaudible] but I’m not yet satisfied. Mr. Russell is going to bring something to us but
I’m very disappointed. It’s been two months. Eight weeks now. We still don’t have
anything in writing and we have not had anything brought to this body that we approved
for the guidelines for the department that we split. I need to know what job duties and
what details of each department going be, what are those department going to be called,
who—we got some interim people, I guess, in that position now. Are they going to be
applied for? We appointing people to those positions? How much additional money it’s
going to cost this government. We are sent down here not to grow the government but to
try to do just the opposite from that, but it look like we are in the process of doing. Mr.
Russell, you don’t need to respond. I think you responded earlier, but I wanted to go on
record to say that I’m not at all satisfied as to where we are with the Public Works
Department that we divided. I don’t see any difference, I don’t see any greater works,
any better works. If anything, things are definitely the same. But there is no
determination who doing what, Mr. Mayor. So I can’t address it because I really don’t
know who has—I have not called the Public Works Department to check on or to see
about anything cause I don’t know who is handling what. So I need to know where the
line is drawn at and who is in charge of what. So we get this ready.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, I’ll recognize you.
Mr. Russell: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And Commissioner Williams is right. I’ve
been directed to bring that back through Administrative Services at the next meeting.
We’ll have the agenda item ready and be able to respond to his questions then. Thank
you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Russell, I hope you, hope we get
something in our package that we can look at without giving me at that particular time.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: I hope that there is something that will be sent out so we have a
chance to study it, to understand it, and I think it’s going to be something we are going to
have come back and vote on; is that right?
Mr. Russell: You’ve approved several items but the total package needs to be
voted on; yes, sir. And we’ll have that agenda item in your book. We’ll have copies
ready for the Clerk tomorrow.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other Commissioners got comment?
63
Mr. Grantham: Receive as information.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Got a motion and second that we receive as information.
Mr. Russell will have something in our package of next week so that when it’s delivered
we be able to look at prior to getting to the meeting. All in favor, let it be known by the
normal sign of voting.
Mr. Hankerson and Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item is item 32, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: 31.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 31. I’m sorry. 31.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENTS:
31. Consider the reappointments and/or appointments to the Sheriff’s Merit
Board. (Deferred from the April 19, 2005 Commission meeting)
The Clerk: We have the three appointments that have expired, needs to be
reappointed or others to be considered for appointment.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The same three, is that what you’re saying?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. They are eligible for reappointment.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get a motion?
Mr. Smith: So move.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Any discussion? Mr. Colclough? If
there is no discussion, all of those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Hankerson and Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item 32, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
64
32. Consider the appointment of Mr. Reginald Johnson to the CSRA Economic
Opportunity Authority, Inc to filled the unexpired term of Ms. Sharon Holmes.
Mr. Boyles: So move.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Got a motion and second. Any discussion? Hearing none,
all those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Hankerson and Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 8-0.
The Clerk: Item 33.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s right.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR:
33. Report from the Administrator regarding the General Obligation Bond
Referendum. (Requested by Commissioner Jimmy Smith)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Smith, you asked for this? Let me say this while the
Administrator is passing this out, and I hope this our last time receiving information,
especially a document of this magnitude that we expected to go through and understand.
Hopefully, next time when these kind of things, Mr. Russell, have been asked for us, in
due time, if they not ready then they ought to go on the next agenda. They should not
come to this Commission in this magnitude, so we can have an opportunity to kind of
digest that. But go ahead, Mr. Russell. I’m not going to look at it. I’m going to listen to
you.
Mr. Russell: And I agree with you, sir. And if you’ll notice at the bottom of the
recommendation, I recommended you look at this as information today and I suggest that
we have a special workshop in reference to this. I had initially suggested Thursday, May
5, but after conversation with the Mayor, he suggested Monday prior to the committee
meetings. I do believe, too, that it’s too much information to expect anybody to digest
over just a small period of time and actually move forward with. I agree with you fully
on that, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: What has happened here, and specifically in relationship to the bond
referendum, as you know I made a recommendation several weeks ago that we have two
bond referendums in June, the first of which is for $100,000 for the jail and the
courthouse renovation. Second—sir? I’m sorry, $100 million. It sounded a lot better at
$100,000, doesn’t it? $100 million for the jail and for the courthouse. And we’re
65
looking at that as we speak, trying to make sure we tie down those numbers. In addition
to that, I recommended that we do a $60 million bond issue and let the people vote it up
or down whether or not they wanted to have a multi-functional entertainment complex or
an arena in the Regency Mall site. After that presentation, I was approached by
representatives of Augusta Entertainment Ltd., specifically Mr. Simon and Mr. Frank
Lawrence, in which they again expressed their desire to be partners in the public-private
partnership that I talked about. After several conversations with them in which I
emphasized what I had heard over the past year in discussion from the Commission in
reference to the ideas that you had in relationship to the former proposal an the fact that
there was some disagreement on several issues of major importance to me and to you, I
basically said that the issues that I heard the Commission talk about were the size of the
arena for basketball, makeup of the board, the financing issues that were there, and those
type of things that needed to be addressed. And it was my opinion that it would not be
worth their while to bring that forth to you until they were willing to address those
specific issues. Late last week I received a copy of a letter of intent, which is attached,
which basically addresses those issues. They have agreed to raise the size of the facility
to 15,000 for basketball, and I think that addresses a need that Commissioner Mays has
expressed. In addition to that, they agreed to revamp the organizational board in which
the Commission in my mind has equal representation to those individuals of the private
sector, and it provides a better public-private partnership in which the Commission and
the citizenry have greater impact there. In addition to that they wrote several other areas
there that are described in their initial letter—the division of profits and ownership
[inaudible] auxiliary agreements that need to be determined and the fact that if the
referendum doesn’t pass the letter of intent would be null and void, obviously. One of
the major issues that I heard discussed over and over again was the initial financing of the
operation, and what they’ve agreed to do at this particular point in time and submit it to
you is an agreement that they would--$60 million from general obligation bonds as
established before, $24 million from revenue bonds issued to be paid from the hotel-
motel tax, but I think the most significant area there is the $10 million in revenue bonds.
Those revenue bonds would be paid for out of the revenue of the facility, or, and this is a
major change, if that does not occur Augusta Limited would guarantee that $10 million,
as opposed to the initial statement where they were requesting that the City guarantee that
$10 million. You know, I’m not in the position to negotiate for you. That’s not what I
was directed to do. I did feel it was appropriate to bring this back to you after our
conversations and would suggest very strongly that each of you take a few minutes over
the next few days to talk about that. I would like to have Mr. Simon or representatives
from Augusta Limited be available at the next meeting that would be called to deal with
this and move forward with that in a positive or negative manner. I think once again
we’ve got a deal here that’s good for the citizens of Augusta, that’s good for the
Commission and the private sector partnership. It’s going to be good for the area in south
Augusta. I think the arena, the multi-sports area, will be good. In addition to that, I’m
concerned about the growth in that area and I can foresee the small stores, the restaurants,
the gas stations, those kinds of things that will be grow up around that kind of facility in
south Augusta.
66
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Russell, let’s just stick to the [inaudible], not the
economic development part that’s going to come with that.
Mr. Russell: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That may come later. I’m going to let Mr. Cheek go and
who else got their hand up. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I just want to urge everybody to
consider a couple of things. We have two chances between now and fall should this bond
issue fail. What we have been presented by the Administrator is a very comprehensive
package that should be held as companions, the bond and the SPLOST. If the bond fails,
there will be a mad rush for us to crunch together a bare bones SPLOST which will be
completely consumed by capital needs, with little left over for anything other than
buildings and necessary facilities. I don’t think any of us wants to go through that. I
encourage the Commission to consider this. I’ve read the document and believe the
changes have been made to address it. We don’t have a strong history of passing bonds
in this city, although I do feel this one is in the best interest of the city. We desperately
needs all the players from the arts community, Augusta Entertainment, the Mini Theatre,
everyone on board with promoting this for it to have a chance, which will allow us to
come back with a SPLOST package that will enable us to do $425 million worth of
improvements to this city. But we have got to get on board, and get on board now,
because time is short. And the labor, there’s a lot of labor for us to go out and win the
public’s trust and support this. The time is now and I just hope that you’ll review this
and find it favorable. They’ve corrected a lot of the issues that we all had concerns
about. Let’s get all the players on our team now and play with one team, one mind, and
one body. I know it’s not perfect, I know some of us have issues with some of this, but I
really feel it’s in the best interest of this entire city for us to try to team up and come
together as one body to present this to the public to try to make the changes in the city of
Augusta that need to be made. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. We really been talking about
something happening in the Hollywood enterprise zone known as the old Regency Mall
site. It’s a golden opportunity for us to get some revitalization and something good for
the whole city as a whole. One thing is, I agree with you, I just received the document,
but I was going over it as we were in discussion, one change that I see that is very good is
that Augusta Entertainment is willing to guarantee that $10 million. That’s $10 million
coming from the private sector, as guarantee for that. So maybe as we review this and
look at it and come back, we may find reasoning that we can come up with something to
go forward with our SPLOST package, our total package that we have.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Smith?
67
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Fred, is this, what you just passed
out, we’ll vote on this Thursday?
Mr. Russell: It would be my hope that—well, I actually suggested a Thursday
meeting. The Mayor has suggested a Monday meeting prior to the committee meetings.
It would be my hope that you would be comfortable enough at that point. I would like to
have Mr. Simon here and those people to answer whatever questions and give you time to
look over this, talk about it, think about it, and I would like it in the near future, and
hopefully Monday would be the day that we could either vote this up or vote it down and
determine which course of action we’re going to take. As Commissioner Cheek said, it’s
going to require a lot of work to deal with these issues and time is getting short. I would
hope that Monday you would be ready and comfortable enough to make a decision one
way or the other.
Mr. Smith: Well, what about Thursday? Is something else being brought up with
that?
Mr. Russell: No, sir. I had mentioned to the Mayor about the potential for a
workshop on Thursday about this. His suggestion was that we do it Monday prior to the
committee meetings, and I didn’t have time to change my document. That’s the only
reason. It would be my feeling that the Mayor’s suggestion for Monday would be
appropriate. That’s totally up to y’all, obviously. I’m not uncomfortable with that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me make a couple of—Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: In reference to the hotel-motel tax, there would be money there to
take care of this? And what are you—I mean you’re pulling this in place of something, I
suppose, we’re already doing?
Mr. Russell: Yes, ma’am. Basically if this passes, obviously some of that money
will be funneled—that money will be funneled to this project as opposed to the current
arena, and I believe that’s the potential that we’ve got there.
Ms. Beard: Now, they came up with that. Why did they come up with $24
million?
Mr. Russell: This is the proposal that they gave me and that’s what we got.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me try to address a couple of issues. First of all, when
I changed my vote in order for it to go to the voters, to give them an opportunity to vote
to see whether they want an arena or not, this was not included, this was not a part of this
package, this is not what we voted to give to the voters, to ask them about any partnership
with any organization or anything else. The vote was, when I [inaudible] vote, to
[inaudible] be able to go on the ballot so people could make a decision. Not a decision to
go with a partnership or with anybody. If the city wants us to build an arena and the
taxpayers so desire for us to build a facility, then I think we need to build it. I questioned
68
the Attorney about even naming the location, because it was a question [inaudible]
taxpayer would either want or not want it. Not where it’s going to be located at. Now,
that was thrown in there and the Attorney ruled it was legal, so I’m sure, Mr. Mayor just
said, you can’t go wrong with a word like that. It’s legal. But I truly disagree with
bringing this proposal in now. I hadn’t looked at it. There are several things, and you
addressed some of them, Fred. If anything of this magnitude, this important, should have
been brought to us by courier, should have been delivered in our hands as soon as you got
it. And if you got it today, this is as soon as we can get it. I understand. But if they
brought it to you any other time before today, we should have gotten it. I totally disagree
with what is trying to take place, what we’re trying to put together here. And that’s to get
this approved and added to. That’s not what the voters are out, the ballot is going out to
say, it’s going out to ask the simple question, yes you do or no you don’t. Not who is
going to control, who is going where, who is going to be a partner, and not even where
it’s going to be. So I’ve got a serious issue with that. I know you’re the messenger boy.
You brought it in. So you have to take it because [inaudible]. It’s not your proposal. I
understand. But now when you take a message back, you need to take it back the same
way. I think it’s unfair for us to even consider this, specially without even going over it
prior to coming in here and then having this thrown on the table that there been some
concessions made. I’m going to see if anybody else got any comments. Don, and then I
want a motion of whatever y’all want to do with it.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. One of the things I see that we
did in voting for the referendum was that yes, we did give the people the right to vote for
or if they want the arena or if they want a judicial center. I think it’s left up to this body
to decide as to who is going to manage it or if we are going to enter into any form of
partnership with anyone. So what I think this is saying is that with this in mind we have a
complete package, so much that we are presenting to the voters, to let them know that we
have at least considered going into partnership with someone, and that’s what the purpose
of this letter of intent is. It’s to complete the package so that if I’m voting on something I
want to know that I’m voting on the whole package to a certain extent, or at least I know
what’s going to take place by having this in place. If I didn’t have it, I don’t know that
I’d want to vote for something that I didn’t know the conclusion of or have any idea
whether Marion Williams is going to manage it or whether Barbara Sims is or whether
somebody else is. That doesn’t bother me as far as the naming of the person. What it’s
telling me is that this body has taken the initiative to enter into some form of intent to
manage the facility once the people vote for it and say that they want it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: In response to you, and Mr. Cheek had his hand up, but I’m
going to take this privilege here as the Mayor Pro Tem to just try to respond to that. And
I hear what you’re saying. Whether people want it or not is an issue. But when I
changed my vote in order to get this on the ballot, this was not mentioned about any
partnerships, about any consolidated effort with anybody. We put it out so the people
could make a determination what they wanted. Now we talk about the civic center that’s
over there, that we didn’t know if we were going to renovate it or whatever. When we
built the civic center, we didn’t put a partnership out there. We didn’t put a name out
there and say who was going to run it. It was automatically assumed, automatically
69
known throughout the community that we was going to build it and was going to run it,
we going operate it. Now, I don’t know about me and Andy claiming to be twins, but we
didn’t come in here at the same time. He was a few weeks older than I was. I was born
after him. But we wasn’t joined at the hip. And if we been joined at the hip somewhere
with somebody across town, then I’d like to see them. I mean they need to show up. But
Mr. Cheek, I’m going to hear your comments now. And I need a motion, y’all, so we can
keep right on moving. We did pretty good until we got to a creek and can’t cross it.
Mr. Cheek: Just briefly, just a quick question. What funding level do we have set
aside to promote or educate the public about the bond or SPLOST referendums?
Mr. Russell: We have none at the moment.
Mr. Cheek: That was none, zero?
Mr. Russell: Zero.
Mr. Cheek: Zero?
Mr. Russell: Zero. None. Nada.
Mr. Cheek: To me, if issues have been addressed in this document, which I feel
they have—it’s not perfect, nothing is—but the entire SPLOST, bond package, the
companion package addresses most everything we fought till 1:00 o’clock in the morning
for some time ago, and it does more. It balances it out. Likes or dislikes, I really feel
strongly that we need to get on board with anybody and everybody that will help us pass
this initiative. I shudder to think what could happen if we don’t pass the bond and then
don’t pass the SPLOST. That’s zero capital improvements for a year. Zero capital
improvements to a city of 200,000 people, 300+ square miles. That would cripple this
city. And time is short. And I don’t know what kind of advertising packages that these
people will bring on board or what will be done by the other groups, but I do know that
we need every horse pulling in the same direction. And I know we all have to vote our
consciences. Nothing short of the future of this city is in jeopardy and I just ask you to
consider that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get a motion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, obviously we’re going to vote on this on some other
day, at least that’s what my thinking is. I was going through and making some notes that
I would like to probably talk with the Administrator about. I don’t have a problem in
sharing them with you all on the day that we vote or prior to then or even sharing them
with Augusta Entertainment. I am concerned as to what was done in the meeting in terms
of the exactness of how you move forward with the, with the bond program for July. I
was not at that meeting and I joked a couple of times when we did a couple of sales tax
meetings after that, that I was concerned with some of the details and things that we were
going to put on there. It has been a concern of mine and Mr. Russell did address the fact
70
that what I talked about in the size of an arena, if we are going to build one, the size of
the arena wasn’t the only thing that I talked about, that I had concerns about. There are
others. The financial aspects of it, which you all were talking about, was one of my
serious concerns in reference to who was going to pay and if there became a deficit in
terms of what was in there, how that was to work out. There are just some things that I
would like to note and add, and since there’s going to be a short period of time to discuss
where that’s going, I made a note of those and I don’t have a problem in terms of sharing,
and since it’s been presented tonight. But just from the standpoint of the public’s right to
know, what [inaudible] talk about, and I’m not saying in terms of whether, where I stand,
either way on the items that I’m talking about, but I think Section IV needs to be fully
explained and talked about [inaudible] current hotel-motel tax. Ms. Beard asked a
question in reference to that and I see operating funds for Bell Auditorium, for instance,
down in 2002. And if Bell Auditorium isn’t going anywhere, then I want to know what’s
going to happen after 2002, what percentage [inaudible]. That’s just one area of
questioning I’m talking about. I’m talking about also in terms of putting where we’ve got
a DBE officer for the city that we put on, and one of the items that we talked about in
terms of 1:00 o’clock that morning is, Commissioner Cheek talked about, that we cleared
up, but I’m noticing to a point that I’m still seeing these best effort deals down here,
which I said at that time really gave me some concerns about how we explained that and
deal with it. In the absence of some laws or wording as to where that takes us. Whether
that takes us anywhere, nowhere or somewhere. The point in here in reference to the
makeup of that board, it does get us down to where we are on equal basis in terms of
doing that, but I made a note just when I been checking through since this has been out
here, in reference to the candidates in terms of the, of the community, in terms of how we
select and of how we place people on. I don’t know. The last time I checked, if we
represent the community, if we are putting forth a majority of the money, then to a point
then if the board is going to decide the list of people in the community that presents, then
maybe [inaudible] and the Commission appoints those [inaudible]. That’s just an
observance. That’s not a point here or there in making it. But it kind of resembles some
of those appointments that we deal with with other boards that we’ve had criticism about
up and down this line, about who makes appointments and sends them to us. And then
they are already predetermined about which grouping, of where those appointments may
come from. Now if they are going to send me something, as a representative—now I
won’t be here, y’all will have to answer that question [inaudible]. But to a point if you
are going to send me a list of folk and you predetermine before you send me, then the last
time I checked this currently, my successor, whoever comes here will represent half of
this city by vote, and to a point I think has just as much voice in determining how a board
is determined as does minority partners in [inaudible] business. Those are just some
observances I’ve done in the last nine minutes. Now that’s not a point of knocking this or
promoting it. But it’s something I think in a gentlemanly way, Mr. Administrator, I’d
like to share with you and share with them as a point of fine tuning and to talk about,
because some of these, I agree, they have been addressed from the time that we dealt with
before. But there are some that are in here that kind of remain the same or the wording is
a little different, but it comes out in terms of how the story still reads out. So I think
those are some things that need to be [inaudible]. My question and only question I would
have is that if we went through such a discussion before on a public facility, have we
71
through any members of the board, the Administrator, anybody else, and I think it’s good
for the public to know this is not a position per se, and I hope my colleagues will indulge
me in asking this question. But I would say the same thing we were talking about another
type of complex that we [inaudible], but have we, have we examined the world or
explored any of the takers or to see if there are any as to a point whether or not there is
any other deals on the table per se, since we are participants? And what I’m saying is this
may be, in terms of the public’s right to know, the best deal that’s out there, if there is to
be one. But I think maybe the question needs to be at least raised as to whether or not we
asked anybody, whether we talked to any other persons, or to say is there some person
out there, some group out there who has $20 million to bring to the table, $25 million, or
wants to split it on a true 50% basis, which I think that probably would not ever happen
per se in any city in America. But I raise it from the standpoint from people who watch
us and who will basically not get this when they read the daily paper, to a point whether
or not we ask that question in the form of an open meeting as to whether or not there was
anybody else. And I feel obligated to ask that question, is there, was there, would we be
talking to anybody? And I think when you’re talking about an obligation, quite frankly,
of—and I’m looking here and I may be wrong on my math, I’m just looking at 60, 24, 84,
10 million, 94—and nothing ever stays the same in the world of government. A $100
million project. Have we talked to anybody else? And I’m just asking the question.
That’s not to knock it. So I want that to be the headline tomorrow, when it’s slammed
with a sledge hammer, Sylvia, I’m just asking a question that I do think I have the right as
an elected official to ask.
Mr. Russell: If I may respond to that, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. No, I have not had
any discussions with any other people. These individuals came to me and presented this
and wanted to participate in the public-private partnership that I talked about when we
did the bond issue. I have not felt that I had the direction from this group to go out and
look for anybody else or attempt to do that. These people, this group came to me and
made the presentation that you have in front of you and that’s where we’re at on that, sir.
Mr. Mays: And I think they’re honorable [inaudible] I think they’re honorable in
their efforts. I think that the numbers on the financing has been a positive change in
terms of where the $10 million that you come from. But like that old riverboat gambler,
I’m always looking for a bend, and to a point that I think in terms of a massive turndown
in this community that we had on sales tax, to a point that even though this is about
bonds, I just wanted to make sure that maybe, or at least if there had been any exploration
of any other numbers, to a point of any other sports and entertainment entities out there, it
may be where there may be zero. And it may be to where the best deal that we are going
to get is the one that, quite frankly, is on the table. But I think if there—and I’m asking a
question that I know from a constituent response that I’m going to get from John and Jane
Doe to say okay, fine, you’re saying it’s a better deal, but did you all talk to anybody
else? Was there anything else out there? Did you explore that market, are you doing it?
Because you are asking us to deal with a major financial commitment, and I think it’s
more than fair that I raise that in this arena to a point to say have we done that, and if it’s
not there, if nobody else wants to be involved with it—it’s kind of one of those things
you say well, folk, you kick a fellow out, you kick a group out [inaudible]. This may be
72
the best deal we’ve got going, the best one in town if you’re going to do this particular
project, while it may be the best. But I felt obligated to ask, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, in
terms of the [inaudible] of what’s being asked of us to do on behalf of the government
and upon its resources.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. Mr. Mays, that’s been my question ever since the
revitalization project and that’s what I call it for Regency Mall site, something to be
there. I always said that I only had one proposal, and we, you know, welcome other
proposals. I thought a couple of weeks ago, didn’t we get another proposal from the
Woody Merry group? Didn’t they come with a proposal, that was another one? Had that
been discussed? I know it came in the last moment. But [inaudible] proposal. That’s the
only two I know of.
Mr. Russell: They made a presentation at the Commission meeting, if I can
respond to that. I was not here for that. I’ve had several conversations with Mr. Merry in
relationship to his ideas here, but I do not have anything, a formal proposal from him or
any document from him that basically says this is what I can do or this is what I want to
do or whatever.
Mr. Hankerson: Yeah, you were absent but [inaudible], and I’m just happy that
we’re having some dialogue about this, because it seem now more people getting
interested in doing something with that particular area. And I know that myself and
Commissioner Smith and some other Commissioners really want something done for
the—I call it the old Regency Mall site. And a lot of constituents are still saying that they
entertain the idea of a sports arena. Now how we get it, how we go about getting it, that’s
a different story. But there is interest out there, even though—even from the community
that received a letter that did not object. They wanted a sports arena. So that’s a good
question that was brought up by Mr. Mays and whether there are any other proposals out
there. I know that property owners and business owners in that area would love to see
something go at that site. We have this proposal, and I don’t know, before the SPLOST
is over with, we may see a performing arts theatre sitting on that hill. No telling. Mr.
Smith and I definitely would support that, too.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me say this, and then Mr. Russell and then Ms. Beard.
But let me say this. This ain’t no jack-in-the-box. This done been out before now. The
general public had an opportunity to either vote for it or vote against it. Not just this one,
but along with two other major projects. We put it on the ballot and they turned it down.
Now and the same folks involved then is the same folks that trying to be involved now.
So let’s don’t kid ourselves. Let’s don’t sit here and act like this is something brand new,
this is something different than what it was before, and how glorious and how glamorous
is it. But this done been around one time, and I think the same thing happened before
going to happen again. Mr. Russell, go ahead, and then Ms. Beard.
73
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Because of the nature of the
questions and in my mind the seriousness of the action you’re going to have to take either
one way or the other, in addition to the called meeting on Monday, I would suggest we
might want to have a workshop or a work session on Thursday at 3:30 in which I can get
the individuals from Augusta Limited here. They could actually respond to your
questions and have a dialogue that would actually bring us a little bit closer to some, to
some comfort in making a decision at that particular point in time. If you like, we’ll be
more than happy to schedule that.
Ms. Beard: I just want to say I support what Marion is saying here. And I think
we are about to go down the wrong road again. They were too involved in everything
last year, and when they didn’t see things going their way, they or their friends went out
to see that nothing would pass. I’ve never seen anything like it in my life. Ads on the
radio. Signs. TV. Everything to say vote against it. And I want to say one thing. And
they talked about Mr. [inaudible] and the poor job he did. Well, with the amount we
have come up with, it’s the same as what it was last time. And my constituents were
prepared and did vote for it. But what I would suggest—and this is why I didn’t waste a
lot of time with them—because I didn’t see it. But if I saw them putting in more money,
I know when I have a good deal and when I don’t. But if this something they’re really
interested in, if I were them, I’d sit back, I’d sit back, take a low profile, and push to get
this $60 million. And then I would come forward. Because we are going to have to have
someone, and they have as much of an opportunity as anyone else. But there is one thing
I’m going to say. I would not like to be faced with them every week until this vote takes
place. Okay? If they should come in, then everyone else should. And I am adamant
about it. I really am. But the thing is, if you carry anything back to them, tell them they
really should push hard to get what you have recommended. And then begin to work.
Mr. Russell: If I can, I think that’s—
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m trying to get a motion. We got a little more to go.
Legal. Shouldn’t take too much longer. But let’s try to get a motion. Commissioner
Hankerson?
Ms. Beard: What is this motion?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We haven’t got a motion.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. I just want to make one thing clear, regardless of what
we vote for, cause I didn’t vote to put it on the referendum anyway. So I wasn’t in favor
of it anyway. But that’s what we got out there. So you got to deal with it. But I’d like to
make it clear, because I’ve heard this more than one time, that one particular item was
voted down in November. That’s incorrect. All the items were voted down in
November. Everything was voted down. The performing arts was voted down. The
amphitheater was vote down. The sports arena was voted down. The inner city project.
Everything was voted down. Not one particular item. I was hoping that the citizenry
would have separated them and gave us a true picture of what they did not want. But as
74
Ms. Beard said, there was a movement to vote everything down [inaudible] voted
everything, so I didn’t get a clear evaluation of whether they wanted a performing arts
theater, whether they wanted a sports arena. Those were the independent items out there.
So we need to stop saying that they voted one particular item down, they voted
everything down. And I’m quite sure that we’re going to get something passed this time.
It’s a do or die situation.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me clarify.
Mr. Hankerson: I don’t intend to bog down this, but it’s out there on the
referendum, so we’re going to have to deal with it. I didn’t support it. I didn’t support it
because of a tax increase. And I still don’t [inaudible] if it passes in June, we still are
going to have to deal with it. And like Ms. Beard said, whether it’s good [inaudible] and
do what we’re doing now.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me clarify something I said earlier, that it was voted
down. But everything was voted down and the constituents, the taxpayers had an
opportunity to make a choice about everything you mentioned, Commissioner
Hankerson. It wasn’t the only thing voted down. You’re 100% correct. But they had a
choice to vote it up, too. They didn’t. But we brought it back. But we didn’t bring
everything back. Everything was voted down last time. The amphitheater, the
performing arts, that was voted down, too. But we brought one thing back.
Mr. Grantham: We didn’t bring anything back.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, we did. We brought the—Mr. Shepard, the Attorney
needs to speak now. Those things we got listed on the bottom are the same things we had
last time?
Mr. Shepard: The ballot resolutions are $60 million for the complex, $100
million for the public safety package. And we have the third referendum on the
redevelopment powers law/tax allocation. Three things.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s what I was thinking. The amphitheater and the other
things that we had on the ballot before is not on there; right?
Mr. Shepard: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, thank you. I’m crazy, but I ain’t stupid. There’s a
big difference in that.
Ms. Beard: And I would like to add one—
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So I need a motion. Let’s move this one.
Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] $312 million SPLOST.
75
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get a motion? I need a motion.
Mr. Hankerson: $312 million for everything.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get a motion?
Ms. Beard: I move that this be accepted as information
, but I would like to
add one thing. Just remember--
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I need a second.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. I got a motion and second. Any comments?
Ms. Beard: Let’s just remember someone put out from $20,000 to $50,000 to
defeat it. And I want to know if they’re going to put that in to pass it this time. I don’t
know who did it. But somebody did. All that they did was not free.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Got a motion and second to receive as information.
Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Commissioner Beard brings up a very good point. The lack of
passage was as much an indictment on us and us running late with it, not having enough
time to promote it, and just so many negative things. And I guess that’s my whole point
why we need to get ourselves together and get on board, because I feel quite sure that if
we can come together with a companion package and put it before the public as a unified
body, to build some confidence, show some unity if we’re going to start winning some
people over. But we can’t do it at the last minute. And you know what I see here is the
same thing the public saw before, is we’re going to continue to bicker back and forth
until the last minute and then have three to four weeks to promote the SPLOST or the
bond, and it’s not going to pass. And we’re going to have a bare bones SPLOST to pass,
which is not going to make anybody happy, which may not pass because again we will
reinforce the public image of us as being a body that can’t get along and can’t come
together.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to move there been ample discussion.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to move that there has been ample discussion.
We are going to take a vote then you get all the clarification you need, Mr. Grantham.
All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Grantham: I ask for clarification before we take a vote, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
76
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, you can get your clarification.
Mr. Grantham: All I’m asking is if the question is stating that we are going to
meet Monday or we going to meet Thursday? That was part of the recommendation, and
if that’s part of the motion I’d like to know that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s not part of the motion. The motion is to receive as
information.
Mr. Grantham: I’d like to make an amendment to the motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, you can go ahead and make your amendment.
Mr. Grantham: I make amendment to the motion that we meet Monday at 11:30
to take care of the item that has been recommended by the Administrator.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Now, Mr. Shepard, I need some Attorney ruling here.
Mr. Shepard: I think you can’t have an amendment to the motion without
unanimous consent of the body, so therefore what would be required would be a
substitute motion.
Mr. Grantham: I make it in the form a substitute.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I call for the motion, I mean for the vote. Can you make it
now, Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Shepard: Well, I think you have to take a vote on—we went through this two
weeks ago, and that is a question of readiness, you present the question of readiness now
to the body, is the main motion ready to go before the body. If you vote it down and it’s
not ready to go to the body, then you can make a substitute motion. If it’s protected as
readiness, then you can go ahead. He had called the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Exactly. We’ll vote on the readiness, then.
Mr. Shepard: So if you want to get a substitute motion, the vote is that the first
motion is not ready.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get a vote of readiness for, to vote on the motion?
Mr. Cheek, can y’all just hold it for a second until we can get this vote either up or down.
I want to vote on readiness to go ahead and take up on the motion. Are you ready to
vote? All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Cheek: What’s the motion?
77
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The motion has already been stated. Madame Clerk, you
going to state again, to receive it as information? That’s what the motion is. All those in
favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Boyles, Mr. Smith, Ms. Sims, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Hankerson vote
No.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion fails 2-6-2.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Now we need to vote on the motion to receive as
information.
Mr. Shepard: Well—
Mr. Cheek: No, no, no, no.
Mr. Shepard: You called that motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I called for the readiness to go on and vote. Now, if y’all
wasn’t listening, if you were in sidebars, I’m sorry.
Mr. Shepard: It was not a vote on unreadiness, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I asked for those that are ready to vote on the motion that
was in place to receive as information. I restated the motion. Now if you tricked
yourself, I’m sorry. Now the motion was, and you can deny this one, but the motion is
now to receive it as information. All those in favor, all those ready, let it be known by
the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Boyles, Mr. Smith, Ms. Sims, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Hankerson
vote No.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion fails 2-6-2.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk.
Mr. Cheek: Motion to reconsider the item.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You’re going to need unanimous consent.
Mr. Shepard: You don’t need unanimous consent.
Mr. Cheek: Not to reconsider the item. Just a majority vote.
78
Mr. Shepard: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor, the motion to reconsider is in order.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, there’s a motion to reconsider. All those in favor,
let it be known by the normal sign of voting.
Ms. Beard and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Cheek: Motion to meet on Monday at 11:30 to take up this issue.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there any discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes. Mr. Mayor, one of the reasons—let me just say this. I don’t
think voting for reconsideration [inaudible] really establishes anybody’s position per se.
I know it doesn’t establish mine. But I do think at some point there is going to be a vote
on this issue, at some point in time, one way or the other, up or down. I—some of the
questions that I personally raise, I’m not so sure, and I say this and vote for the
reconsideration based on what the Mayor said before he left. Because when I looked at
the document that Mr. Russell had in reference to the work session and the fifth of May,
which will be Thursday, the Mayor had mentioned about doing this vote on Monday.
Now in all fairness, regardless of what we’re saying, the only way [inaudible] there is no
quorum of the Commission and everybody doesn’t show up. But the [inaudible] the
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, open the courthouse, even
have one on Sunday, long as the Clerk gives out the public notification. It can be held on
any day. And to do it. So at some point there is going to be a meeting called. I just
question the fact as to whether or not if you’ve got questions or whether or not all of them
[inaudible], maybe they can. Maybe all of them can be answered by Monday prior to—
I’m in agreement with Ms. Beard from the standpoint that I think what we do is
[inaudible] everybody’s mind vote yes or no on it, be done with it. But I do think that
questions to a point of us knowing, of agreeing, disagreeing, they ought to be in place by
whatever date [inaudible] we are going to vote on. Now, whether that can be done by
this Monday coming, I don’t know. It probably can be done if everybody is pretty much
decided today how they are going to vote on whatever day we vote anyway. That’s
[inaudible]. But I know just in looking at this document, as I said, over nine minutes
there were about five sections in here that I had a question about on some things that I
had seen before. And I’m not saying whether that’s up or down. I even think to a point
that what should be a part of the discussion, and I might be wrong, Mr. Mayor, but I think
it helps us to make up our minds one way or the other if we know numbers. For instance,
we got a request in here, and I think it’s very serious, that at the time we talk about this
[inaudible] we sign of intent one way or another. For instance, we got an existing
facility. You’ve got a proposal that’s in there. Mr. Russell has got a request. I’m not
sure where those numbers lie. They are in the eight figures. $28 million, $29 million. It
may be to a point that that needs to be discussed in the same breath to a point are you
going to put one out, for instance, for a building that you’ve got to deal with $28 million
79
to—I like to round mine off--$30 million worth of renovations versus what you deal with
in a new one. I think all that needs to be discussed somewhat in the same breath to a
point from the public’s digestion of it. If you’re talking about promotion of what you’re
going to do one way or the other. So I don’t have a problem where we do meet, but I
think you’re going to end up—it’s obvious there is going to be a meeting somewhere on
some day. And if that’s what it’s going to be--and I don’t have a problem. Like I say,
I’m not coming into this with an arbitrary attitude. I feel they’re honest questions, above
board, I just want to make sure we’ve got an answer to it. Some of them I raised, I don’t
think that the persons coming to answer those questions can answer them, as to whether
or not we may deal with something else. But that’s not here or there, Mr. Mayor, I just
think whenever we have it, if we do it, we probably need to specify a time. Because if
we’re talking about committees following this on Monday, then it needs to be enough gap
time realistically to start our committees somewhere in a reasonable time, on time,
because we have more guests for Public Services than probably any other committee,
cause it involves with license and that type thing. It’s scheduled for 12:30. I don’t think
it’s one of these deals we can rush in at 12:00 o’clock and have a meeting on Monday.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to rule, Mr. Mays, we have discussed this, if we
can go ahead and get a motion on the floor. I got Willie Nelson waiting on me right now.
We need to be on the road already. But I’m trying to finish.
Mr. Mays: You won’t get any argument out of me. I was already through.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. As long as you’re finished. Can I get a motion?
Mr. Cheek: I thought we had a motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. All those in favor, let it be known by the normal
sign of voting.
Ms. Sims: What is the motion?
Mr. Cheek: Take it to Monday at 11:30.
The Clerk: Mr. Mays, are you voting?
Mr. Mays: I just want to know if there’s a time in there.
The Clerk: 11:30.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Ms. Beard and Mr. Colclough abstain.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Motion carries 6-1-2.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item 36.
80
The Clerk: Go to item 35?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thought we was just on 35.
The Clerk: No. We were on 33.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 35.
The Clerk:
35. Recommendation from the Attorney and the Director of License and
Inspection regarding unsolicited newspaper throws in residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission. We
have done some research. There is an ordinance which we are contemplating which
would prohibit the throwing of these unsolicited fliers that was attempted in the city of
Sylvania in about 1999. The trial court there sustained it, but it failed in the Supreme
Court, and I would recommend obviously not repeating mistakes of the City of Sylvania.
So in the meantime, Mayor Pro Tem and I are going to meet with one of the largest, if not
the largest, publishers of these throw-in-the-driveway fliers. We’re going to do so on
Friday. So I would just ask that you receive that as information, but we shouldn’t be
passing an ordinance that prohibits this. This is protected, commercial speech. You may
be able to alter it some, but a pure prohibition, in my opinion, would fly in the face of
existing precedent of the Georgia Supreme Court.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going, I’m going to let Mr. Smith and then Mr. Cheek.
But before Mr. Smith speak, let me, let me comment on this, Mr. Attorney. I learned a
lot from hanging around y’all, but let me tell you, I hear what you saying about Sylvania,
but I don’t think that dog going hunt when you’re throwing trash. And I say trash,
newspaper in the yards of other people who didn’t solicit those. Now if you solicit those
papers, like the regular paper, you pay for it, it be delivered in your door and your yard. I
heard what you saying, but I got a serious issue with the throwing of papers in yards and
you got a litter ordinance that’s in effect, too. Which come first, the chicken or the egg?
Either it’s good or it’s bad. Ain’t no in between. Ain’t no both. Let me hear Mr. Smith.
Jimmy, go ahead, then Mr. Cheek. But I disagree 100%. I heard it yesterday.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Earlier in the year I had spoken to
Julian Miller, the president of the Augusta Chronicle, about this. And he said they had
taken it to court and the court ruled in their favor. Of course, I agree that it ought not to
be. They shouldn’t be able to do it. It’s trash in the community. It needs to stop. But he
said legally they could do it.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
81
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: You know, here again, the framing of the argument with this case is
that same newspaper, if you or I threw it out on the expressway, we would be fined $500
for it. It’s not affecting speech. That is not—we’re not abridging their right to free
speech for them throwing things on our private property. And I don’t know what
argument needs to be made for that, but they have no right to litter the neighborhood any
more than any one of us does. They’re not special and privileged because they present a
newspaper, especially when it’s a commercial--
(End of tape 1)
(Beginning of tape 2)
Mr. Cheek: --because they have taken their liberties under the free speech clause
of the Constitution to literally trash a lot of homes. And there’s others that do it as well.
But they’re not entitled to trash our homes under the free speech clause any more. We’re
not abridging their rights. We’re asking them to preserve our rights as private property
owners, which we are entitled to, as well.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I personally stopped the individually three
times on my street and asked them not to throw the paper in my yard. But if I’m not
there, they throw it in the middle of my yard. I’ve got some nice grass, I’ve got to walk
across that wet grass to get this piece of junk out of the yard. I stopped that gentleman
and the lady three times and asked them not to throw the paper. Yet they continue to do
so. Now, I’m like Andy, that’s my property. And I have a right to have things put on
there that I want and things not to put on there that I don’t want. And I don’t see how the
courts can say well, you’ve got a right to, like you say, trash my yard. And I think we
still need to pursue it. Because like I told you today, Steve, there is another
neighborhood out there who have stopped those folks from trashing that neighborhood.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sammy Sikes. I gave to the Attorney on Monday
morning’s meeting. And there is something, there’s a form he’s got. Well, you shouldn’t
have to have a form. There’s other advertisement that comes in the mail. They pay
postage to have it sent. But then here is someone else throwing papers, the same
advertisement, have to come in your yard where you don’t have to pay postage. So I
totally disagree. Now, I don’t know anything about the courts. Steve, that’s your field,
Steve. But I would challenge [inaudible] with that.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll pass forward, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the
Commission, is to have that meeting which you are going to have. And they are going
to—if you force the issue they’re going to come back to this [inaudible] versus Sylvania
case which holds that ordinance unconstitutional. So I would not pass anything today,
nor would I enforce the [inaudible] ordinance until after our meeting, because I think
we’ll draw adverse judicial reactions based on this case.
82
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Richard, then Andy.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Shepard, every time I find one in my
yard I’m going to call the Marshal’s Department, call the Sheriff’s Department. I’ll keep
them busy picking them up.
Mr. Cheek: I’d like to take it a little broader than that. I’d like to encourage
everybody in this city that’s fed up with it to exercise their right to free expression and
take the paper and take it down and open the front doors of the building and throw it in
the hallway.
Ms. Beard: I think the city can take the newspaper to court.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem:
Let’s get a motion to receive the information. We don’t
can I get a motion to receive as information, give the Attorney time to
want to get—
do some more research?
Cause we are not going to drop this. This is a serious issue.
Mr. Cheek: Motion to receive.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Got a motion and a second. Who seconded, Ms. Bonner?
Ms. Beard: I seconded.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of
voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, item 36.
36. Motion to approve an amendment to Augusta Richmond County Code Title
4, Chapter 2, Section 74 to prohibit the outside storage of tires where water could
accumulate in such stored tires. (Deferred from the April 19, 2005 Commission
meeting)
Ms. Beard: I so move.
I really don’t think we need a long discussion here. We
know what West Nile virus is and the importance of doing this.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Got a motion.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And a second. Any discussion? Hearing none—
83
Mr. Smith: What was the motion?
The Clerk: To approve.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: To approve. All those in favor, let it be known by the
normal sign of voting.
Mr. Boyles, Mr. Smith, Ms. Sims and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Mr. Hankerson abstains.
Motion fails 5-4-1.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I would encourage everybody to consider if we can come up with
some way—one, you want people to clean up, but two, we cannot understate the problem
with the mosquitoes. If there is some way to coordinate this ordinance to where we
address the fact that if they’re going to store tires outside they are going to have
accountability of spraying larvicide in them and keep them neat. And I could live with
that. But that’s the whole problem, is if you happen to live in a neighborhood where
they’ve got tires stored outside, you’re exposed to West Nile virus and equine
encephalitis, not to mention many of the other maladies caused by these mosquitoes.
And again, I don’t think it’s the right of a business owner to inflict that upon his
neighbors.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All of us don’t live in those neighborhoods, Mr. Cheek.
Most of us who don’t support this, don’t understand that we—our children, who are
really exposed to that kind of thing, is at risk. But that’s not the point. Mr. Boyles got
his hand up.
Mr. Boyles:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I had a long conversation this
morning with Cheryl Turner from the Board of Health, and she had some information
concerning some ordinances that are already in place. I was hoping before we got a
motion on the floor that we might be able to invite her to our next meeting and let her go
through those ordinances with us, because there are such things as used tires, new tires,
tires in the back yard, tires in a business. I think there were several things that probably
weren’t covered that she could help us with. I tried to get her to come today but because
I guess when we got the agenda and looked at it, then she was not available today. But I
would like for Ms. Turner to come, since she handles our mosquito control for us, at our
So I’d like to motion, if it’s not too late, that we just send this to our
next meeting.
next meeting and have Ms. Turner present.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
84
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’ve got no problem with that. In fact, I was going to ask
the Clerk to put it back on the agenda. It’s going to stay on the agenda because this is
something that only the lower side of town mostly dealing with. There are tires all over
this community but the vast majority of it, and the mosquito does not know, understand
the difference between new and used. If a tire collecting water, this thing got so bad we
ask you not to leave your dog pails out for water because of the growth of mosquitoes.
And how we don’t have the, the Board of Health don’t have the proper facilities to spray
in certain areas. We got underbrush, we got overgrown lots and fields in one area where
all of these tires are stored. So for the remainder of my term, Mr. Mays, and that ain’t too
much longer, but it will be on the agenda every chance I get. We met with Rob Sherman
in License & Inspection. We went over the details. This is not directed—and I don’t see
the news media here—but this is not directed to anybody or any one business. This is
about safety. This is about people who have to suffer with this kind of situation, and I
think it’s really bad for us not to be able to take a stand. You talk about do nothing, Mr.
Cheek, but we are really doing nothing now. But we going to bring it back either through
Mr. Boyles’ motion, but we still talking about [inaudible], we ain’t talking [inaudible],
we are not doing what is right and legal for everybody. And if you got the tires
[inaudible] viruses on somebody else who may [inaudible]. So if we got a motion to send
this back to the full Commission. Is that the motion, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: No, sir. To the next committee meeting.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The committee.
Mr. Boyles: To committee or back to the full Commission, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Committee.
Mr. Boyles: Let’s bring it back to the full Commission so we’ll have the power to
act. And we’ll notify Ms. Turner to be here.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: If we can go to legal meeting, I do have several matters I need to
bring before the body.
The Clerk: We need to carry this motion.
Mr. Shepard: Okay.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: Let me just ask Mr. Boyles one question, having served on the Board
of Health an ancient time ago, too. Let me just ask this. In terms of bringing the
85
ordinance, and I think that’s a good motion to have her here, in the meantime, since we’re
talking about two weeks, might it be a good idea where they have some ordinances from
the standpoint that have been, say for instance legitimately business-friendly but have
really attacked those places and persons that have been perpetrators where you’ve got a
lot of junk, where you’ve even got people who deal in junk and dealing with storing tires
and putting them out there, that [inaudible] can bring some of that [inaudible] so that the
Attorney can be prepared along [inaudible], but I think it will strengthen the Commission
in passing something against those who habitually violate it, who give the Marshal’s
Department, the clean-up folk all the problems where you are really having them, that
you’ve got something like that that’s there so that we will not end up having to take it and
go to another meeting, two more weeks past that, in order to examine what she may
present in there. I think [inaudible] jointly shared some information, and particularly on
the strength of some places where they’ve been able to do it [inaudible]. That might help
some in the meantime.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me say this. Let me say this. The Attorney has got
with License & Inspection. We had something put together last time. Didn’t quite reach
the magnitude of coverage we need. They have sat down and come up with something
else now. Maybe this lady got something else she wants to do and can propose, but if she
can call the Attorney, send it to him, so we can really put at least a band-aid or something
on this thing right now to try to prevent it, I think that would be even good. But Rob does
this every day. Every day he got crews out there dealing with junk and tires and all this
other stuff. The Attorney looked at the State rules, come back and got another part and
added to that and put something together. So for whatever reason we’re not ready to vote
on it. But we will talk about it, I guarantee you that.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, my only reason for saying that then is the fact
that, one, I voted for your proposal to get it out there. What I’m searching for now is to
find a way from the standpoint I do think you have some fear and you have a lobbying
effort that’s in there that I just want to see you get six. I’m going to be one of them, but
to a point if there is something blocking that, that we can get a legitimate ordinance out
there to do exactly what you’re talking about, that’s the only reason I was saying, sharing
that information with the Attorney and of having her here. So that if somebody else has
something that’s in place they’re doing that’s effective, then we might be able to move on
that and to get it past this Commission. Cause it being in place somewhere else and not
being in place here and not being able to get six votes to get it done is not going to really
achieve anything to a point if we keep putting it on there and it keeps getting turned
down. That’s my only reason for saying it [inaudible] and of sharing one that we can
pass. Cause I think then you won’t have legitimate people who are not doing that, who
will not out of fear fight it, but would also help you to fight those to a point that
[inaudible] that are doing reckless things out there with it. And those are the ones that we
need to get under control. Cite, fine, do whatever we have to do. And I’m with you on it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I understand. I understand, Mr. Mays. Let’s go ahead
and—
86
Mr. Cheek: This is pertinent information. May I just add this quickly? Two
years ago we authorized Public Works, Utilities and Recreation to spray larvicide. And
something that may be interesting information to go along with this is to find out how
many personnel we have currently trained to spray and how many gallons of larvicide
they have sprayed this year versus last year to see if we’ve dropped the ball or we’re
actually expanding that program.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All those in favor of the motion—we’ll go ahead and take
this motion and vote on, please. All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of
voting.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, I want to put it back on the committee for
next committee meeting. Next item?
Mr. Boyles: Madame Clerk, does that conflict with what we voted on to put it on
the full agenda?
Mr. Shepard: No. I’ve ruled that any Commissioner can put anything on the
committee meetings, but this will be voted on again by the full body at its next meeting.
But he doesn’t get it any faster with the full body. He can put it on the committee, which
is his right.
Mr. Boyles: I don’t disagree with that. I was just wondering around Ms. Turner.
Should I bring her to committee or should I bring her to –
Mr. Grantham: Bring her to both.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, we got something tabled. Number 16
has been tabled. We need to get it off the table to go into legal.
16. Consider a request from Recovery Fest, Inc. regarding city sponsorship of
the annual Recovery Fest on May 7, 2005.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get a motion?
Mr. Mays: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of voting.
Ms. Beard out.
87
Motion carries 9-0.
16. Consider a request from Recovery Fest, Inc. regarding city sponsorship of
the annual Recovery Fest on May 7, 2005.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Have we got any information, the Administrator got his
hand up on item 16?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I spoke to Robert Howard of the
Recreation Department. This group has worked with us in the past regarding this.
What they have done is ask for a picnic shelter at the Lock & Dam Park and we are
providing that as part of our, part of our – I won’t say contribution – part of our
partnership with them to provide this, we’re providing some passes to get the people
in and out of the park. In my mind, that would be an appropriate donation and I
would suggest we do that.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Grantham: You already had a motion and a second. We just tabled it in
order to come back, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: We had to table the motion. In order to get it off the table--
The Clerk: We had to take it off the table.
Mr. Grantham: Okay. I apologize. Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s all right. That’s the first time you was wrong today.
Mr. Grantham: Well, I appreciate you recognizing that.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We got a motion and a second.
Mr. Grantham: I’ll second it again.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I got a motion and a second to approve this.
The Clerk: The Administrator’s recommendation.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of
voting.
88
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
38. LEGAL MEETING:
A. Pending and potential litigation.
B. Real Estate.
C. Personnel.
Mr. Shepard: I would request a legal meeting for the purposes stated in the
agenda book, which are pending and potential litigation, real estate and personnel.
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. All in favor, let it be known by the
normal sign of voting.
Mr. Grantham and Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 8-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’d ask first that the affidavit be authorized for
your execution under the Open Meetings law, that we recessed and returned at 5 p.m. and
that the items we allowed to be discussed therein, real estate and litigation-
Mr. Cheek: I, for one, am opposed to Marion’s execution.
Mr. Shepard: That he’s allowed to sign the affidavit.
Mr. Cheek: Oh. Okay.
(Laughter)
39. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with the Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
89
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All those in favor, let it be known by the normal sign of
voting.
Mr. Grantham and Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I would ask for a motion that adds and
approves the settlement of property damage only of Shawn Melissa Urso in the
amount of $22,488.00 for an automobile property damage claim for property
damage only to her vehicle.
Mr. Boyles: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. All those in favor, let it be known by
the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Grantham and Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Shepard: Next, I’d ask that the Commission add and approve the
granting of a right-of-way to Qwest Communications Inc. for two fiber optic lines.
One 18,187 feet long, the other 18,248 feet long, is going to be described in a
memorandum that I will file with the Clerk that the rate that that franchise be
granted at the state rate for urban areas, which is $5,000 a mile per year, that the
rate be recognized as the current state urban rate, and that will be what we call the
floor rate. It won’t go below that, but it will, the rate will track and incorporate by
reference future changes in the state’s urban rate and if this franchise be for a
period not to exceed fifteen years.
Ms. Sims: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Grantham and Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Shepard: One last item, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the
Commission. I’d ask that there be added and approved the sale of property at the
corner of Arbor Side Drive and Bertram Road which is known as Map and Parcel
Number 0120-358-00-0 and that that property be advertised and sold according to
the procedures that are specified in the code for sale of municipal and county
property to the highest bidder.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
90
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Grantham and Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 8-0.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on May 3, 2005.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
91