HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 1, 2005 Augusta-Richmond County Commi
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
November 1, 2005
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday,
November 1, the Honorable Willie Mays, III, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Grantham, Handy, Williams, Beard, Cheek,
Sims, Rearden, members of the Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Colclough, member of the Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
Mr. Mayor: We will start our regular Commission meeting. There will be a little
bit of a change today by public notice. Our budget session has been set to start. We will
start this particular meeting. We will open it and open almost at the same time with a
recess in which we will go through the public portion of the budget, then we will return to
the agenda at that time. But first we’re going to recognize our pastor for the day, Rev.
Gosey, who will lead us in our invocation. Afterward, Chief Howard “Bubba” Willis
will lead us in our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
The Invocation was given by the Rev. Bob Gosey.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
The Clerk: Rev. Gosey, on behalf of the Mayor, members of the Commission we
would like to give you this token of our appreciation for imparting [unintelligible] our
behalf.
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Mayor: At this time, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, the Chair
will entertain a motion to recess this particular regular called meeting and we will
convene the advertised public session of the budget all in the same motion at that
particular time,
there being no dissension, and I’m sure there won’t be, thank you so
much for your cooperation.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a motion and a second to so do. All in favor of that motion
will do so by the usual sign.
1
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: It passes unanimously. Thank you so very much for your
cooperation.
[REGULAR MEETING IN RECESS; BUDGET SESSION CONVENED]
Mr. Mayor: At this time the Chair is going to recognize our Administrator. We
have many, many of our professional fire fighters who are here today on an item which
we do plan to seriously address. I had some early conversations with so many that I
know and in sharing today I wanted to make sure because we had one change but it was a
change for the positive, better, that we will get to in just a few moments. But while you
are not technically on the agenda for today, this is an item that does still seriously deal
with the budget because, you’re talking about money, you’re talking about numbers, so
I’m going to allow the spokesperson who will come forward from our professional fire
fighters at this time to be first on the budget side of it, and what I’m going to also ask is
once we reconvene the regular session of the meeting that the item to be so added at the
direction of the Administrator, that it be put on the additions the agenda, which does
require unanimous consent, and sometimes in this business you want to make sure if it’s
not unanimous that you’ll at least be able to get that dialogue here. I am confident today
that we are going to be able to do both. At this time, Mr. Russell, I’m going to turn this
portion over to you and Mr. Masters can go ahead and be recognized through your
introduction. We will do that and then if you have any other signups that will be there for
that budget part of it we can do that. If none being then we will end that session and then
we will reconvene our regular session.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, as you say this is our, one of our workshops, with public
notice. The budget was presented several weeks ago. It’s been available through the
libraries and stuff like that. People have had a chance to look at that and this is an
opportunity for people to speak in public about that. As a directive we will be setting up
workshops in the Commission over the next several weeks in which we can delve into the
budget a whole lot deeper, but this is one of our required public hearings. We do have a
representative from the Fire Department that would like to speak briefly on the budget
issue itself. Sgt. Masters will be here to speak briefly about that.
Mr. Masters: Mr. Mayor, members of the Augusta Commission, I want to thank
you for the opportunity to come before you today to present our request and petition for
equal pay raises. I’d like to read the following petition on behalf of the Augusta Fire
Department employees: We, the undersigned fire fighters of the August Fire Department,
bring the following matter to your attention. The Augusta Commission’s decision to
offer pay raises to the Sheriff’s Department and not the Fire Department was
unprecedented. We support that pay raise for the Sheriff’s Department employees as
justified. We request that the Fire and Sheriff’s Departments receive commensurate pay
increases. According to our Fire Chief and our financial analyst the request is within the
Fire Department’s budgetary constraints without any additional fire tax to the people we
serve. The Fire Department, like the Sheriff’s Department, [unintelligible] reduction in
2
workforce due to better pay and benefits being offered elsewhere. The call volume
within the Fire Department has increased by approximately 8,000 calls per year due to
EMS. It has long been established that public safety, the Fire Department and Sheriff’s
Department, is one entity. This has never been labored. Our oath is the same, to save
lives and protect property. Please note due to detailed information provided the
following statement was added: According to our Fire Chief and our financial analyst,
this request is within the Fire Department’s budgetary constraints without any additional
fire tax to the people we serve. We appreciate your time and consideration in this matter
and want to assure you, the Commission, and the taxpayers of Augusta that we will
continue to offer you the best protection in the state whatever your vote may be. Thank
you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much, Sgt. Masters. Do you have any other sign-
ons, Mr. Russell [unintelligible].
Mr. Russell: No, sir, there are no additional people signed up but we probably
should give them an opportunity to come forth and speak for a minute or two if anybody
in the audience would like to speak. I see no takers to that. I would suggest that we
adjourn this public hearing and go into our regular meeting.
Mr. Mayor: I think you also might want to make for the record, Mr. Russell, is
the fact that this is the start and not the end of the budget process that we will doing, so
there will be other occasions from the standpoint of being able to address and for the
Mayor and Commission to hear citizens in terms of suggestions and particulars that may
be able to come to us. So this actually starts and begins that process on today and is not
an ending to do it so it won’t look like we’re stifling the citizenry in terms of coming
forward.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. I’m sorry, you’re absolutely right.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll do that and we’ve actually started this one and if I need to
entertain a motion to do so—Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I just have some questions. I heard what you’re saying but are
we actually saying today to the firemen? Some questions I’d like to ask to make sure,
Mr. Mayor, [unintelligible] hear, that was discussed, as we did the Sheriff’s Department,
to know that we had lapsed salaries and so forth, where the money was coming from. I
heard Sgt. Masters say that there is some funds there. I spoke briefly with—
Mr. Mayor: What I was going to ask, if you all will bear with me for just a
moment, if we go ahead and remove ourselves from this part of the dual session, it will
get into the part in which you need to deal with. There are two ways and which there is
already an item that had been placed by the Public Safety Chairman, Commissioner
Williams, which deals with the talks on fire tax premium which was a partial opening but
would not have satisfied totally what we need to do with them. Having been around this
place for a few days, I wanted to make sure from a safety first standpoint that they got the
3
opportunity to be adequately heard and therefore by them not being on the agenda this is
why I made sure they got through during the budget process of it. But we need to end
this portion. Then once we reconvene, if you all will be unanimous consent allow that
item then to be added, we will take that item up first, Mr. Russell will address the
financial portion of it, and then I’m hoping that the Commission with no dissention will
allow that because it does take unanimous consent. That will then be the opportunity to
ask the question that you’re talking about and then we can proceed then to have an up or
down vote on where you all are going.
Mr. Hankerson: I just wanted to make sure cause what I heard, that money was
there.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, we’ve been working for some time. It was just the timing of it
the Chair will entertain that motion.
and of making sure that that got on. So
Mr. Handy: So move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek had his hand up. I’m sorry.
Mr. Cheek: I’m just—Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make an observation, and once
again I guess a tale of two numbers. I want everybody in this room to hear this. When
we I guess two years ago when we had the fire tax recalculated and we were downgraded
about a million dollars based on our lack of growth in this city, we were told, this
Commissioner remembers, that we would operate the fire portion of our budget in deficit.
In order to cover it at its current operating cost we would have to come out of additional
general funds money to cover the cost of running the Fire Department. I’m very happy to
hear that the case is otherwise. I’m very concerned that while nothing apparently has
changed through the reporting of the information of income—we were told at one time
that we didn’t have money, that now we do have, and what concerns me most is the fact
that we have a tale of two numbers. I’m very happy that we have funding to cover this
today but what concerns me as we go through the budgetary processes, the inconsistency
of yesterday we don’t have it, today we do, which is something we’ve had to deal with
for years. Good news, but I wanted to express that concern.
Mr. Mayor: I think it’s a good observation, Commissioner Cheek. One that I
brought to the table prior to consolidation. It’s still a concern of every fire chief that has
occupied that office. Chief Willis and I talk about it quite frequently and particularly
since consolidation to a point that I think it’s one that we still have to address for the
future, inasmuch as you’re operating a fire department which now encompasses 300
square miles. It’s unified, but still I think for the future it’s something we still have to
address and to make sure that the method of payment as this community hopefully grows,
that we will be in the situation whereby its structure and its funding source is one that
which the running of it fiscally will not have to depend upon ifs and maybes, that it is
handled particularly at a structure where the millage rate equates that and that we know
4
that we know we are going to be able to deal with that level of fire service protection for
all the citizens. So I think it’s a good observance but right now we [unintelligible] but I
think it’s something we have to work consistently on in a true consolidated government
in that sense, if that’s what we are going to do for the future.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I just appreciate you doing what you did, allow this
opportunity for us to come forward at this point and I hope today we’ll get the matter
settled and these guys can go back to work with confidence that we need these firemen.
Mr. Mayor: Well, ironically, and I guess from an undertaker to a preacher, I say
this to you. There is a lady looking down at me right now, it’s a lot of eyes of a lot of
these firemen that she helped to raise, inasmuch as that was her favorite department, and
if her son was sitting in this seat right now and could not recognize the fact that they had
to bring that to the attention of this government, then sleep I don’t think I’d get. So the
Chair will entertain that motion to recess at this particular—not recess but to adjourn this.
Mr. Handy: We got that all ready, to close it out.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Motion and a second. All in favor of that motion
will do so by voting unanimously.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you so very much. A great day, great day to start off.
[BUDGET SESSION ADJOURNED]
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will also entertain a motion that we reconvene.
Mr. Handy: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second to do that. All in favor of that motion will do
so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
[REGULAR MEETING RECONVENED]
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, [unintelligible]. Ladies and gentlemen of the
Commission, you have before you three suggested additions to the agenda that are there
printed for you. The Chair would like to recommend that the fourth one, being Mr.
Russell, at that particular time if it’s so added can explain the details and that’s in
reference to the proposed pay increase for Augusta fire fighters. There is a fifth possible
one to be added. The Chair will recognize the Attorney for the language of the fifth one
5
to be done and at that time they would require unanimous consent for each one of those
to be added to the regular agenda. I’d like to jet pilot it, I think, once we get these on and
moving that we can make up the other time in that. Mr. Shepard, your floor.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. I’d also ask
that there be added to the agenda an amendment to the noise ordinance and also a sixth
item to add to the agenda, discussion of the 911 ambulance contract.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ve got three additional suggestions on to that list that are
there. Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, up or down, 1 through 6, what is your
suggestion in terms of additions? On item 1 is there any dissent? On item 1? Is there
any dissent on item 2?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. You do have.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there any dissent on item 3? 1 and 3 off your original list,
Ms. Bonner, are so added. The three verbal one which are there—4 deals with the
proposed pay raise for Augusta fire fighters. That’s item number 4. Do I have any
dissention on item number 4? None being, number 4 is so added. How about item
numbers 5 and 6? Those are the two from the City Attorney. One deals with the noise
ordinance, the other one deals with the 911 ambulance contract. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I have no dissent. I just have a request for a motion when we get
through with this.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, I think that concludes that presentation on those
additions. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 will be so added.
Mr. Handy: What’s 5, the name of 5?
Mr. Mayor: 5 is the noise ordinance.
Mr. Handy: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: And 6 deals with the 911 contract. Those can be so added, since
there being no objections other than just on one, so those others are automatically added.
The Chair will move at this particular time to, as the first order of business, we will
actually move to the addition to the agenda which is item number 4. Also, the Chair will
move that, I’m going to move up the tax, the fire tax provision item at this time to be
discussed, if it so needed, Mr. Russell, because there may be a tie-in to the two and I
think we can finish that at the same time and I’m going to go ahead and recognize in that
order. We will do that on item number 4. And also take in the item that deals with fire
tax that was put on by the Mayor Pro Tem. And then we will go back to the original
order of where we are, Ms. Bonner, and we will move through, particularly with items
first [unintelligible] to those where citizens are here to address and to deal with those, be
they be zoning, be they alcohol or otherwise, and then we will move down to the bottom
6
of the list. Sorry about that, ladies and gentlemen, but they moved to the bottom of
departmental people and all our in-house family and we deal with those in that order. So
Mr. Russell, it’s yours.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
30. Motion to approve a request for a 4% salary increase for firefighters in the
Augusta Fire Department to be effective the first pay period after the November 1,
2005 Commission meeting with funding from lapsed salaries.
34. Discuss Insurance Premium Fire Tax. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem
Williams)
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, at the request of
Commissioner Williams at the beginning of the week we began looking at the receipts for
the fire premium tax revenue. As you know, and as Commissioner Cheek has mentioned,
that was reduced in 2001. For the last several years we’ve seen a growth in that of
approximately 9, 7, 8, to another 7-1/2 percent as the value of our property in Augusta
has increased and those tax and insurance premiums have gone up. We did that in search
of funds, obviously, as we looked at comparability between the fire salaries and the
salaries that were approved just recently for the Sheriff’s Department. Chief Willis was
beating on my door shortly after that was passed, asking for some ability to do the same
thing for his people. As based on that, we were able to look at the budget items. The
cost, if we do it effectively, the same way we did it for the Sheriff’s Office, and that is to
be effective after the first meeting, the first pay period after this meeting, which would
actually be reflected in the end of November check is relatively insignificant when it
comes to the total of the budget there. Now, we can cover those costs with current
money that’s there. Because of the increase we receive and the tax of about $250,000 for
next year we can added those budgeted items and are able to do that. That leaves us
about $200,000 short. Working very closely with Chief Willis, Chief Rogers and Chief
Scott we’ve been able to determine some savings through efficiencies in the Fire
Department that would cover that additional $200,000 or so. Both David and I have
looked at these numbers and both of us are comfortable and we were able to cover both
issues raised, increase for the sworn people and the increase in 2006 within the budgeted
amounts that we’ve done. As you know, we did request a 4% increase anyway beginning
January 1. So you’re looking at a 4%, and then 4% of four times of whatever the salary
was there. So the impact is within the limits of what we are comfortable funding and I
would recommend that we do that.
The Chair will entertain a motion.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion?
7
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Public Safety Chairman.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had this item put on the agenda after
discussing with some of my good friends at the Fire Department and I explained to them
that their togetherness, that their coming together in numbers to support what is right—
we do have the money in the fire tax, the fire premium. I asked Mr. Russell to investigate
that, to find out exactly what could we do. And it looks like it’s going to work out.
Commissioner Cheek mentioned something earlier about what we said we have and what
we going to have to suffer with. I remember in 1999, Mr. cheek, when they voted to take
the 911 monies and put them in 911 instead of giving it to the Fire Department as we had
suggested. We would have probably had even more money to do it then but that’s neither
here nor there now. But Mr. Mayor, I’m just glad to see the firemen come out in the
numbers that they did to support each other and I think it’s a very worthy cause. I’m not
going to get into the other deal with the Sheriff’s Department, how they go to that point.
But either way I think it’s a great move, I think it’s something we need to do, and I think
something that the men will appreciate. So that was my comments.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Rearden?
Mr. Rearden: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Augusta Fire Department,
I want you to know how much we value and appreciate your service to this community. I
believe that public safety is the number one priority of this body. It doesn’t matter what
your marble home looks like. People are free to rob it and free to burn it down without
any input or help. I am glad to be in favor of the action that I hope we are going to take
and I want to work with you to build a fire department we can all be proud of. Thank
you.
Mr. Mayor: Any other suggestions from my right? To my left? Any comments,
any Commissioners on that end?
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Is this the same effect we—and I heard Mr. Russell say this next
pay period or second pay period. I need to know if it’s the same directive we gave with
the marshal, it going to be the same directive with the firemen.
Mr. Russell: It’s the same language we used with the Sheriff’s Office, yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: This pay and then the first of the year, is that right? I mean the
same language? I wasn’t present at the legal meeting, Mr. Russell. That’s why I’m
asking what the language is.
8
Mr. Russell: I didn’t understand your question, sir.
Mr. Williams: Did you say the same language with the marshal, with the—
Mr. Russell: The Sheriff’s Office.
Mr. Williams: I wasn’t here for that language. I’m asking now. That for this
next pay period and the beginning of the year, is that a 4% this time and a 4% at the
beginning of the year? I mean I just need to hear that clearly, not just me, but
[unintelligible] would know.
Mr. Russell: That was my recommendation, sir.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: One thing I would like to say, and I think the Administrator and the
Director of Finance, as well as the management of the monies within the Fire Department
and budget that they were handed in order to work with, but I’m glad that those numbers
were in the works and that even though we are happy that firefighters came to support
themselves that this was in that making [unintelligible] to Mr. Russell and to staff is that
we also as we approach this budget year, in those that are in those other departments,
where those monies can be found and where we realize significant savings in terms of
those who have been very prudent with their budgets and to work and to make sure that
those monies are there, that we also have members of this governmental family that need
to also be able to deal with increases in this world where everything has gone up with the
exception of those salaries, and I hope that we will be able to look into those areas and
find them as well and I know [unintelligible] men and women at the Fire Department
who also expressed that same desire, for everyone in this governmental family to be
treated fairly and for us to be able to work through that. One regret a little bit is that I
don’t have a vote today, but I tell you what’s better than having a vote today, Sylvia, and
that’s having ten. So I’m going to go ahead on and carry the motion and I hope it passes
unanimously. All in favor of that motion will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Russell: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you so very much. Thank you, Commission, and thank our
professional fire fighters and the job that you do. Thank you.
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk [unintelligible].
The Clerk: [unintelligible]
9
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
20. Motion to authorize use of Judgment Proceeds ($30,390) to offset FY 2005
6.9% reduction. (Approved by Finance Committee October 24, 2005)
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? I want to make sure
the District Attorney gets back to work. I told your daddy I’d take care you on Sunday.
Okay? Any discussion? All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Start at the top.
The Clerk: The agenda?
Mr. Mayor: Presentations.
The Clerk:
PRESENTATION(S)
A. Presentation from the Conventions & Visitors Bureau.
Mr. White: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I appreciate you allowing
us to make a brief presentation. I’m Barry White. I’m the Executive Director of the
Augusta Metro Convention and Visitors Bureau and it’s my privilege to be here today to
share some good news with you and to brag on some citizens of this community who we
call Augusta champions. This is not the people you saw in here earlier with the blue
shirts on—they are truly Augusta champions—there are Augusta champions in a different
way. These are 85 people who have brought millions of dollars to our community. We
found at the Convention & Visitors Bureau one of the most successful ways we have of
getting people here for meetings, conventions, reunions, events is the value of the local
people that live here and work here and are proud of their community and proud to show
it off. And we have a few of those people here today and I’d for them to come up and
just join us up here. And then I would like for, Mr. Mayor, if you would come down
front, and Commissioner Hankerson, since you’re on our board of directors, if you would
10
come down to accept a token check that shows how much money these people bring in
this year. The average person spends $266 a day while they’re here and over a year’s
period all the visitors that come to this area spend about $11 million which is contributed
directly to the tax coffers of this city. So this is big bucks and we’ve got a lot of people
here and we’re going to read off their names in just a second.
Ms. Speaker: If all of our champions would just try to gather right here, we’ll
first make the symbolic check presentation, then I will call your names and we’ll ask you
to step forward and the Mayor and Commissioner Hankerson and Barry White will all
congratulate you. So we’ll just let the Mayor and Commissioner Hankerson get through.
Mr. White: [unintelligible]
[A round of applause is given.]
Ms. Speaker: I’m going to read their names now briefly. And if you can, we’ll
just ask that you walk this way, Commissioner Hankerson and Mayor Mays and Mr.
White will all shake you hands and then you can actually exit the Commission chambers.
We thank you all very much for joining us and for each of your efforts. Jack Anderson,
the Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, helped bring in $68,229. Carolyn Cloe at the CSRA Shag
Club, $176,890. Brenda Durant, Arts in the Heart, $50, 540. Elder Ferguson, United
House of Prayer, $303,240. Ed Gunter, Augusta Rowing Club, $63,175. Patricia
Knowles, Georgia Society of Health Systems Pharmacists, $151,620. Colonel Bill
Mannell with the Georgia Military Officers Association of America, $75,810. Mr. Bill
Barnard with the Military Officers Association of America also, $75,810. Pat McGraff,
Army Tactical Network Modernization Conference, $252,700. Dennis Pelcher, Augusta
Cutting Horse Futurity, $4,872,180. Paula Scott, Morris Communications, $50, 540.
Betty Swain, Shriners [unintelligible] Temple, No. 22, Prince Hall Affiliation, $202,160.
Mary Turrell with Trinity CME Church, $126,855. Kirby Turner, Shriners
[unintelligible] Temple, No. 22, Prince Hall Affiliation, $202,160. Thomas Vandivere,
National Pinochle Association, $151,620. Derek Vanover, Augusta Trees & Landscape
Department, $50,540. I apologize, we might have missed a few in the confusion.
Wanda Crawford, Women’s Bowling Tournament, $1,010,800. Andadenus Freeman,
SRS Radiological Technical Center, $113,715. Our Augusta champions.
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Mayor: Thank you so much. First, Barry, all the staff of the CVB, for the
great job you all do in coordinating, to all of you individually and collectively for
making sure that those things happen and that they happen in our city. We thank you so
much from this City, to the CVB and to others who quietly join them in supporting our
sales tax extension. I know CVB wants to see that exhibit hall built so that all those
conventions can get bigger and better and it can happen and it can happen right here in
this city. We thank you from the bottom of our heart and continue to push for this city to
make it the great city that it can be. Thank you so much.
11
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Hankerson: Let me add to Mayor Mays’ comments. We also, as being a
member of the board of CVB, we thank you so much for you great work and we pray and
trust that you continue to do that so we can make Augusta even a better place to live and
all of us will be proud of what we do and also I like to say that I worked on the board,
one of the best boards there is to work on, the CVB board, so let us continue to work
together to make this a great place. Thank you so much.
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Mayor: Please let them know that every time you play Augusta, we feel
good. Madame Clerk, if we could go ahead with the formation of the consent agenda.
Commissioners, while you are perusing that, if there is anything that we may need to add
from regular, at this time, to kind of go through that while the Clerk is reading those
items from Public Services and which there may or may not be objectors to.
The Clerk: Under our Public Service portion of our agenda
, if there are any
objectors to any of the alcohol petitions, would you please signify your objections by
raising your hand?
PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Motion to approve a request by Chansuk Large for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Eagle Mart located at 801 Walton Way.
(Approved by Public Services Committee October 24, 2005)
2. Motion to approve a request by Yong O. Levell for an on premise
consumption Beer license to be used in connection with Olympic Pool located at
2763 Tobacco Rd. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 24, 2005)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions? There are no
objectors, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: None being. At this time the Chair will entertain a motion to
approve the consent agenda.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second to approve the consent agenda. And I’ll start to
my left. Do we have any items that need to be pulled from consent? Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Pull from consent?
Mr. Mayor: From consent.
12
Mr. Hankerson: Can we move from regular to consent?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, we can—let’s go through the pulling of this one first. Any to
the right?
Mr. Rearden: 27.
Mr. Mayor: 27.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: 21, 22 and 24, Mr. Mayor. Need some clarification.
Mr. Mayor: 21, 22 and 24?
Mr. Williams: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Plus 27. Anyone else light on anything to be pulled that way?
Anything else on this end? Okay. Want to attempt to try to get anything added? State
that one and if there is no objection then it can go over to consent.
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to add from Public Services 29, added to the consent.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to Chili’s being added? Hopefully not. It’s so added
to the consent list. Anything else that may be on regular that anyone else needs to get
over to consent? That’s got them, Madame Clerk. Anyone need the items that we
pulled to be restated? Are we comfortable with those where we are and the one addition
to go over to consent from regular? Go ahead, Fred.
Mr. Russell: Can we add 3 from the addition to the agenda that’s just a sub grant
award?
Mr. Mayor: Off the additions, item number 3?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Any objections to that going over to consent? Item number 3 off the
additions to the agenda list. Are there any objections to 3 being added?
Mr. Williams: 3, 4 and 5, Mr. Mayor. Discussion we need to have with those.
Mr. Shepard: I have the documents here, Mr. Williams. If I need to summarize
each one I can. They’re on the agenda.
13
Mr. Williams: Fred was adding 3 to the consent and I was thinking the other
two—4 and 5—would be as well [unintelligible] discussion. That was my point. If there
is some discussion we need to have we can leave them where they are.
Mr. Russell: [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: You’ve got a contract and I’m hearing some discussion on this end
up here so I think we probably let’s—is there any objection to 3 going to consent? No
objection to 3. 3 moves over without a problem. Now, we’ve done 4. That leaves us 5
and 6. That’s with the noise ordinance and the—
Mr. Shepard: Ambulance contract.
Mr. Mayor: The ambulance contract. Those are two contracts, and I can’t get
into y’all’s business about what to discuss but if you’re comfortable that they have been
done then I think you can move, but I think if you are going to put a contract over on to
consent, you might as well hear it today or hear it some other day because those are two
contracts. If y’all are comfortable with going there, but I’m just suggesting if this is the
first time that they’ve been heard in their finality you may want to have at least some
summary on that. That is just a suggestion. Commissioner Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to add number 28 to consent.
Mr. Mayor: Any objections to 28 going over to consent?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: On 28?
Mr. Williams: I think we need to hold that and just talk about it. Jimmy, I don’t
have any problem but there are some questions, there might be some questions on.
Mr. Mayor: 28 stays on regular. Are hearts and minds clear on 5 and 6?
Mr. Hankerson: I need to hear 5 and 6.
Mr. Mayor: 5 and 6, no problem, it stays on regular. It will be discussed at the
regular time.
CONSENT AGENDA:
PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Motion to approve a request by Chansuk Large for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Eagle Mart located at 801 Walton Way.
(Approved by Public Services Committee October 24, 2005)
14
2. Motion to approve a request by Yong O. Levell for an on premise
consumption Beer license to be used in connection with Olympic Pool located at
2763 Tobacco Rd. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 24, 2005)
3. Motion to approve the request for the execution of the attached 'Release and
Assignment' forms pertaining to the forfeiture of the Surety Bond for Trimble
Construction, claim # 00182248. (Approved by Public Services Committee October
24, 2005)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
4. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain
unsafe and uninhabitable structures in the Bethlehem Neighborhood: 1511 Chestnut
Street, 1513 Chestnut Street, 1515 Chestnut Street, 1537 Chestnut Street, 1549
Chestnut Street, 1550 Chestnut Street, 1436 Forest Street, 1530 Forest Street, 6
David Street, 6 ½ David Street, (District 2, Super District 9); South Augusta
Neighborhood: 206 Golden Avenue, (District 5, Super District 9) AND WAIVE 2ND
READING. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee October 24, 2005)
5. Motion to approve authorization for continuation of the "Economic
Development Ombudsman - Business Support & Retention Program" and contract
approval for Prime Properties". (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
October 24, 2005)
6. Motion to approve reclassification and salary increase for Clerk of Superior
Court. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee October 24, 2005)
7. Motion to ratify Authorization Letter dated October 24, 2005 regarding the
expenditure of CDBG funding. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
October 24, 2005)
PUBLIC SAFETY
8. Motion to approve expanded use of Electronic Monitoring to assist with jail
overcrowding and inmate management issues as well as providing additional
sentencing alternatives to the Courts. In brief, "Electronic Monitoring" is the use of
electronic devices to monitor the compliance of a defendant to a curfew ordered by a
judge. It is also commonly known as "House Arrest". The latest technology being
used in the efforts of remote surveillance of an offender is "Global Positioning
System" (GPS) tracking. This device tracks the whereabouts of the defendant when
he is away from the residence. (Entered by Clerk of Commission Office on behalf of
State Court Judge) (Approved by the Public Safety Committee October 24, 2005)
9. Motion to approve change order for the construction of Fire Station #6 in the
amount of $40,125.00. (Approved by Public Safety Committee October 24, 2005)
10. Motion to approve Lease of New AS400 Server and Replacement of Existing
Corrections Software with Corrections Module from New World Systems(NWS),
Inc. (Approved by the Public Safety Committee October 24, 2005)
11. Motion to approve the recommendations of Risk Management relative to the
revised written bid process for vendors as it pertains to the repair of vehicles
damaged by accidents. (Approved by the Public Safety Committee October 24,
2005)
15
12. Motion to ratify Purchase of Services Grant for Juvenile offenders in the
amount of $5,000. (Approved by the Public Safety Committee October 24, 2005)
13. Motion to ratify Purchase of Services Grant for Juvenile offenders in the
amount of $5,000.00. (Approved by Public Safety Committee October 24, 2005)
FINANCE
14. Motion to approve the abatement of 2005 taxes, in the amount $2,526.92, for
property located at 1929 Walton Way. (Approved by Finance Committee October
24, 2005)
15. Motion to approve and accept a Grant Agreement for the 2005 Urban and
Community Forestry Grant Program, in the amount of $8,370.00. (Approved by
Finance Committee October 24, 2005
16. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Air and Light Emergency
Response Truck utilizing an approved grant for the Augusta Fire Department from
Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., Appleton, Wisconsin for $297,646.00 (lowest bid offer
on Bid 05-124). (Approved by Finance Committee October 24, 2005)
17. Motion to approve a request from Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. for city
th
sponsorship through the purchase of tickets for the 9 Annual Rev. Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. Unity Breakfast. (Approved by Finance Committee October 24,
2005)
18. Motion to approve additional funding for the November 8, 2005 General
Election in the amount of $23,300. (Approved by the Finance Committee October
24, 2005)
19. Motion to authorize Augusta-Richmond County as required by Law OCGA
36-81-5 to proceed with the preparation of a proposed budget; submission to the
governing authority; public review of proposed budget and notice and conduct of
budget hearing. (Approved by Finance Committee October 24, 2005)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
23. Motion to approve a resolution requesting assistance from the Corps of
Engineers and Department of Natural Resources regarding the Hydrilla growth in
the Savannah River. (Approved by the Engineering Services Committee October 24,
2005)
25. Motion to approve and Accept the Deed of Dedication and Maintenance
Agreement for the water mains with applicable easements for Reid Court
Subdivision. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 24, 2005)
26. Motion to approve Resolution authorizing submission of proposal in
response to amendments to solicitation for utility privatization at Fort Gordon,
Georgia - Water Distribution System and Wastewater Collection System -
Solicitation No. SP0600-01-R-0119. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
October 24, 2005)
PUBLIC SERVICES
29. Motion to approve a request by Gregory J. Cyrier for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Chili's Grill
& Bar located at 273 Robert C. Daniel Jr Pkwy. There will be Sunday Sales. District
16
3. Super District 10. (No recommendation from the Public Services Committee
October 24, 2005)
PUBLIC SAFETY
33. Motion to approve Subgrant Award from the Criminal Justice Coordinating
Council. (Requested by the District Attorney)
Mr. Mayor: There is already a motion and a second on consent for the ones to be
pulled, as well as those that have been added. If there are no questions on that particular
motion, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: So that we won’t have any persons who might have missed anything
[unintelligible] those numbers you were here for, if they were on the consent agenda then
they have been passed. You’re welcome to stay with us but if your number has been
taken care of that will conclude that part there. You are welcome to stay.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
21. Motion to approve change order number 1 to the existing contract for BMS
Enterprises in an amount not to exceed $40,000 for the project management for
work related to pond H, an alternate and permanent access road(s). (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee October 24, 2005)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 21, 22 and 24 [unintelligible] I’m a little
bit confused as to how they came in this format to us. And I think we just did a contract
of some sort to provide some assistance or some service. So I don’t understand how
[unintelligible] can you explain?
Mr. Johnson: We have two different enterprise funds, one for solid waste
collections which is what you guys just approved, and one for the landfill. These are
three current contracts that are in place. BMS does our construction project management,
which oversees the design [unintelligible] and the actual construction. JJ&G is the design
engineer, Genesis Environmental is [unintelligible] firm. In summary—and there is one
more that didn’t make this agenda that will be coming through next week, which is the
construction company. In summary what basically happened was the original design
used an existing road, and that road has to be torn out to do closure. Because where they
put the liner we basically have to tear the road out. So I can spent a couple hundred
thousand improving this road and next year tear it out? So we looked at how can we
make this a win-win situation for us as opposed to spending $200,000 in then yanking it
back out. So we designed an alternate access road and when we did that then what ended
up happening, if I built this road I increase my sheet flow, storm water sheet flow. So
17
Pond H is a pond that I have to build five years from now when we build Cell 2. So what
we’re doing is coming to you and saying let’s do some change orders, let’s build the
alternative road, but when we do that I need to build this pond to control the storm water.
That pond generates 110,000 cubic yards of excess dirt. There’s another road that needs
to be constructed when we do closures so we can provide access to the closed landfill.
We want to take that 110,000 cubic yards of dirt and move it over into the primary road.
If we don’t, that 110,000 cubic yards of dirt we have place in Cell 2. It’s the only area
that we have to stockpile. So the end result by you approving these change orders and the
one next week will save between $500,000 and $1 million in construction costs over the
next five years. So one, by building Pond H, it’s something we would have built anyway.
Just not today. And then the second part, by us building that second road, that’s a road
that we would have built in the future but we’re doing it with today’s dirt. So we don’t
have to move the dirt twice. [unintelligible] at today’s numbers is about $4.50 to $5.00 a
cubic yard so that’s an instant half million dollar savings to us that we’re not going to
spend at a point in the future.
Mr. Williams: Mark, I appreciate the strategy and all the stuff you do but when
you bring change orders to this Commission and we [unintelligible] my problem is why it
wasn’t brought up then rather than come back now with a change order. We have been,
and I hear what you—you got your expertise down and I’m grateful we got somebody
with the expertise. But when it come to me as a Commissioner voting on change orders,
and I’ve got three I’ve pull off here now related to the same project, same pond, to me
that should have been brought to us in the beginning when the project was brought. I
understand things change in the course of doing some things but this new pond you’re
talking about building, this is something [unintelligible] brought to us when? When did
we start this? Cause this change order number here, right?
Mr. Johnson: We started construction six or seven months ago. The problem was
the original design utilized the existing road. When we went back to start some of these
construction, when we started looking at the closure plans in conjunction with what was
designed four years ago, they didn’t match up. So the design, we didn’t hire somebody to
design closure. We hired somebody to look at building a new landfill. Unfortunately the
two didn’t mesh and they didn’t look at everything up front. So it was a design—I won’t
say it was a design flaw because we didn’t ask them to look at it. And it was stuff that
happened four or five years ago. So we’re fixing a problem where design was done four
and five years ago for a problem that is there [unintelligible].
Mr. Williams: I’m dealing with the finance part of it, Mark, and I’m not saying
it’s not worth it but that’s why I get some clarification on it. I need to understand. I
mean you’re talking about with the total of the three of them over $235,000 and that may
be peanuts to some people but this is taxpayers’ money that I try to keep a close eye on to
make sure that we—and hopefully when our new plans, when we doing something else,
we will consider those things that you mentioned now. I mean six months ago, you
know, they weren’t on the radar screen. And I think Mr. Rearden has been very adamant
about the change orders, along with Commissioner Colclough. If something happens
when we bid our jobs, then we come back with a change order. And that’s an old
18
situation that I hope we get out of where we ought to bid the job as close as we can.
Naturally things change but the change order to come from us when there is a road, for
instance, is built. And I say this all the time. If you a road builder then you know what it
take to build a road. You know what you may run into and maybe some things that you
don’t, but you have to build it with that in mind. When you come back to this
government saying well, there is some granite there that I didn’t know about, that’s your
job as a road builder to understand that there could be granite, could be water, could be
whatever. So those change orders just caught my attention, Mark. I’m not against it but I
had to ask those questions. I had to know.
Mr. Johnson: Yes, sir. And just to—
Mr. Williams:So I’m going
I don’t need nothing else. You ahead of the game.
to make a motion, Mr. Mays, Mr. Mayor that we approve item 21, 22 and 23 [sic].
They all related to the same pond.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
22. Motion to approve change order number 1 to the existing contract
for Genesis Environmental in an amount not to exceed $90,000 for the construction
quality assurance services for work related to pond H, an alternate and permanent
access road(s). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 24, 2005)
24. Motion to approve change order number 1 to the existing contract
for Jordan, Jones and Goulding in an amount not to exceed $105,000 for
design/construction plans for work related to pond H, an alternate and permanent
access road(s). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 24, 2005)
Mr. Williams: It’s going to come to a total of $235,000.
Mr. Speaker: 21, 22, 24.
Mr. Williams: Only thing I pulled, I pulled 22, 24 and 21.
Is that right? So
you’re ahead of the game.
Mr. Mayor: There is a motion and a second. Any further discussion? None
being, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: If we can go to 27, Ms. Morawski.
The Clerk:
27. Motion to approve CPB # 323-04-296823314 change number three
transferring $2,000 from project contingency to project construction on the Warren
19
Road Improvements Project. Also approve change order number seven with Mabus
Brothers Construction in the amount of $86,170.53 to be funded from project
construction with funds from the one percent sales Phase III. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee October 24, 2005)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Rearden?
Mr. Rearden: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My objections to this have been duly
noted over the last month and I’m not going to rehash those things. My reason for
pulling this off the consent agenda was to basically force a vote so people can go on
record for or against the way this project has been handled. It’s been done, in my
opinion, somewhat haphazardly and poorly and I would ask that the vote be no. Thank
you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: While I respect the Commissioner from District 7 and have expressed
on numerous occasions my disgust with the way this project has been managed, these are
expenses that have been discussed by staff as both reasonable. Question one, I guess for
Engineering, I have is we were given a commitment by Southern Bell to have their
utilities relocated. Has that been done?
Ms. Smith: I was just informed that BellSouth has not yet completed their
relocation activities.
Mr. Cheek: Are they underway with those activities?
Ms. Smith: We have not seen anyone in the last couple of days out working on
the project.
Mr. Cheek: So Southern Bell—and everybody notes the weather patterns of the
last few days—is there any mitigating circumstance or they just outright lied to us?
Ms. Smith: I’m not familiar with any weather conditions that—
Mr. Cheek:
It’s been beautiful and clear and like working in air conditioning
I’m going to make a motion to approve.
outdoors. Can we move with this motion?
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Cheek:
This project has been delayed and I’m fed up with it being delayed.
Can we also attach to that motion a measure to add signs to the utility poles noting
the utility is responsible for the delays in this project?
For instance, Southern Bell is
responsible for the delay on Warren Road, which we are experiencing on every one of
our road projects. Mr. Attorney, is that possible?
20
Mr. Shepard: It’s the truth. You can publish it.
Mr. Cheek: [unintelligible] the Commissioner is getting beat up, we can’t
proceed with the project, the contractors are having to pull back. It’s been a mess but
we’re dealing with this on Barton Chapel Road, we dealt with it on Laney Walker, we’re
dealing with it now on Warren Road. God knows what we’re going to run into on
Windsor Spring Road and Davis Road and these other projects. Enough is enough. The
citizens who pay these people’s bills ought to know that they’re responsible for the
potholes and delays with the unpaved surfaces and the concrete pipes and everything else
and I for one have had enough.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Smith, how much, how much time,
how long this project be underway, I guess? And that bottom line figure we done spent.
I know we spent some money and had to go back and do, but how much money have we
spent and how long has this project been on?
Ms. Smith: The total amount that’s been paid to the contractor to date?
Mr. Williams: Right.
Ms. Smith: I don’t have that in my package today. I had it last week but I don’t
have it today.
Mr. Williams: How long have the project been ongoing?
Ms. Smith: The project was awarded in January of 2004. The prior rights issue
was raised in March of 2004 and sent to the Attorney’s office. The prior rights issue I
believe was about six months, Steve, about the September time frame. Was approved by
the Commission and I believe it was September or October of 2004. Georgia Power
started work and completed by December or January. The other utility companies
completed in March and BellSouth started their relocation activities in March with a
commitment to complete in six months.
Mr. Williams: Who handles that when there is a problem with utility companies
or anybody else? Is that the Attorney, the Administrator, the Director, the Commission,
the Mayor? Whose obligation is that to follow that up?
Ms. Smith: Well, when we were notified that there were issues with respect to
prior rights, that was forwarded to the Attorney’s office.
Mr. Williams: I yield to my Attorney, then.
Mr. Shepard: The Attorney did work with Georgia Power. There was an
agreement negotiated and later there was an agreement offered which was negotiated
21
statewide by GMA based on the Augusta agreement, so we have done the prior rights
agreement with Georgia Power and I believe the others are what we call ancillary to that.
The path forward that [unintelligible] was that it was to be done by this time. I suppose
now it falls to me to file an action for specific performance under the agreements that we
have, Mr. Commissioner.
Mr. Williams: Look like there ought to be something we can do as a government,
especially through our Attorney, through our legal process, that we can do that will get
BellSouth’s attention, whether it’s change services with another provider or do
something. There ought to be something we can do beside what to see if anybody going
to show up. What I’m hearing is now we go by and nobody’s working so we just keep
waiting. There ought to be something or somebody to be able to be contacted that will
give us a definite answer as to if they not going to do anything or if they going to do it.
I’m like Mr. Rearden, now, this been an ongoing project, this has been something we
thought we was, you know, it got taken care of. But rather than talk about it again at next
meeting, what can we do now? Can a legal department send a letter? Is there something
that somebody can physically down and knock on the door? I need to know what can be
done so when we come back we have some kind of answer as to what they going do.
This happened the last time. We had the same conversation. Mr. Rearden talked about
the same problem we were having about he debris on the side of the road. Was that
right?
Mr. Rearden: That’s right.
Mr. Williams: The debris on Warren Road. And here we are now, we still
waiting on two weeks later. We still waiting on somebody to show up to see if they
going to do something. Now, I don’t know what kind of power we can inflict on them,
but as anybody else, the government supposed to—Mr. Shepard, I see your hand.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, what I suggested is ask me to write an immediate demand
letter and if that is not, if that does not get the poles moved then we will file an action to
have them removed from our right-of-way. It’s the only thing I can suggest. I thought
this was going to have handled administratively successfully. It wasn’t. This is the first
time I’ve been made aware that is has not been completed by last Friday.
Mr. Mayor: If I might say this, and I guess over the last decade I’ve been accused
of started most of the fights [unintelligible]. Let me just say this, Steve, in addition to
writing the letter. We require citizens, companies, petitioners to come before us in the
process of which we do business, and particularly if there is a problem. What I would
like to see the maker of that motion do in addition to asking the Attorney to write is to
actually summon their representatives to come to Engineering Services and the
committee that deals with that, because this is going to just keep going on on a merry-go-
round to a point that if we’re waiting on somebody else to take care of the City’s
business—the letter is good but by the time letters get passed from one part of our legal
authority over to their legal authority, that person reviews it, makes a decision and
obviously is not going to top of their list to work on. I think there should also be a
22
summon request to come before this body as well. And in addition to that letter. And to
come before the proper committee in order to work with it. And I think in addition to
that that we need to have a very serious but very friendly meeting, but very serious,
[unintelligible] if this is going to be [unintelligible] problem project but it’s not the only
project that’s out there. And Marion mentioned about Laney Walker and other places in
there just as [unintelligible] Commissioner Grantham led the fight on a week ago in terms
of DOT and dealing with a particular private company in doing work that we know that
has totally been a mess, then I think we need to [unintelligible] way of contractual work
that causes, once we’ve done what we’re supposed to, whether it’s before or afterward, to
come before the proper committee and summon them to be here and to make the public
aware of where that is. And I don’t think that’s a matter of being harsh. I think it’s a
matter of doing business. Because if you are going to be back here three months from
now with the same thing, that somebody didn’t do their business, but yet people are
looking to this government in order to satisfy those projects, then I don’t think that’s a
satisfactory answer to a point. I think we have to push that a little harder but I also think
we need to have a roundtable discussion with all these companies to a point of having a
formula where we can move together in one piece so that it’s not where you’re fighting
this quarter of the year with one utility, another quarter with another one, and then you’ve
got a project that’s delayed sometimes six to nine months because a pole is in the way.
That’s unsatisfactory and I think that’s the type of meeting that should be held and
doesn’t necessarily have to be held private either. I think that will get somebody off
square one, to talking about it and dealing with it. [unintelligible] to say the old man
started another argument but to a point I think it needs to go past the letter that you got in
there. And Commissioner Rearden and Commissioner Cheek and then Commissioner
Grantham.
Mr. Rearden: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My opinion and feeling is that if we
started exchanging letters we will be here this time next year, going through the same old
thing. This person didn’t do that. That person didn’t do this. Whatever the excuse is. I
would ask that the Attorney go and call the Regional Manager for BellSouth right now
and ask him to be here by 4:00 o’clock and let’s hear it from his mouth today. Let’s get
this settled and move forward.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible] I don’t really have a problem with that but it’s one of
those [unintelligible] like I say the letter campaign is not going to work. Whether it
occurs today, whether you’re going to be able to reasonably do that, but I do think it does
need to be done. And whether that’s today or whether it’s tomorrow, but it needs to get
done in a different way. Commissioner Cheek, and I’m going to ask Commissioner
Williams to preside for just a moment.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to be brief. There’s two things we can do in the short term
I think that would help and then in the long term would help even more. This project has
had problems since the get-go. There is no excuse for it. But one of the things this city
can do as a matter of policy is with each new project put up, if it is a one cent sales tax
sign, put up this is your sales tax at work, and two, have a calendar of commitments for
different aspects of the project and completion date put up somewhere as a gateway to
23
that project. That would not only us accountable but the utilities associated with the
project would have concrete dates set before the public that they are accountable for, to
the public, for completing the project and the different elements of the project. And too,
one thing Southern Bell, the Southern Company, Georgia Power, Atlanta Natural Gas,
and anybody else, Comcast, whoever is out there providing that service that runs over the
ground or under the ground doesn’t like negative publicity. If they are held accountable
for the eyesore and problems that we’ve encountered and delays that the utilities have
caused on this and other projects by having a nice blue and white BellSouth-color, blue
and white saying this project is delayed by—that will carry more weight with them than
the letter exchange program which will add problems and length to this project. We want
to get it done. And I again tell you the one thing they don’t want is to be publicly noted
for their lack of concern for the citizens of this community who pay their bills by
allowing their streets to stay in a mess.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. And I agree with everyone’s
comments as to what they’re saying about Warren Road project. But this item on the
agenda does not deal directly with BellSouth. This item is dealing with the construction
company, the people that we contracted with to do the work, to do the project. So we
need to get BellSouth’s attention, not Mabus, through this agenda item. We need to talk
to BellSouth. If it’s signed, if it’s whatever, we need to make that point clear. But we
need to approve this agenda item today. We’re not getting BellSouth’s attention by
continuing to delay the request of the construction company. The construction company
cannot force BellSouth to do what we need done. Our department, our Administrator,
our Attorney are the ones who should be out there getting BellSouth’s attention for us.
And so I feel like we need to move on with this project. We need to give the direction to
those three individuals—our department head, our Administrator, and our Attorney—to
make sure that BellSouth is called on the carpet and given some form of ultimatum as to
how this can be accomplished. But I think we need to move on with this agenda for the
approval of this request.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Handy, you had your hand up?
Mr. Handy: Yes, I was just wanting to make a statement, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
The person that they need to contact, Mr. Rearden said, his name is Steve Shepherd, too,
so it should not be any problem for them two people getting together, with our Attorney
and Steve. They have the same name.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think it’s Stan Shepherd, actually.
Mr. Handy: Stan, Steve.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson also had his hand up.
24
Mr. Hankerson: It’s going to be very brief. Is this also something, is this a
problem in other cities and so forth? If it is, I’d like to get GMA involved in this. You
know, we have a district conference coming this Thursday, going to be here in Augusta,
thirteen counties going to be here. I want to hear from them, see whether they’re having
the same problem. I think we getting more force behind it by getting GMA to do it,
something we might have to bring some [unintelligible]. I suggest that, too.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And my comment is that whether it’s Georgia Power,
whether it’s the telephone, or whether it’s the contractor we contract with, we need to
have some kind of provision in our contract that say they will pay us if they hadn’t
moved and done what they need to do. And I think that going to get their attention. The
letter ain’t going to get their attention. Neither is the sign, Andy. The sign is going to
affect just a few people. But if you get them in the pocketbook that’s going to really get
their attention. So I think that may be something we need to do. We [unintelligible] Mr.
Rearden, we’re going to close it with you, and you started it, you opened this can of
worms, we’re going to let you close it up and then we are going to—
Mr. Rearden: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I just want to make it perfectly
clear that my argument is not with the construction company. My argument is with out
his government has handled this project from the beginning and the process that we went
through. And that is all I have tried to do. I have nothing but praise for the construction
company itself and their willingness to work with us in this project and I’m not against
them. I’m just against the procedures and the way we got to where we are. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve had adequate debate on this and we’ve got a motion.
Nancy, what’s the motion?
The Clerk: The motion is to approve the agenda item.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The substitute motion, Mr. Rearden made a motion I think
as well. Is there two motions on the floor or just one?
Mr. Rearden: I just asked if it were possible. I didn’t make a motion.
Mr. Cheek: He did urge that we vote no.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We got a motion on the floor to go ahead and approve this.
Mr. Cheek: Clarification. Is that with or without signs?
The Clerk: That was including the signs.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Got a motion with signs. All those in favor of the motion
let it be known by the normal sign of voting.
Mr. Rearden votes No.
25
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Back to you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you so much. We had a tremendously large audience with us
today and I wanted to break for just a moment on personal privilege because usually
when we have students that visit us regardless of whether it’s from our camps,
elementary school, middle, high school, college, we always like to make sure that we
recognize them and I told this group of young people that’s at the back if I had know,
particularly because our Mayor for the Day was not able to get here, I would have
snatched one of them like they were in school. I saw them sitting out there and I knew
they couldn’t have been here on an alcohol license today, everybody was too young in
order to do that. But we have the five young ladies there that are the back and we would
like to recognize they are from Augusta State University, Dr. Miller’s political science
class, and they’ve been here observing us today and they are getting ready to leave but I
wanted to make sure I signed their forms which would make sure they’re here, but the
cameraman will be better to you ladies and that’s living proof that you were here today
and that you were a part of doing what the class assignment was. So we’re glad to have
you here. Please feel free to come back at any time and if we can ever be of any help to
you, the Mayor’s office or any of the Commissioners, just call us.
Ms. Speaker: [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: Oh, the quiet one that’s in there? Okay, then, we’ll make him—Mr.
Russell, [unintelligible] Dr. Miller’s pen [unintelligible] give it to him, you or Ms.
Bonner one, please.
Mr. Russell: I thought he was a fireman, Mr. Mayor. I thought he was a fireman.
[unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible] ladies were getting ready to leave [unintelligible] do I
need to sign your paper as well.
Mr. Speaker: [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: No, you’re welcome to stay. But if you have any paperwork that I
needed to sign for your class, if you’ll give it to Mr. Russell I’ll hand it back to you and
get it for you. Be glad to do it. And thank y’all for coming. Stay as long as you like, but
I guarantee you one thing, [unintelligible] be here that much longer.
The Clerk:
PLANNING
28. Z-05-104- A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nell B. Headley requesting a change
of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on
26
property located at 2720 Mike Padgett Highway and containing .44 acres. (Tax Map
111 Parcel 2.2) DISTRICT 2 (Deferred from the October 18, 2005 Commission
meeting)
Mr. Handy: Move for approval.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Williams: I think I had somebody from that community here that wanted
to—did you want to voice your opinion?
Mr. Cheek: There were several questions from the last meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s get the motion and second that’s on. Any discussion, we need
to go ahead now and recognized [unintelligible] address that.
Ms. Walton: Thank you, Commissioners, for allowing us to speak.
Mr. Mayor: If you would, state your name, address just for the record.
Ms. Walton: Marie Walton, 2410 Demetree Way, that’s here in Augusta. Much
has been said about south Augusta and I know you all are familiar with south Augusta.
And basically what has been said is true. We have everything. I mean we have all the
negatives, most of it, for the most part. We have all the plants, we have the pollution, we
have it all and it’s strong. We have the jails. We have all of that. But getting back to
this, I notice it was first approved for a personal care home. Now to me there is many
definitions, well not a lot but it does fit with my definition of a personal care home. A
personal care home to me is a home where a person cannot take care of themselves. They
have some physical disability. But then I find out later it’s not going to be a personal
care home, that it’s going to be something like a halfway house. So if that’s what it’s
going to be we need to know. And if it’s going to be a halfway house I certainly
disapprove. I speak today for like ten of my neighbors that wasn’t able to come. They
are 65 and over. They are elderly people that have been in the neighborhood for a
number of years, like 25 or 30 years or more. In fact, I’ve been there 30. So when you
look at that and you look at these people that have to live there, they have invested in
their property and it’s very hard for them to move, so to speak, unless they’re fortunate
enough to win the lottery or whatever, they can move where they want to. But for the
most part most of us are stuck. So if this is what this place is going to be then we
certainly don’t agree.
Mr. Walton: My name is Patrick Walton. I reside at 2410 Demetree Way. At the
th
last meeting on the 18, the reason we’re back is they’re supposed to clarify, if you look
at the minutes they’re supposed to clarify what this was going to be. And Ms. Headley
was here and they were supposed to bring someone back from the State to clarify and
that’s what was done from the last meeting. I think that needs to be addressed. That’s all
I’d like to say.
27
Mr. Mayor: The Chair is going to deal with that side [unintelligible].
Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It is a part of my district and we did have a
petitioner last meeting and the petitioner was here and they were supposed to go back and
bring some information back as to what the changing of the zoning would be. This got
down here a neighborhood business and that could be a number of things. And I think
the petitioner said that she would go back and find out, she was going to rent this house
or sell this house, I don’t remember which one, to the State for use of some sort. The
neighbors are not complaining or not against having a personal care home. But if it’s
going to be that or something else they certainly need to know. They need to be—we
don’t need to just throw it in our doors and say well, you going to deal with it anyway.
And I think they are in their right to come down and at least ask what is going on. So the
petitioner not here, I don’t think, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Speaker: She’s here.
Mr. Williams: Okay, if the petitioner here maybe she can enlighten us as to what.
Mr. Mayor: Before—not to interrupt you—you’re going to get to speak. What I
wanted to ask is there—before we get into the petitioner’s part—Mr. Patty, is there
anything that you need to bring before the Commission?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: At the meeting we were dealing with clarification on some points at
the last one and to come back in [unintelligible].
Mr. Patty: Just to give you a short recap of this, what they’re asking for is B-1
zoning. This is on the east side of Highway 56, just south of Lumpkin Road. All the
surrounding properties I believe are zoned either commercial or light industrial and I
think this is the only house left in there so all the uses of property are commercial or light
industrial. So from a zoning standpoint I don’t know how you argue with it. Now, the
applicant was truthful in the application and they listed a personal care home as the use
that they put the property and at the time the application was made I went over the
criteria for that, and one of the criteria for it being allowed as a use by right in the B-1
zone is that it does not provide for detained persons or persons that are serving a sentence
or anything of that nature. And I was assured that was not the situation. Now, when this
came up two weeks ago the property owner was here who is going to rent the property or
lease the property to the Department of Human Resources and at the time she wasn’t
totally familiar with the nature of this clientele. Now, the folks with DHR are here today
and I think you should let them speak and tell you exactly who these people are, and
frankly at this point we’ve got some question about whether they qualify under the
zoning by right. If they are detained persons, persons serving a sentence or anything of
that nature—and Steve has got the actual language here, he may want to read it to you—
28
they cannot do this by right. There is a provision for a special exception for those type
uses but the B1 zoning is not going to provide for it.
Mr. Mayor: Let me [unintelligible] but that was, that was what I was going to ask
from the very beginning, is the fact that has this been in a directional flow that it should
have gone in? Because what I’m looking at is the fact that regardless of the zoning, if
you went from agricultural to heavy industrial my thinking was that in order to do what
you are attempting to do that it was going to require a special exception anyway. I was
just trying to figure out how do you get from there to go to B1 without the special
exception. Or you know that even in personal care situations, even in R1 or R1C, the
special exception is what normally comes to us and I didn’t know really why we were
even dealing with the B1. I was thinking it just should have gone straight from where it
was over to special exception and then special exception be voted up or down as opposed
to B1. But I can see where there does need to be a gathering of that zoning from the
standpoint of where those surrounding properties are to make it with the contiguous
zoning that’s in there in order to get it. Because this is the only one that is left in that
[unintelligible] of agricultural. But go ahead, I was just curious to the point of what it
didn’t get through the special exception somewhere [unintelligible].
Mr. Patty: Well, these type uses are allowed by right in the commercial zoning.
We had to change some rules a few years [unintelligible] protect handicapped people to
the extent that you’ve got to make reasonable accommodations for it and this is one of the
accommodations we made. If you’ve got commercial zoning that allows stores and
various commercial things you should be allowed to do these type uses in that zoning.
Mr. Mayor: In commercial haven’t we still been going to special exception?
Mr. Patty: No. No. They’re allowed by right in commercial zoning. If you’re
got the zoning you can do it.
Mr. Mayor: Without going—
Mr. Patty: With the special exception except for the ones that involve detained
persons or persons serving a sentence or any kind or correctional situation. That’s the
question that I think the people from the Department of Human Resources need to
answer.
Mr. Mayor: The only ones—I guess what I’m [unintelligible]—the only ones that
we’ve had that have been asked for on special exception are those that have been strictly
in residential.
Mr. Patty: Residential or agricultural zoning, yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible] if they’re asking for that would it not have been
easier to apply and leave it in agricultural and go to special exception?
29
Mr. Patty: They could have gone either way.
Mr. Mayor: What I’m asking though, if you go to B1 are you not creating a
situation over in there to a point that you could have just gone on to special exception and
the vote is up or down either way? Cause you just said if came out of agricultural it
could go there with special exception.
Mr. Patty: Well, they could have but all the surrounding zoning is B1 so it just
made sense to zone it the way it conforms to the surrounding zoning pattern and that’s
what they did.
Mr. Mayor: It kind of seemed like a long way to get home. [unintelligible] but go
ahead, I’m not going to block you, young lady. Step closer to the microphone where we
can hear you.
Ms. Headley: My name is Nell Headley and I reside at 2720 Mike Padgett
Highway. I’m here to answer any questions or to have Mr. Don Lamkin, who is here
from the State, to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you. Mr. Lamkin probably would be the one, I guess. I
just need to know if this going to be a place, if this is going to be a facility that’s going to
have people that’s under sentencing. I mean evidently it’s not going to be a personal care
home. I mean I think we can rule that out. And that’s [unintelligible] when I got the call
from the neighbors about it being a personal care home. So the first question it’s not
going to be a personal care home, I guess?
Ms. Headley: I’m going to let Mr. Don Lamkin talk to you.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Lamkin: To answer your question—
Mr. Williams: Give us your name and address.
Mr. Lamkin: Donald Lamkin. I work for the Department of Human Services at
the Augusta [unintelligible]. I’m a professional counselor and team leader at the facility.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Lamkin, I’m the Commissioner for that area and I’ve got at
least two constituents here who has been on this from day one. They have not just
showed up. They was here when it went to Planning & Zoning, had a petition and had
other residents to come down. But they are still here today. And I guess the question, is
this going to be a personal care home or is this going—what kind of facility will this be?
30
Mr. Lamkin: To answer your question, this is a personal care home and I have an
outline of the program which I’d like to share with you.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Personal care home. And I think the attorney and maybe
Mr. Patty alluded to that constraints of a personal care home or the type, incarceration or
sentencing.
Mr. Lamkin: This is a personal care home under the definition of a licensing
organization or as organization of regulatory services, which is the body that licenses
personal care homes and nursing homes.
Mr. Williams: I understand that. But this particular home, not the body that do
the license and the other agency that may carry it, the type people or the type customers
that going to be using, going to be staying in this home, is going to be what?
Mr. Lamkin: These are current consumers, is the term that we use, folks with
mental disorders who have risen to a higher level of care and this program will enable
them to reintegrate into the community, and the outline describes that in detail, through
skill training, job training, communication skills, socialization skills, and so forth and so
on. And the stay is approximately six months to one year and at that time our goal upon
successful completion for these folks to enter into independent living skills or rejoining
their families.
Mr. Williams: There is no criminal activities at all involved with any of these?
Mr. Lamkin: That I can’t answer. My job is to run the group home.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Attorney? Mr. Shepard got his hand up, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the
information developed by my office is that there will be approximately six people at this
location, 24 hour supervision. These individuals are those who have been deemed
incompetent to stand trial for crimes. They’ve certainly been charged but they have not
convicted. And they would be there pending an order from the Superior Court Judge to
determined where they go in the system. So I think that you do have a situation—that’s
the information that I’ve developed. I’d like Mr. Bentley to be heard. He’s with the
DHR and there is—Mr. Patty correctly points out to the language that [unintelligible]. If
this is a use that in any way involves detained persons or persons who have been retained
from correctional facilities such as halfway homes or similar uses that in any way relate
to corrections or incarceration. So [unintelligible] language and I don’t think they’d be
entitled just as a matter of right.
Mr. Mayor: Let me just ask something. We sent y’all back to get some
clarification on where we were going. And ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, I’m
a little bit, I’m a little bit taken aback from the standpoint that when we’re trying to get
something clear that does not determine obviously a vote where we vote something up or
31
we vote something down, but I just kind of thought we were going to get a little bit more
of clarity to be brought back as to what we were sending back for as opposed to a
definition of law, a debate, and this discussion [unintelligible]. I know some things do
take time. And in order to get to that and to make sure that it happens, particularly if the
residents are concerned who live there, if the petitioner in terms of the person who is
going to be working with the State, and as well as the State’s position on it, and ours, but
I guess after the gentleman speaks [unintelligible] are we clear in terms of where the
City’s position or presentation is going to be made to us at policymakers or is this
something that we are going to be left somewhat in limbo to try and make out and
understand for y’all to present? Because you know how I am on Tuesdays now. That
message has gotten out pretty clear. We do things, a lot of it that we can work out staff
wise before we get here. That’s why we have committees, we have workshops.
Tuesdays are supposed to be where we can make clarity on decisions up or down. I’m a
little bit disappointed at this fashion to a point of where you’ve got a petitioner and
you’ve got residents that are concerned about it and we coming back and it seem as
though we’re not clear on what we are presenting to this body. That I don’t like. I’m
kind of like James Brown a little bit [unintelligible]. Now, it’s Tuesday and I expected
this to come back a little bit better than we’re getting it. I’m sorry for interrupting you,
sir. Go ahead. The floor is yours. But I’m not [unintelligible] one of two things to a
point that leave us in the last hour, hour-and-a-half of the day to where we’ve had the
second chance to come back and to bring something. And maybe I’m the only one that’s
disappointed in that so I’ll shut up. The floor is yours.
Mr. Bentley: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. I’m Jim Bentley. I’m
with East Central Regional Hospital and I’m the director of Legal and Risk Management
Services out there. And maybe I can clarify the procedure as I understand it. These folks
are folks who have been charged with crimes. None of them have been convicted of
crimes. Some of them would have been acquitted on grounds of insanity. Others would
have been found incompetent to stand trial. The procedure, the way it works, they don’t
stay in the hospital forever from what I understand. They have to be at our facility and
then at some point in time the court that had the criminal case says it can release them or
have a conditional release. These people would have all, from my understanding, gone
through the filter of a District Attorney and a Superior Court that would say yes, you can
be released from East Central Regional Hospital. And that’s the way I understand this. I
may have miscommunicated with Mr. Shepard and I apologize for that but these folks
would have been through the filter of having a Superior Court say it’s okay for them to be
released or released to a personal care home. And the DA in whatever court that is would
also be involved. And we have been asked by the—this is part of the State budget.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry. I almost forgot about my Commissioner to the left down
there. Jimmy [unintelligible]. I’m going to recognize Commissioner Smith,
Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Cheek, Commissioner Sims, go straight down
the line.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Patty, I need to ask you a couple of
questions if I could. What is your recommendation on this?
32
Mr. Patty: The issue before you is B1 zoning. I recommend you approve B1
zoning. But if these people are detained people, if they can’t leave, they can’t walk out
those doors and leave then the base zoning of B1 is not going to allow what they want to
do. They’re going to need a special exception and I made that abundantly clear to the
folks I talked to day one about this. And I’m still not 100% clear. What the attorney just
said indicates to me that they can leave, they’ve been cleared. And so I recommend you
approve the B1 zoning. Everything around it is zoned B1 or more. I recommend you
approve the zoning but I want you to understand that I think we’ve got a ways to go on
deciding whether this can be done under B1. I’m not clear on it and I certainly
understand that y’all are not clear on it. But the B1 zoning is an easy decision, I think.
Mr. Smith: And the next question. Is this in fact a halfway house?
Mr. Patty: It sure sounds like one.
Mr. Smith: Well, considering all the businesses around it, which are auto repair
shops, and I believe the last time Ms. Headley was here she said they would live behind
that house, and isn’t there a church right next to it? I just feel like unless we do get it
straightened out about the clients that’s going to be there it’d be really no reason to turn it
down if it was just a regular house. I’m finished.
Mr. Mayor: Let me get these other Commissioners on record if I might. But this
is one of these things that’s beginning to sound like when you start talking about
changing zoning and then have a prospective alcohol license to follow and then you’re
dealing with two things that’s connected in one form of zoning that you’re going to have
to go back and talk about something else. And somewhere I think in the off season of
talking that there should have been some longer discussion about the whole thing before
it got out here. Still think that. Commissioner Williams, Cheek and Ms. Sims.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner [unintelligible] mentioned
about the church and I thought about Bernie Ward being just west of that location about
less than a block, maybe two at the most up the street, with the library there, with all the
residents that’s in that area and from what I’m hearing I can’t support it, Mr. Mayor. I’m
like you, something, somebody should have been saying some things earlier, should have
been laying some cards on the table so we would been able to determine exactly what we
was doing. I wouldn’t want to approve a zoning with the potential of trying to see if this
house going work and then finding out it wouldn’t work. I wouldn’t want to take that
risk. I know there has got to be a place for those people. I understand that. But I don’t
think that area, that neighborhood ought to be just thrown to them and not have the
consideration of the children at Bernie Ward that there every day, the school, Butler
School up the street, I just don’t see how we could support that. I’m going to make a
motion that we deny the zoning, Mr. Mayor, that—well a substitute motion, whatever we
need to make it, that we just deny that. I wouldn’t be supportive even if the neighbors
said they was being supportive if it was a regular—and I don’t know what part of regular
we don’t understand. A regular day care or personal care home. But when you talking
33
about the disadvantage of these people and they free to go as they please or transition out
[unintelligible] I certainly wouldn’t want to depend on what somebody else going to do
that been in a situation like they have been in. So that’s my substitute motion, Mr.
Mayor, that we deny the zoning and go from [unintelligible] all the way over again.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: There is a motion and a second for denial. Let me finish. I’ve still
got one Commissioner that’s on record [unintelligible] and maybe we can go back and try
to wrap up on both sides. Commissioner Cheek, you’re still on to be next.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: And then Commissioner Sims. If we can try—
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The reason we’re here today is because the
property owner time last time did not know what the State planned to do and the type of
people. That’s a matter of public record. What I’ve heard from state officials, and I’ve
got a definition of what it is, but I tell you what it isn’t. It’s not a business that’s
considered low risk. There is a reasonable recidivism rate by people who are put through
this system. We’re introducing into a neighborhood, which is directly across the street,
and to a business district that is populated with normal citizens, people who have been
incarcerated for mental disorders. Some of these may be as simple as shoplifting, others
could be murder and I just don’t trust the State’s filters when it comes to reevaluating
these people with 100% assurance that they will not go out and commit another crime.
So I fully concur. These are—these types of places are necessary but with the
surrounding community and the battles we face in that area and what we’re hoping to see
happen in that area, this is not consistent with land use. And so I really urge support for
denial of this petition. I, too, can support a personal care home, a day care center, a
business, but returning people back to society, which is an important aspect of
rehabilitation, is something we have to very definitely consider long and hard before we
are putting them in residential areas or high density business areas and make our decision
accordingly. This is the wrong place at the wrong time.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Sims?
Ms. Sims: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I need to understand from Mr. Patty. The
zone B is neighborhood business. To approve zone B would say to them you can do this?
Or would they have to come back for a special exception? Because I’m not in favor of
what I’m hearing. I do not think the initial request of a personal care home has been
addressed. I think we’ve been—well, it’s clear as mud really, this whole thing. And I
just do not think that what they brought forward is what they are presenting to us now.
I’m in complete agreement I think pretty much everybody else on this Commission that
this is not the kind of place that we want in a neighborhood. But my question has to do
with the zoning and what this means if we don’t do a neighborhood zoning, or B1. Is
34
there a recourse they have? Can they come back? Because if they can we need to make
it so they can’t. Show me how.
Mr. Patty: If you zone it B1 you give them all the rights and privileges of B1
zoning to do all sorts of commercial activities and to have personal care homes that do
not involve incarcerated people. Or people that are serving sentences and the language
Steve just read does not give them the right to do that.
Ms. Sims: But can we be assured, can we be sure that is going to happen or do
we run the risk of having what we believe is a personal care home and then we have
people that are there that are not really there for personal care and then we have a
problem getting them out?
Mr. Patty: That’s a strong possibility. I mean if it involves detained persons it’s
not a legal use of the property and you’ve got all the powers of zoning enforcement to
use. Now what kind of problems that would raise—
Ms. Sims: Let me ask you this. If we deny this they can appeal; is that correct?
For a B1?
Mr. Patty: They can appeal. Let me say I’ve talked to the owner here about the
possibility of withdrawing because this is going to encumber her property for a year if
this zoning is turned down. I think she may want to speak to that.
Mr. Mayor: It’s all your floor.
Ms. Headley: I just want to say a few things. I would have had more people here,
these people here to answer questions. There was no intention to deceive anybody of
anything. I came—what I knew, when I went to the Planning & Zoning Commission
there was no one there. There was a sign out in my yard for anybody and everybody to
come and protest it but nobody showed up. I’m not really even sure where these people
live in proximity to my house. But it was very strange to me how I was blindsided when
I came here. And so that—nobody was trying to deceive you. If I had known that it had
to be more spoken to or about, explained more, I would have had them there because my
life is an open book and I have nothing to hide. I love my home and I would like to live
there if these people are not going to be there. And I want to tell all you people that God
has ordained that you are in these positions, you haven’t them any other way than what
the Lord God decided. And you are the authority here so I respect that. But because it
will encumber my property I’m going to withdraw it, please.
Ms. Sims: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am?
Ms. Sims: I want you to know that when you first came it was evident that you
were not trying to deceive anyone. When you came before this Commission we all
35
realized that you were completely unaware of what was taking place and so I thank you
for that statement and we all acknowledge the fact that you did not come to deceive at all.
I think you perhaps were the one that was uncertain and had not been informed properly.
Thank you.
Ms. Headley: Right. If I had known that someone was going to protest it I would
have had somebody here to answer the questions. And I’m sorry for that.
Ms. Speaker: Just one more comment. When she mentioned that she don’t know
where we came from, I can go upstairs to my bedroom and I can look at the house. So
that’s how close I am to it on the other side. But we wasn’t accusing her of trying to hide
something or whatever. We was just going by what the sign said, the red zone sign, and
what was on the agenda. It said personal care home. Then when we heard something
different that’s when we had a problem. But I’m not accusing her of trying to hide it.
But that’s what they asked for, personal care home. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got—a restating on both of those, Ms. Morawski.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Your original motion was to approve the petition. And your
substitute motion was to deny the petition.
Mr. Mayor: To withdraw without prejudice on the property that’s in there. Mr.
Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, it seems to me that if—the problem is the particular form of
occupants of this home as proposed, and it seems that a fair thing to do for this applicant,
Ms. Headley, would be to allow her to withdraw it. Potentially there would be a use that
would be not involving detailed persons and I think if you have detained persons you
have to come back for a special exception, which is not before the Commission. I think
denial is probably inappropriate because there could be some uses that would be not
involving detained persons. I think that--my recommendation would be to allow the
petitioner to withdraw the petition and perhaps that she could come up with a permitted
use in the zoning that she is requesting at some future date. But if we act, I don’t think
that denial is appropriate. What Mr. Patty is saying is that if you grant the zoning it
doesn’t permit the particular use that’s been proposed with detained persons. And that’s
sort of an unusual situation. You give it to her but it still doesn’t permit what she wants
to do with this particular group of occupants.
Mr. Mayor: Well, that was the Chair’s position all along, that I thought the co-
mingling was not going to be to anybody’s advantage, because if it was not going to be
granted per se on one side, we were actually doing prospective voting down the road and
that always gets you in trouble, whether you like what’s being asked on zoning or not.
And that’s why I had a hard problem with it, because on that part of it [unintelligible]
penalized from the standpoint of something that may or may not occur and you get a
denial and that can be for any one a hundred different reasons [unintelligible]. The
second thing that I think you’ve got on the other hands, the objectors’ right to want to
36
know in a particular category so she’s caught there in the middle. You’ve got two
motions that’s out there and I don’t disagree with you, Mr. Attorney, on your
recommendation. However, we got two things in common today. You can’t vote and I
can’t vote.
Mr. Cheek: Point of parliamentary procedure, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead and I’m going to find y’all a way out. You may have it
already and I’ll accept it. If not, I give you a path out of it.
Mr. Cheek: For clarity’s sake we either have to vote both measures down and
then have another motion rekindled and seconded or we have to have a motion retracted
which requires unanimous consent, either or; is that correct, from the Attorney?
Mr. Mayor: You are correct. And the maker of the substitute, which the
substitute would go first, if there, if he wishes to change, and which he may not wish to
change. We can ask and that will save us some time.
Mr. Williams: I got no problem with changing the substitute motion, Mr.
Mayor, to give the applicant time to withdraw without prejudice. I think that’s
what she wanted.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Williams: I make that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Well there is no motion to be made. If you’re doing that, if there is
no objection to it then it becomes a matter of a standard motion. That’s the Chair’s
ruling. No objections to it, none noted, then what stands in place of the substitute motion
that she be allowed to withdraw without prejudice. Any discussion on that motion?
None being, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed the
same. [unintelligible]
Mr. Handy not voting.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Move to the next order of the day.
Mr. Handy: We can’t do like that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. The Chair ruled, sir. There are eight votes out of nine
that’s present. It has been carried. [unintelligible] yes, no, or hit the orange light. But
we’ve had enough discussion on this one. This one satisfied the objectors. The home is
not going there. It frees the property up that’s in there. She’s not encumbered with it.
That settles that. Battle is over.
37
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
35. Discuss mosquito control. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Williams)
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Nancy. Mr. Mayor, [unintelligible] all the
conversation and all the stuff that’s happening we know that the weather is cooling down
and we don’t have the mosquito problem we would have normally in the summer. But
with the national reports of West Nile virus and stuff I’d like to know from our
administrator or from our staff where are with the larva, where are with the checking of
the facilities, the tire situation that we, where we stacking tires a certain way. It’s too late
after somebody’s been infected. In listening to the news—I didn’t read Sylvia’s article
on West Nile virus, don’t even know if she wrote one, Mr. Mays, but I just wanted to find
out where we are with that, and if we don’t have a report now can we get one?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I apologize. I probably should have
checked with a little bit sooner about the nature of the issue. I’ll be more than happy to
provide you with a report at the next committee meeting if that’s sufficient.
Mr. Williams: If I’m not mistaken I think License & Inspection got someone
supposed to be inspecting and going around looking at the facilities that’s maintaining
[unintelligible]. We got all of the creeks and all of the ditches and stuff that unless a
freeze come and freeze them up they will hold water all winter long. And when summer
comes it’s a brand new breeding ground for the mosquitoes. Then we got the tire
problem we got now. So I would love to hear the report, and maybe not just hear but see
some of the stats on what we been doing and how we trying to stay abreast of that.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Commissioner, if it’s okay I’ll get back to you at the
next committee meeting.
Mr. Williams:I make a motion we receive this as
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
information.
Mr. Rearden: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we initiated some things in mosquito control through
Engineering Services but I believe the proper committee for this issue to go to is Public
Safety. And so I just request that we transfer the—instead of coming back to Engineering
Services that it go over to Public Safety, which is actually the true body it should reside
in, or Public Services.
Mr. Russell: [unintelligible]
38
Mr. Mayor: I’m sure you two twins will have no problem working that out
anyway.
Mr. Cheek: It is a health safety issue and all other health safety issues come
through Public Safety or Public Service and that’s the appropriate committee for that.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, point of clarification. And I understand my twin and
what his suggestion is about Public Safety or any other committee. But during the
process, the news media broadcasting about the West Nile virus and how close it was to
home and what it doing—I don’t know about nobody else but I’m [unintelligible] with it.
I’ve got it all over my District everywhere. Ain’t nowhere you can look. And we don’t
want to talk about the German [unintelligible] but I’ve got a mass of it. And I had it put
on this agenda to talk about in this matter rather than carrying it to committee meeting
cause I need to know what has been going on and had it not been reminded on the news
we probably wouldn’t be talking about it now.
Mr. Cheek: Actually, for clarification, Engineering Services carried this forward.
Since you were not at the Engineering Services meeting, to allow you to have discussion
today—all I’m asking is to have discussion. I will fully support anything I can help you
do with it, but take it to the appropriate committee.
Mr. Williams: Again, Mr. Cheek, I got not problem but in the last few meetings
we been had double meetings. I’m not going to rush one meeting. I hear people talk
about how long it takes but I’m going to do whatever it takes to get the necessary
information out to us. Now, if y’all want to have Engineering Services while we have
other meetings, that’s fine. This is the place that I’ve got a voice at. And I will bring it to
this meeting every time I need to if it gets by the other meeting. And if we want to talk
about who holds the meeting longest, I make them all. All I’m interested in, I’m here at
them. And I’m going to continue to do that.
Mr. Cheek: In the interest of the members of the committees it is quite unfair for
Commission members to have items for discussion that extend today’s meetings to the
late hours of the night and then leave after their items are covered after pushing
everybody’s committees late and that is just poor decorum. All I’m asking for is I had
the committee bring this forward today for discussion today to accommodate the
Commissioner’s need. All I’m requesting is that it go to the appropriate committee
because Public Services, Recreation and some of the agencies are the ones applying the
larvaicide. They’re also the ones that are doing the inspection for stagnant water and tires
and that we just [unintelligible] there. And again I will support all measures to help
mosquito control efforts. All I’m asking is to put it forward to the next committee. The
record should be clarified that this Commissioner out of consideration for the Mayor Pro
Tem brought this forward for discussion today, just ask for the discussion to be taken to
the appropriate committee.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, gentlemen. That will be done and it will be worked out
even if it’s like some other committees, that may be on both your committees. That way
39
neither one of you will miss it. Madame Clerk, [unintelligible] receive as information.
Have we taken a vote?
The Clerk: No.
Mr. Mayor: Been so long ago. All in favor of the motion to receive as
information will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got two to go back to that were on the additions to the agenda.
Those were items 5 and 6.
31. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the Code of Augusta-Richmond
County to add thereto a new section to be known as Article 3, Chapter 6, Section 4,
to renumber the present Section § 3-6-4, “Penalty for Violation of Chapter” as § 3-
6-5; and to provide for an exception to said noise ordinance for the operation of a
drag race track; to repeal all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict
herewith; and for other purposes.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor and Commission, this item is an add-on item. I thank
you for adding it. The request had been made to have this body consider an amendment
to the noise ordinance and that amendment is now to be stated if this body approves this
ordinance as accepting the operation of a drag race track from the ordinance so that the
operation of such a track and the reasonable and appurtenant uses thereto would not
constitute a prohibited noise under the term so this [unintelligible]. We already have a
noise ordinance in place. Necessity here should be continue the progress toward a drag
race track in this community, the first thing that needs to be done and it’s a two reading
ordinance, unless you waive the second reading. It’s to define the operation of drag race
tracks as a permitted and not a prohibited noise. So the backup in this matter I can say
was lost temporarily in cyberspace. We found it under the new municipal agenda system
and this is why it appears in the fashion that it does today as an add-on item. It just
involves passing a new section of this ordinance and then moving the penalty section
down from 3-6-4 to 3-6-5. And it would do, like I said, do what it says and allow a drag
race operation.
Mr. Mayor: Any questions to the attorney? None being, the Chair will entertain a
motion.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. And this will go out for second reading; am I
correct, Mr. Shepard?
40
Mr. Shepard: Yes, that’s correct.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith has the floor.
Mr. Smith: Would you clarify this, Mr. Attorney, in about the size of an aspirin?
Mr. Shepard: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Mayor: Would you clarify that in the size of an aspirin?
Mr. Grantham: Make it clear.
Mr. Shepard: It’s okay to have a drag race track.
Mr. Smith: It’s okay to have one?
Mr. Shepard: It would not be a ground to stop it because it is a prohibited noise.
Mr. Smith: In any place you want to have it?
Mr. Shepard: The ordinance is drawn to apply throughout the county.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes Commissioner Handy.
Mr. Handy: Mr. Mayor, I have a problem with this ordinance. When Mr.
Shepard asked for it to be put on he just said make a change to the ordinance. He did not
pass out the ordinance, nor did he state what was the ordinance was about and so with
that I’m going to remove, I’m going to object to it even being put on the agenda today,
because I didn’t know what the noise change was going to be and he did not say that it
was going to be the race track. He just said make a change to the noise ordinance and he
just passed off [unintelligible] just now so I actually voted on something that I didn’t
have any knowledge of so I need to retract my vote.
Mr. Mayor: That—
Mr. Handy: Whatever way you want to handle it. What we have to do at this
point, since it requires a second reading, the Commissioner [unintelligible] any
[unintelligible] are free to vote up or down on the issue but the non-objection to an
addition which requires unanimous consent, if not given at the time that it is added, it
becomes a part of the agenda and which it’s on [unintelligible] vote at that point. But it
does not take that Commissioner’s right away to either abstain because of the time frame
of what’s there or to not vote for it.
41
Mr. Handy: Okay, I’d like to complete my statement by saying that from here on
in, if you want me to vote for something, agree to put something on, you must have that
item before me so I can see what you’re changing. And what Shepard did today was
wrong. He just [unintelligible] make a change on the noise ordinance but he did not say
what change or what we were going to change and so he presented that after, and so from
here on in if you want me to agree to anything then you must give me that item and so I
can see it before I make a decision. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I [unintelligible] something that’s important for this city.
It is something that I have received the most communication from the citizens of this city
about in the positive. I know all of us have reasons maybe for not supporting it today.
But we need to put those reasons aside and look towards what this will mean to this city.
And it has the ability to have about a one mill impact on the ability to bring
[unintelligible] money to pay the museums and some of the other entities in this city that
we frankly don’t have the money in the tax base to spare to spend. So this will help us by
paying for those services and take that burden off the taxpayers. Two, it will bring much
needed economic development to an area, and automotive industrial development in
racing is a big business across the United States. Three, it will generate additional one
cent sales tax revenues in a venue that doesn’t exist in the city in quantities equivalent to
what is generated by the Augusta National. Jackson in a below standard size race track
generates in excess of $7 million a year profit. What will a fully sanctioned NHRA race
track do for the city of Augusta? Whatever we say, however we feel, can we
economically afford not to have that impact on our general fund? Our local museums
and other necessary entities [unintelligible]. [unintelligible] leave that 1,600 acres
undeveloped for another only God knows how many years? I say let’s vote for this and
move forward. This is important. This is one of the first and biggest steps economically
that we can increase tourism in this city that we’ve [unintelligible] right now. You tell
me another and I’ll support it. But right now, if you don’t think economic development is
number one, it should be the number one priority of this city, need to ask the people who
can’t find jobs. I urge support.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Sims and then Commissioner Williams.
Ms. Sims: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. While I may not be opposed to the race track
itself I am opposed to changing the ordinance that says no matter where in the city of
Augusta you can have a race track or you can having something that creates a noise level
that is unacceptable to some of the people. So it’s not the race track that I would be
voting against but it is the matter that we now have an ordinance that says there can be a
huge amount of noise no matter where you want to put it. I object to that.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m sitting here and I’m really amazed at
the response of the economic dollars. Barry White just left here and lined up about
42
twenty people and talked about how much money they brought to the city of Augusta and
they marched out of here, Mr. Mayor, and you made a comment and patted them on the
back for doing a great job. We just talked about the firemen who needed a raise because
we gave our Sheriff’s Department a raise. And we sit here and look at our budget saying
we don’t have any money but then we are going to sit here and act like we are, we don’t
know what kind of economic dollars this going to bring to the city. I’m still going to
[unintelligible]. I hope those who not in support don’t think that this is a personal deal
with Marion Williams. But having a race track anyway in Augusta doesn’t make sense.
You got to be in an industrial area in order to have a facility like that anyway. There is
no room in any residential area that can host a facility, plus it would have to come
through our Planning & Zoning. We can’t just decide, a [unintelligible] can’t buy two
acres of land and open a race track. We just got through looking at a zoning issue a few
minutes ago where a man tried to open up, I say a man, where a lady tried to open up a
personal care home for the mentally retarded that’s been incarcerated, and had it come
before this board. But I just don’t understand how we could be elected officials and want
to be elected officials and can’t see the economic benefit that is going to come to this city
as a whole. Now, it wasn’t something that I brought to you but we had the people, the
professional come in, and tell us that one event would bring over $30 million to the
economy. Not [unintelligible] as much money as the Masters brings. But then we got to
sit here and figure out what—we done vote on stuff, we done said amen to stuff we didn’t
what we was talking about before, but now we got to see it and I think you ought to see it.
It ain’t just start talking about today. It’s been talked about for a while. I just hate to
understand how the City of Augusta, who is the second largest city in the state of
Georgia, is close minded enough not to want to bring the dollars. We’ll do anything
rather than bring the money to Augusta that we need to have to keep Augusta moving.
And this just one of the things. I guess I ought not be surprised but I am very, very much
surprised, Mr. Mayor. And if the Attorney needs to put something in his language
[unintelligible] industrial area, it can’t be in a residential area, maybe that ought to be put
in there. I got no problem with that. But the point is though how much money we going
to miss. And the $30 million, Mr. Mayor, the man explained for just one week event, not
counting the other 52 weeks a year, 51 weeks a year, that we be able to bring another $30
million to this economy. It’s a shame, a crime and a shame as my mother used to say that
a grown, intelligent elected people sit here and can’t see the forest for the trees. But I
done my part, Mr. Mayor. I brought it to the table. If it don’t get off the table, it ain’t on
me.
Mr. Mayor: Well, let me do my part. And that’s trying to get us [unintelligible]
one accord of where we are here today. I’m going to go back and I’ll borrow something
from my late friend Henry Brigham. He’s always made that statement, as you know, Don,
don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. And I’m thinking that if the opposition is
not to having a race track then the discussion that’s before us in the motion is one that is
just that. It’s discussion. And if there are things [unintelligible] if there are things that
need to be changed in the proposed ordinance, let’s before sending the signal out to say
we reject what’s here and the wrong message goes out to maybe you do not want it to
take place at all, that we make some suggested changed to the Attorney to bring back to
us or if the suggested language could be put in there today that we can vote on to get it
43
passed, either one of those I think takes us out of the total rejection mode. Because I
don’t want to see us get caught in personalities to the point of how brought, who thought,
and then it ends up getting totally turned down to the point that the message gets killed
with the messenger. Now, if—I was kind of surprised, to be honest with you, when a
proposed ordinance change was put on on an add-on and it was actually accepted by y’all
unanimously. [unintelligible] didn’t nobody object, I’m like okay, I’m no longer a voting
member and so it must be pleasing if everybody [unintelligible] whatever the Attorney is
going to put out. but also the fact that if this is the first time that [unintelligible] are
putting on there today then rather than doing [unintelligible] let’s [unintelligible] Steve to
bring back or if we are clear on what those A, B, C’s are we can add them today. But I
think that one of those measures, either to add on another day or to change, to do
something in that fashion does not kill where we are. I think if you totally do the vote
down then that’s a different message that I would not like to see go out of here, quite
frankly, on a week before we start talking about sales tax and about bringing things to
this community. There is a way, I think, that this can be handled differently and that may
require a few more minutes of discussion. If the Attorney has got a suggestion of
something else to put in, I’ve heard about the industrial side of where it needs to be, or to
a point that if it’s an exception that’s there and you have to have each one dealt with
individually, there are different ways that this can be worked other than the fact of just
killing it. And I’d rather see that revised in that way than us getting into a box of where
it’s totally gone and then we may not want to bring it back up. And that floor is open to
hear a couple of those [unintelligible] to a point how we may need to deal with this and to
move with it. I’m recognizing [unintelligible] Mr. Smith [unintelligible]. Jimmy, I’m
recognizing you. You’re first. Don had his hand up first.
Mr. Grantham: I yield to Mr. Smith.
The Clerk: She had her hand up first, and then Mr. Grantham.
Mr. Mayor: I knew you were going to side that way. You’re the timekeeper in
this deal. Okay.
The Clerk: However you want to call it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Jimmy’s not going to be long either way. Go ahead, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. What hadn’t been brought out is the fact that
there are a lot of people that live in this area. There’s three churches in short distance
from this place he’s talking about. And nobody could hold a church service on Sunday
with all the noise that’s generated from there, the loud speakers and these automobiles.
And these people have been there, I know, some of them seventy years, raised their
children and still live there. I just cannot see coming in and telling people that we are
going to put a race track right in your neighborhood, like it or not. And that seems to
be—I was thinking, preacher, that maybe you were going to put it on Olive Road, cause
it’s been tore down over there for about three or months and I thought you were building
the race track over there.
44
Mr. Williams: We can’t get sewage out of the road, Jimmy, so we sure can’t get a
race track.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I prefaced my opening statement by I’m not
opposed to a race track. What I was opposed to was this ordinance, that it clearly leaves
me with a question mark. And that is where my problem lies. So I would like to see
something else put in this ordinance and A, B, C, D, E, F, G, but the ordinance is what
I’m having a problem with.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible]
Mr. Grantham: All right.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible]
Mr. Shepard: Well, an alternative version, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem,
members of the Commission, could be tied to hours of operation and location. I don’t
think I can draw it like I want to draw it on the floor but certainly that would be another
alternative. And that would be achieved through a motion to postpone it. Also, it’s got to
have two readings and I inferred that there [unintelligible] unanimous consent
[unintelligible] one reading today. So there will have to be some compromising amongst
the body if anything gets done.
Mr. Mayor: I feel an undertaker’s [unintelligible] coming on this ordinance if
something is not changed. I wouldn’t want to see it back. Let me make a suggestion
cause I can’t make no motion. I’m going to recognize Mr. Grantham and then Mr.
Williams who had their hands up. But if we talking about the—we’re talking about hours
now and those type things to be done, then maybe what the Commission can do, and this
does not reject the thought of the concept of the race track, would be to ask the—Mr.
Mayor Pro Tem, I’m trying to get this ordinance up and passed in some kind of way,
thank you—if we can ask for maybe a motion that allows the Attorney to draft and to
bring back with the proposed changes in there and have those things intact. We’ve got
committee meetings I believe on Monday. Obviously it has to be passed by all of us at a
Commission meeting but I think the changes and suggestions that are in there bring the
Commission something back to totally look at it, whether it’s on hours, whether it’s on a
zoning type per se, and authorize him to do it. That at least [unintelligible] signal out that
is not killing the [unintelligible] idea of what we are doing, and at the same time so
authorizes him to bring you back in detail what is going to be in that ordinance, having to
get it ready by Monday of next week or before, have it ready to go out in the committee’s
agenda, even though it will not be voted on on that day, but it can be something that the
Commission can look at ahead of time, talk to each other about, say what you like or
don’t like that’s involved in it, and then that gives you time there that it possibly won’t
45
just get slam-dunked because of maybe a word or something that is missing in the
ordinance. That’s a suggestion and I’m going to recognize Commissioner Grantham and
Commissioner Williams. But that’s my suggestion where I think y’all ought to go
[unintelligible].
Mr. Grantham:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And that was one of my proposals.
And I would like to make a substitute motion that we receive information today
regarding the noise ordinance and that we instruct the Attorney to come back to us
with a more definitive description of what the race track would be, the drag race
track would be involved, as far as the restrictions or the allowances that they would
have within this ordinance.
Mr. Handy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a substitute motion and a second. The Chair recognizes
Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor. [unintelligible]
Mr. Cheek: Just to be specific, to include for instance a section that says must be
zoned heavy industry and Sunday operating hours, perhaps, from noon to whatever.
These are some things we can look at and if they impact the operational structure of the
Sunday hours—the most important thing is that [unintelligible] residents out there would
certainly have as much complaint if you put in a 10,000 job industry as they do about the
drag race track, and the bottom line is things are changing, whether [unintelligible]
10,000 years, ten years, or two weeks, it’s just changing. And we’ve got to do what’s in
the best interest for the whole community.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Sims?
Ms. Sims: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Could we add to Commissioner Grantham’s
motion that it be brought back to committees so that we can discuss this before we get
into Commission meeting? Is that appropriate?
Mr. Mayor: I don’t think that’s inappropriate. In fact, my suggestion was
whether it goes to committee or not, I think it needs to go on out this week. We’ve had
probably only four or five suggestions at the most that be added to it [unintelligible] those
things to be highlighted, I think the Attorney can put those together so that they will be in
the agenda packet for those committee meetings. So I don’t see anything that’s wrong
with that. It gives an opportunity to discuss it [unintelligible] and I think it shows also a
level of support that you’re saying to go out, put the ordinance together, and to bring it
back to us. And I think if that’s something that hopefully everybody can live with, that
moves us along in terms of getting that done. I think maybe you want to direct in terms
of [unintelligible] ordinance in terms of where this [unintelligible] Mr. Mayor Pro Tem
[unintelligible] Public Services or where has it been in terms of committees? Okay. And
to put it in there. Let’s do that if that’s amenable to [unintelligible].
46
Mr. Grantham: [unintelligible] clarity on it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second. That’s on the substitute and
the original. We’ll vote on the substitute first. Does anybody need any clarity on either
motion? If not, all in favor of the substitute motion will do by the usual sign. Any
opposed, the same.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible] Thank y’all. We’ve got one more left.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY
32. Agreement for 911 Ambulance Response and Emergency Medical Services
Mr. Mayor: Tell you what, if one [unintelligible] went back I don’t know what
this multi-page one going to do [unintelligible]. I’m not picking on you, Mr. Attorney,
but this [unintelligible] it may [unintelligible].
Mr. Grantham: [unintelligible]
Mr. Shepard: I was thinking how appropriate the last motion was [unintelligible]
and it’s drafted. It is the City’s contract you have charged us to [unintelligible] and it is
28 pages long. [unintelligible] hour to go into it in detail or in Public Services.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Shepard: Public Safety, excuse me.
Mr. Mayor: There is a motion. Is there a second to move to—
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second now. Commissioner Cheek [unintelligible], Mr.
Hankerson after that.
Mr. Cheek: If I could just have a two minute personal privilege after we complete
this.
Mr. Mayor: No problem.
Mr. Hankerson: I didn’t hear you, Andy.
Mr. Mayor: He’s going to another [unintelligible] recognize him.
47
Mr. Cheek: Move to go to Public Services, Public Safety.
Mr. Mayor: That’s where I thought we were. Mr. Hankerson and then
Commissioner Handy?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes. Steve, why does this have to be added today? Deadline or
we running out of time?
Mr. Shepard: What happened, Mr. Hankerson, is when we put it into the
[unintelligible] agenda it got—it did not get routed the way it apparently—I thought it
was going to be routed. And we have spoken with Ms. [unintelligible] and I had
committed to the administration and those of you who are interested in this contract to get
this thing on to you and that’s the reason I had those for add-on, both of these items. The
routing problem has been corrected and I don’t think you’ll see this again. The reason I
wanted to get this out so that you had time to look at it. We’re not out of time but we
need to move forward on this [unintelligible] and we need to go ahead and vote this issue
in or modify it or whatever.
Mr. Mayor: Just for the record, what is our deadline date per se that we’re
working on? Is it December 1 that we would like to be finished with this? Is it the next
regular Commission meeting? Where is that?
Mr. Shepard: I think the next regular Commission meeting, as soon as we can.
Mr. Mayor: Next regular Commission meeting.
Mr. Hankerson: What I’m asking in the future, don’t send us these ordinances
and contracts in a Commission meeting. Put it in my mailbox, give it to the Clerk, put
this contract in my mailbox. And I have a chance to look it over and be ready when it
comes through the proper committee. Because a contract [unintelligible] last meeting
[unintelligible] an addendum item, I mean I think that’s asking a little bit too much.
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: There is—Mr. Handy?
Mr. Handy: I just wanted to thank Commissioner Hankerson for recognizing
what I said earlier, and if I did not, if I had not said anything about that ordinance we
wouldn’t be here today discussing this about this other thing. Now, it is wrong to give
me a 28-page item and it is wrong to give me an ordinance after I have the opportunity to
vote whether or not you can put these items on the agenda. And that’s wrong. And I still
stand to that today. Don’t give me something after the fact cause I may have rejected it
earlier and it wouldn’t be on here and we all could have been gone home now. We
should not be sitting here now arguing about something that should not have happened
today and make all of us look bad and to hear some of the statements that came
afterwards because I object to that ordinance—there was no name called but everybody
48
knew who it was directed to. And that’s wrong. We all here to work together, not
divided. But today we are divided on something that could not, should not be, and it
didn’t have to be. And all because the Attorney gave us two items to put on in a rush-
rush situation, did not explain those two items, and then we end up where we are today
and I don’t like that. I want you to know that. I do not like that. I do not like surprises.
And today this was a surprise. I would have never voted for anything not knowing what
it is, especially you give me the item after I vote. It’s as though you tricked me into
giving you permission to put that item on the agenda. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Any other Commissioners to the right or to the left? All in favor of
the substitute motion first will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Finishes up your items, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Cheek: [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: The floor is yours, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You can clock me for two minutes or less.
Earlier today I asked to add the Contract with Augusta for discussion. It did not receive
unanimous consent. I stand before you a Commissioner who goes to other cities who
mentions who I am and where I’m from and receive smirks, laughs and other things
because of the reputation of this body. This contract we’ve all seen and most of us agree
with all the tenants of the contract. The contract in its final form is a reassertion of our
oath of office and the things we should do as elected officials. Today we had a chance to
take action as a body before the vital SPLOST vote on next Tuesday. We for whatever
reason did not take that action to reaffirm our oath of office and is essence sign a contract
with the people of Augusta, that while our image before them is one thing, we as a body
are committed to being the people we swore to be. Some of us have said we don’t have
to do that, we took the oath of office. If you read the public opinion polls and the
reputation this body holds across the state and the southeast we’ve got nothing to be
proud of. Some of it’s our fault, some of it’s not. This was a small step toward making a
change, because some people in this city think we can’t do our jobs. A lot of people
promote that idea. While we know we’ve done our jobs, there are days we could have
done better, there are days we’ve made bonehead decisions. We do the best we can do
but we’ve got a public relations problem. This was a chance to stand as a body and
reaffirm before the SPLOST vote that we would do what we promised we would do,
we’re going to do a better job of promoting what we do right, and correct the things we
do wrong. I will not put this on the agenda in the future in perpetuity as is done in other
49
cases. I just urge of us to consider the fact that we have a public relations problem with
the people of Augusta and that we need to correct that. And whether it’s this action or
other actions we need to step forward as a body and made those corrections every chance
we get. We missed this one today before the SPLOST vote. I hope that it does not doom
the SPLOST vote. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. And in that same frame of leadership for one
Augusta and of trying to keep us together and to promote that, I’m going to refrain from
any comment on it because I think we have been trying to do that today and I think we’ve
been trying to do that for the last several months and think that record of those green
lights lighting up is the best [unintelligible] do that. Motion there to adjourn.
Mr. Speaker: So move.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on November 1, 2005.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
50