HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 15, 2005 ARC Commission meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
November 15, 2005
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m. on November 15,
2005, the Honorable Willie Mays, III presiding.
Present: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Grantham, Colclough, Handy, Williams,
Beard, Cheek, Sims, Rearden, members of the Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The invocation was given by the Rev. O. E. Wells, Pastor, Galilee Missionary
Baptist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
The Clerk: Rev. Wells, as a token of our appreciation for you being with us today
and by these presents be it known that Rev. O. E. Wells, pastor of the Galilee Baptist
Church, is the Chaplain of the Door for his civic and spiritual guidance demonstrated
throughout the community and serves as an example for all [unintelligible]. Thank you
for being with us and God bless you.
The Clerk: At this time we’d like to recognize our Employee of the Month.
RECOGNITION(S)
Employee of the Month Award
C. Ms. Beverly Wright - October 2005 Employee of the Month - Public Services
Department - Trees and Landscape Division.
The Clerk: We would ask that Ms. Beverly Wright, who is an employee with our
Public Services Department – Trees and Landscape Division, would you please come
forward with Mr. Derek Vanover, Commissioner Andy Cheek. Mayor Mays, the
Employee Recognition Committee has selected Beverly Wright as the October 2005
Employee of the Month for the City of Augusta. Ms. Wright has been employed with the
City of Augusta for five years as a groundskeeper for the Trees and Landscape under
Mike Greene, department director. Ms. Wright was nominated by fellow co-workers
Julia Lee, Larry Hammond, and Glenn Allen. Her fellow co-workers stated that she’s
always a pleasure to work with and she goes the extra mile to get the job done. She is
eager to learn anything new and enjoys a challenge. Her attitude and work ethics uplift
the morale of her co-workers. The Committee felt that based on her co-workers’
recommendation and Ms. Wright’s dedicated and loyal service to the City of Augusta she
should be awarded Employee of the Month. We would appreciate you joining us in
1
awarding Ms. Beverly Wright Employee of the Month for the month of October. Thank
you.
The Clerk: Also, the Mayor would like to recognize Ms. Julia Lee, who was the
first Employee of the Month in 2002, and he’d like to pin her with a lapel pin of the City
of Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible] out of uniform and in real clothes. [unintelligible]
[Laughter]
Mr. Vanover: The only thing I’d like to say about Beverly is that on the
nomination form she was nominated by three different employees and on the form each
one of them said that she is a pleasure to work with and the public enjoys working with
her and seeing her work and that’s the highest compliment you can get, Beverly. Thank
you very much. We appreciate you.
The Clerk: Ms. Terri Turner? We’ll do this later then. At this time we’d like to
acknowledge our Mayor of the Day.
By His Honor, Willie H. Mays, III, Interim Mayor, to Mr. Duron Bailey,
greetings:
By virtue of the power and authority vested in me by the constitution and the laws
of this state and in pursuance of your appointment I do hereby commission you as said
Mayor of the Day. You are therefore authorized and required to perform all and singular
the duties encumbered on you as said ambassador, according to the laws and the trust
reposed in you.
Given unto my hand and the seal of the Office of Mayor at the Municipal
th
Building, in the city of Augusta, on the 15 day of November, in the year of our Lord
2005.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible]
[Laughter]
Mr. Mayor: Besides being an excellent student, Duron also, who is a current
senior at T.W. Josey High School, was also a member of that Eagles team last year that
caused the other side of my hair to turn white. I had one patch and they went 30-1 last
year and so that’s kind of hard to top unless there’s going to be a state championship
coming this year. But he’s a good young man, a good student, as well as a good
basketball player. So we’re glad to have you here today as we continue to involve young
people in our government and hopefully in more ways than just in terms of honorary
status that we do for you. Madame Clerk?
2
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
D. Mr. Joseph Francois, Augusta Utilities Department
RE: Pay raises for employees of Augusta Utilities Department.
Mr. Nimmons: My name is Charlie Nimmons and I live at 3498 Byron Place in
Augusta. And I’m the spokesman on behalf of the Richmond County Utilities
Department today. We appear before this assembly today to make a request for an 8%
increase in salary for the employees of the Augusta Utilities Department. We are not so
selfish that we would make this request if we thought we were placing another burden on
the taxpayers of Augusta. As you all know, this department is self funded and the funds
are available to finance this 8% raise. It will not cost the taxpayers anything. View us a
delegation of rebels—do not, I’m sorry. Do not view us a delegation of rebels, but as
husbands, wives and single employees. We are the heads of households that for the past
four years have attempted to provide the necessities of life on the same salary with no
cost of living increase. We do our jobs with great present gratitude that we are blessed to
have jobs, but also with the ever-present reality that we are unable to provide less and
less for our families. We have waited patiently as month after month our director has
been asked to bring a plan to the Commission to raise the salaries of the working body of
the department. We believe that it is only fitting that we take the battle upon ourselves.
We want to stress that we are also a [unintelligible] sensitive department and we have the
necessary funds. Our intent is not to argue the importance of one department over
another, but to bring the plea to save one more department. For those of you who do not
know us, when you drink, it’s us. When you wash, it’s us. When you flush, it’s us. We
are not without compassion for all City employees who are enduring the same plight.
Having said this, we would like to enter this petition for consideration endorsed by 139
employees. The petition reads as follows:
In view of the fact that Augusta Utilities Department is responsible for providing
water that exceeds all federal, state, local regulations and for providing waste water
services that inspires public confidence and in view of the fact that this is an enterprise
department and water is life, we the undersigned employees are requesting that we also
be granted an 8% increase in wages.
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you so very much for your coming and I’m glad that got
th
inside this Chamber before December 6 because I don’t know where I might be after
that. So I’ll have to stand out with you and help you maybe after that day. But I am here
today. And I’m going to ask Mr. Russell in just a moment to address the numbers that
are there. I think we’re going to be able to—as we’re continuing to hopefully crank out
some good news, I’m going to recognize Commissioner Williams—had his hand up over,
as well our Utilities Chairman, Commissioner Andy Cheek. I think it’s very important to
note the fact that the rank and file employees, and not that everyone does not count—I
think it’s important that we realize the fact that a governmental family of at least 2,700, to
3
round those numbers off, are important to the Mayor and the Commission, as well as to
the citizens of this community. But I think that one of the things that we wanted to see
come to a head in this particular department is that while we address some [unintelligible]
we’ve had concerns, particularly from these two Commissioners, and as an old member
of that particular committee, that oversees that department, of wanting to make sure that
when we move people that we have an opportunity move everybody together, those that
are in the top of that department all the way down to where those lowest numbers may be
in terms of pay. And I think that’s what’s most important, that we are assuring that we
get done at this particular time. I’m [unintelligible] guided the monies over this past year
to make sure that things have been in place so that as we move these departments that
they are not political decisions, they are decisions that are life blood to those of you who
work with us and those who have to take care of their families. Those things are most
important and I’m grateful that the spirit and the numbers have fallen into place to be able
to some of these things that we need to get done. I’m moved you up on purpose because
also I know that the City has to keep running and moving and we want to make sure that
we do what’s right and we also want to get you out before it gets too late in here, too. So
I want to recognize—because he’s the Chairman of the Committee, I’m going to
recognize Commissioner Cheek and then Commissioner Williams, because even though
he hasn’t been a member of that committee, one of the things that he has been most vocal
about and adamant is that we get to the rank and file members from this department.
We’ve appreciate that help. So I don’t think we’ve got a debate in terms of what we’ve
got to do. I think we just are grateful to the fact that we have the ability to be able to get
some of this done today. And for that I think as a city we can be grateful that we’ve been
in good financial hands as we continue to move along. Commissioner Cheek and then
Commissioner Williams and I’ll go to any other Commissioners then. If not, then I’ll
recognize the Administrator for a plan in which we have in order to be able to get these
things done.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A lot of people look at this crowd and
worry, well, who is running the water department? I know that in the last few years when
we put the tools in your hands, gave you a little bit of money to work with, you turned the
system that was in trouble into one of the finest systems in the country. And I know good
and well that in your hearts and minds you care about your work and that what is being
done out there today, that you wouldn’t be here unless the job was still getting done. And
I’m very proud of you. We began this discussion well over a year ago because the
Utilities Department is indeed an enterprise fund. Our hearts were very strongly pulled
about he remainder of the departments that impact the general fund and the cause of a tax
increase. That is not the case with the Utilities Department. I as chairman of the
committee that oversees Utilities am very proud of your work. Your work, like many of
the City employees, is deserving of a raise and I hope today your presence will help us
take care of not only your department but the remainder of the departments. It’s well
overdue. You’ve worked too long and too hard with too little and it’s time to right that
and put at least some semblance of income in your pocket to help you care for your
families that is consistent with the quality of work you all have provided for the City of
Augusta. You’ve got a lot to be proud of. You’ve done one of the best jobs for the
people of the city of Augusta that I can remember in recorded history it turning the
4
system around. Your presence today will help us not only with your cause but with
others’. And my hat is off to you and I support, Mr. Mayor, the recommendation made
from the floor today.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I’d like to say that I’m glad to
know that we know who the rank and file people are. For a long time we kept talking
about rank and file and they act as if they didn’t know who they were. I kept
complaining about the upper level management have been increased and promoted but
what about the rank and file and those other people who actually do the field work, those
that answer the phone, those who are really keeping this government afloat. I’m just glad
to see the number that showed up today that is concerned about what needed to be done.
We had several meetings at the water department, along with the Assistant Administrator,
some very, very positive dialogue came out of that and I think the result of this meeting
coming together now. But being enterprise situation, with the monies there—someone
called from the media and wanted to know did I support the Utilities Department in
getting a raise and what about the other employees. And I said it’s like your house being
on fire, Commissioner Cheek, and you got eight children but you can only save three.
Are you going to let the three you can burn because you can’t save the other five? You
got to save those you can. And I still think that we got some of the best employees in the
world in Utilities and I think that they are well deserving. I think the 8% is well within
the range for asking because the monies are there. We spend millions of dollars with
private sector doing work in that department. And we don’t even stumble our toe about
it. And I don’t think we ought to stumble our toe about the 8%. I’ve been in support
before and I’m still in support, Mr. Mayor. I’m just glad to see we’re about to embark on
something that would let these people know that we appreciate them. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Any Commissioners to my left? Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. It’s good to show this kind of support and interest for
income and enterprise funds, I know that the money is there and those are the kind of
funds that we look for that not impact on the general fund. I support that myself for the
Utilities employees that’s coming forth. But I want to go a step further and
[unintelligible] that. Because of the fact, as Administrative Services Chairman, I have on
the agenda and I had last Administrative Service meeting, there are several others that
have asked for increases. And I’m not saying this to stop that, so don’t get the wrong
impression. But how are we going to address the ones that keep coming? For instance,
we have the Juvenile Court that’s coming. The Solicitor’s Office is on the agenda here,
revision today. Augusta Cares. The Tax Assessor. The Marshal’s Department. The
correctional officers. And then also the Clerk’s Office. So those are some that I know
that have said something to me that they are coming. So are we going to continue
meeting after meeting for one coming at a time? I think we can resolve that. We can
resolve that today. We already suggested how we are going to take care of the Utilities
and that’s [unintelligible] enterprise fund. But why not just we go ahead and give the 4%
increase that we were proposing for next year? Go ahead and approve it now. It will cost
5
approximately $400,000 for the rest of this year. We take it from reserves and then we’ll
stop the ones from coming. They keep coming. And then when we do the budget we can
work the budget out for next year. That way we won’t have each one of these coming
back every meeting while we are trying to do the budget. I’ve already checked with the
Finance director. Approximately about $400,000, David, can come forth. Go ahead and
give everybody—not that I’m excluding your 8%, I’m not talking about that. But
everybody else, give them 4% starting today, this month, and then we work on the budget
for next year for the increase that we already have in the budget. We can do that and I
think that would resolve a lot of problems that we would have. Mr. Mayor, if we hear the
Finance Director, I’d like to put that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Cheek: Can we get some clarification, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: That’s what I—go ahead, Commissioner Cheek. Then I want to turn
to Mr. Persaud, as well as Mr. Russell because there are some other numbers that we can
discuss today but I want to make sure that particularly with the status of this
department—and I understand where the Commissioner is coming from—but we want to
make sure, even if it’s in separate motions, that we go ahead and take care of this
department’s business and then if we are ready to move totally on it then we move on it.
And I don’t really have a problem with it either way but I do think we need to make sure,
even if we have to separate them, is to go ahead on and to handle what we’ve got on the
agenda today. Mr. Chairman, if you wanted to speak to that for just a moment?
Mr. Cheek: Just for clarification. Is it the intention of the maker of the motion to
give basically an across the board 4% increase for the remainder of the general fund
employees, holding intact the 8% request from the Utilities Department?
Mr. Hankerson: That’s correct.
Mr. Cheek: And then adjusting the other potential 4% for the remainder of the
employees in the new calendar year?
Mr. Hankerson: That’s correct.
Mr. Cheek: When a new budget is put in place?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Persaud, were you going to address that, or Mr. Russell?
Mr. Persaud: Yes, sir. Commissioner Hankerson [unintelligible] cost
[unintelligible] remaining months. For the entire [unintelligible] November and
December is approximately $573,000. For the general fund only [unintelligible]
$360,000. [unintelligible]
6
Mr. Mayor: Fred?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, [unintelligible]. I don’t know the
numbers off the top of my head [unintelligible].
Mr. Mayor: And that’s why I said I think you need to have all those numbers that
are clear on the floor and if necessary to deal with the business that we’ve got out here
today. I think that’s most important. But I think if we are going—and our intention is to
make sure that we do right by this whole governmental family, but I think everybody
ought to be clear on where all the numbers are and what they are. And while I think that
intention is good, but I think we’ve got this that’s here now, we know where those
monies are coming from, we know the exact cost, and how they are going to be derived
at. And I think those two, those two differences need to be clear.
Mr. Russell: [unintelligible] provide. Our goal is to provide the information you
need to make rational decisions on the budget and to move forward with that. We
worked very hard over the last couple of days to come up with a proposal that would
allow us to fund a 8% raise across the board effective January1st for all employees. The
people from the Utilities Department are absolutely right. Their fund has sufficient
dollars in it to do that with no problem whatsoever. The problem, as it always is, is in the
general fund. Landfill can do that. Landfill can do that. Airport can do it. And the other
enterprise funds are capable of doing that particular raise at this particular point in time.
The general fund, after meeting with the department directors that are involved in the
general fund and asking them to go back one more time and scrub their budgets, we were
able to come up with sufficient savings to do that 4% raise with an approximately
$400,000 reduction in the fund balance to cover the balance in that. We are still looking
at some of those numbers but in the very hear future I would be able to make a
recommendation that we—my recommendation would be that we do an 8% across the
board raise effective January 1 for all employees, other than those employees in the
Sheriff’s Department and Fire Department that have already been approved for a raise,
and that the employees in the Marshal’s Office, which are similar in nature to the
Sheriff’s officers and those officers that work for RCCI, which are similar to deputies
working in the jail, that they be treated equally as those particular people. And that’s
what I would propose. That still gives us a balanced budget. I’ve been informed that we
would not have to increase the millage any more so than what I had already proposed, the
1.92 increase would be the total increase there. Take the balance out of the fund balance
and work with that.
Mr. Mayor: Any questions to Mr. Persaud or to Mr. Russell?
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to go ahead and second the motion that’s on the floor, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
7
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams:
I was going to make a substitute motion but I need some
clarification. I think the agenda item at hand is the 8% that the utilities have come before
now to get. Wait until the first of the year. And I think what I heard from Mr. Russell,
and I’m not sure cause there’s so much been through out there now. I think we got other
groups that’s going to be coming and it’s going to be beneficial to do what we need to do.
But the Utilities Department has the money. That’s a separate deal. The money is
I want to make a substitute motion that we go ahead and approve that
already there.
8% as of now for them, Mr. Mayor, and if we going to do something else in the
beginning, in the first of the year for the 4% that Mr. Russell is talking about, I can
support that as well. But I don’t think we ought to have the Utilities to wait any
longer than what they already waited for the 8% that they are requesting. So my
substitute motion is to go ahead and approve that and then proceed with the other
stuff but not to add them in there with that.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the substitute?
Mr. Handy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There’s a motion and a second on the substitute that is on the floor.
The Chair recognizes the Administrator.
Mr. Russell: I get to be unpopular again. I think what that does is it puts us in
somewhat of a predicament in our employee process, where we have laborers who work
in similar positions as laborers elsewhere. I would find a conflict with doing it that
particular way. And that’s why I suggest that we do it all at once when we could afford
that. While I understand the need and I have no problem with the idea, and if we are
going to look at enterprise funds separately and distinctly I think we should look at all the
enterprise funds that would include the landfill, the airport and the other enterprise funds
that are available and I would prefer at that point if we’re going to do that I think it would
be my suggestion and recommendation that we go ahead and bite the bullet and do it
across the board for everybody effective in the next pay period as opposed to beginning
to take people out.
Mr. Mayor: Let me just ask this question, Fred. Because you’ve got two motions
that’s out here. Which one were you addressing specifically? Because actually unless I
missed something neither one actually clearly states what you just said. And I think I
need if one of them to make an amendment or adjustment to it to match what you’re
talking about, maybe you need to further clarify that a little bit. I think everybody here
wants to do the right thing but if I’m hearing a little tinkering in the back that you all are
still adjusting in the numbers somewhere else. And if we got these numbers clear it’s not
like the first of the year is going to be a long way off. It’s going to be here within the
next couple of meetings in terms of where you’re going. And so I think that needs to be
clear. And one thing that might help is that if we’re going to do Utilities and finish it
today—I mean I don’t know, but I’m just throwing this in the mix. If we’re going to do
8
that then I think what can be done is that at your regular meeting of department heads and
of expressing a clarity as to when specifically this Commission is going to go ahead so
that everybody is covered, I think that will clear some in terms of the fact that if it’s
[unintelligible] specific date when it’s going to be done other than the employees we’re
dealing with today, that will in some way give them a true [unintelligible] and the
Commission can vote on that to do it, that it’s clear then if it’s going to start for
everybody else in another twenty days or whatever, then you’re not having to deal with
all of them one after another, like Commissioner Hankerson was talking about, you
know, avoiding, but I also want you to be clear on where all your numbers are. Because
I’m [unintelligible] when it’s an if that’s a part of it. Even though I think we got to do
what’s right, but we got to also know where all the monies are, too.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Sure.
Mr. Williams: Point of clarification. And I hear Commissioner Hankerson when
he talked about those continuing to come. And I agree with that. But this started back
with the enterprise situation, Mr. Russell, with the airport. We came in, we raised those
salaries out there because they was below, the was not up to whatever because they had
the funds to do it. Now, this group has been very patient and worked very hard. And
they don’t have a office, a 9 to 5 job, 90% of them. And I think they ought to be a
appreciated a little bit more because we do have the funds now. If the money wasn’t
there and it was going to be an increase I would not be in support. But because we have
the money I think we need to go ahead and do that. And that would require I make my
substitute motion to go ahead and approve them now and just look at, just like the Mayor
says, in the next 20 days as to what we going to do for the other enterprises or the other
funds that’s out there. But we need to go ahead and do this one I think and get it out the
way.
Mr. Mayor: Since he hadn’t had a chance to address anything, Commissioner
Rearden and then I’m going to come back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rearden: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I sympathize with all of our
employees but I just want to make one point that to me that seems to have been lost.
Whether we’re talking about the general fund or an enterprise fund, this money is given
to us by the citizens. We are responsible for a trust to ensure that these are spent
efficiently and properly. I believe that Commissioner Hankerson has the right idea. It
does not cause an undue hardship to ask some employees to wait 20 more days so we can
have a look at the budget after they’ve been waiting four years. I can understand the
anger and the frustration but I believe that Commissioner Hankerson has the right idea
and I would vote to support his motion and against the substitute. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Chairman?
9
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I hope that we can get an adjustment to this
because this is undoubtedly a bullet that we’re going to have to bite. We have to set the
record straight. We began this discussion three years ago with reclassifications that we
had reaffirmed by the University of Georgia that they were just and fitting pay
adjustments for our employees. We couldn’t afford to do it then. And ever since that
point in time we’ve gotten into cycles where we put off, we hope to do, we’ll get to one
day. I for one, while I realize that we committed one-half billion dollars worth of capital
improvements to our Utilities Department would hope that this Commission, if this is
indeed a bullet we’re going to have to bite and we will very soon, we look at taking this
across the board measure for employees who work in every department and put an end to
the morale problems that this piecemeal approach that we’ve taken on for the last few
years, because we really couldn’t afford to do anything else, not from ill intent, but that
we address this today, that we make whatever budget cuts and adjustments necessary,
encourage our departments, and these very employees here to help us save money
wherever we can, but that we address this this day, as my stepson often says, this day.
And that we solve the problem that we face that not only us as leaders face but every
employee that gets a paycheck in this city faces when they see the diminishing power of
their dollars to buy health care, gasoline, groceries, and everything else. We know we’ve
got our work ahead of us in the budget. And while I understand and support the intent of
both measures I for one would like to see a way out where we could correct this for the
entire city this day.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Handy?
Mr. Handy: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was going to make a suggestion that since
we haven’t approved the addendum for today that we go ahead and do the Utilities
department like we was—like it is on the agenda now and just add what Commissioner
Hankerson have said, add it to the addendum and then we vote on that. Cause some want
to keep it separated, two different things. That was just a suggestion that we can go
ahead on and do exactly what we are here to do today for the Utilities Department and
add on the addendum the other suggestion that came from Commissioner Hankerson and
others concerning the entire [unintelligible]. That’s just a suggestion. An easy way to
separate the two.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams:
I’m going to try to amend my motion and to give another motion
maybe that the body can deal with. But to Mr. Rearden, let me try to give you a little
history, Mr. Rearden, since you are somewhat new. We spent $28 million in private
developers, private businesses doing work for this government without even going out for
bids on it. And I agree with you. I been saying all the time, we are stewards of the
monies. And the Utilities Department we spend $27 million, maybe $28 million and we
didn’t even go out for bids. Did it six months before the contract, the [unintelligible]
contract was up. So I mean I’m not going to let these people walk around here and the
10
price of gas and the price of food and stuff they got to deal with be put on the back burner
because we ought to be good stewards. We should have been good stewards when we
spend the big money. This little stuff now. And I hope you don’t take that wrong. I’m
just trying to enlighten you on some stuff that has been done in that department that we
I’m going to try to amend my motion,
sit here and voted for and didn’t even question.
Mr. Mayor, to go ahead and give the Utilities Department 4% now and then the
other 4% in the beginning of the year. I think that the same thing we did with the
Sheriff’s Department and with the Fire Department.
And I see Mr. Russell now
So I make
saying we going to do, you can do the entire government. Everybody.
motion to do that, to give everybody a 4% now and then at the beginning of the year
they get another 4%. If that’s going to get it off center, to get these people the 8%
they need.
Ms. Beard: Second the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Does the seconder of the substitute motion agree with the
amendment? I think that was Mr. Handy.
Mr. Handy: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. It’s so amended as a part of the motion. And you’ve got the
two that’s there, the substitute with the amendment, the original motion is out there. I’m
going to recognize Mr. Russell and then we’re going to vote, in that order.
Mr. Russell: Just for clarity. If we could make that effective beginning the first
pay period after this meeting which would be reflected on the next check as we normally
do, just to make sure it all goes smooth.
Mr. Williams: Agreed.
Mr. Mayor: The seconded agree to that change?
Mr. Handy: That would be good.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair is going to rule we’ve had adequate discussion on all
motions. Does anybody need clarify on what they are?
Mr. Rearden: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, would you read the substitute motion which is in
question to be voted on first, as well as the original motion?
The Clerk: The amended substitute motion was to allow for a 4% increase now
for the Utilities Department as well as the general fund employees with a 4% increase the
first of January, 2006. And the 4% will be the first pay period following this meeting.
Other enterprise fund? Okay. Other enterprise fund. Okay.
11
Mr. Mayor: And the original?
The Clerk: The original motion was to apply the 4% for the remainder of 2005,
keeping intact the request from the Utilities Department funded from reserves.
Mr. Mayor: Everybody clear on the reading of both motions?
Mr. Rearden: Are they not the same?
Mr. Mayor: Somewhat. But for the sake of moving on I’m going to leave them
where they area. They’re twins but one of them got to go first. Anybody else on this
end? If not, all in favor of the motion, we’ll vote on the substitute first. All in favor of
that motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Hankerson votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Nine out of ten ain’t bad. I love green lights.
Mr. Hicks: On behalf of the employees of the Augusta Utilities Department we
want you to know we appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you. Before you all leave, and I’m going to
recognize Commissioner Hankerson, but this department took a lot of banging when this
government was first put together. There were a lot of things that came into being out of
inheritance. We all became one family. There were a lot of problems there that none of
the person who were working in that department had anything to do with. We went
through a major drought. There were folk who even went grocery shopping and got out
of uniform because everybody wanted to criticize up and down the line. And everything
I think I think has been mentioned about all the private entities are now on the way to
having that $75 million water plant built and up that I think that it’s time that those
throughout the family got rewarded for a job well done and for all the criticism that you
took during that period of time for being there, we thank you so very much. Mr.
Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve never seen a group so happy when
they got cut 4%. My motion was to give the Utilities 8% and the rest of the employees
4%, the Commissioners voted for the 4%, everybody’s happy, everybody got a raise, I’m
happy, too.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to say how appropriate it is for the
department of the city that’s leading the quality initiative within the city government of
Augusta to bring forward a delegation this day that has corrected a problem that has been
12
a problem for a number of years. I think every other employee from every other
department should at least personally declare this a special day in commemoration of the
Utilities Department for their strength to stand together and bring this issue before us and
correct a problem that we as a body have been struggling with for years. Keep up the
good work, y’all.
Mr. Mayor: Ladies and gentlemen, those in the Chamber, if you would return to
your seats, please, as well as Commissioners and staff. We’re going to at this time
proceed with the rest of our agenda. If we would go ahead, Madame Clerk, in reference
to our delegations and presentations. While the presentations are made, not that we want
to ignore them, if Commissioners would look through their regular agendas to see if there
are any items that we can move on to consent or if you would go ahead and note the
items that you would be wanting to remove and to have them taken off when we get to
the consent agenda, and that works both ways. If you’ll go ahead and pre-note those it
would help us to move along with the time, and in addition to that of looking at the
additions to the agenda to see if whether are not there are going to be any non-consent, be
able to add those. That would help us to be able to move along. I would like to
acknowledge in the audience today the presence of two young men who now serve as
rd
Commissioners-elect over in the 3 District, Mr. Joe Bowles, if you’d stand, Joe? And
District 5, Mr. Calvin Holland. Good to see my good friend, Dr. Fuller, standing over
there from Macedonia. And my good friend, Tommy Yarboro. Good to see you. We’re
going to at this time, so this young lady can get a chance to speak for a few moments and
to be able to get back on I-20 before the weather changes to bring us what I think is a big
of good news. I’ve had them meeting next door in the Mayor’s office. Tom Beck and
Barry White have been meeting there with Ms. Kathlene Goduco and she represents the
Atlanta Hawks and the Atlanta Thrashers. She’s going to come to us for a few moments
to talk about some things I think can be very useful in our community and also some
future talks that I’m going to have with them they hadn’t talked about yet. But if you
would, come forward. Is Barry still with us, Tom?
Mr. Beck: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
PRESENTATION(S)
B. Ms. Kathlene Goduco
Ms. Goduco: First of all, I would like to thank you for letting me speak here
today, Mayor. Basically I’m here on behalf of the Atlanta Hawks and Thrashers and
what I’d like to express is the concept of having an official Augusta Community Night.
Basically, this event would serve as an outlet for the community to come together and
actually enjoy [unintelligible] together. The purpose is to thank the citizens of Augusta
for supporting our team throughout the years and dedicate a night to you. So basically it
can be as big as you want it to be. As big as we can make it out to be actually. We
would offer special discounts for everyone from regular individuals, church groups, city
workers, businesses, everyone in the city of Augusta and maybe even Richmond County.
13
It would serve as an alternative fund raising option for non-profit groups. It could be a
promotional avenue for organizations [unintelligible]. Basically every single citizen that
comes from the city of Augusta can be involved in the game. We would like to make this
not only an interactive, but a rewarding experience as well. Right now I’m currently
talking with the CVB and the Recreation & Parks Department in trying to get the ball
rolling. So I hope that we will be able to work together in the future and I look forward
to making this night happen.
Mr. Mayor:
Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, one of the things that we
talked about earlier before Ms. Goduco was meeting with Mr. White and Mr. Beck was
the large percentage of funds that could be retained by particularly non-profit groups,
many of whom come to us—and this is not to abandon them. But whether you’re talking
about—particularly those that work with children and of being able to retain a large
percentage of those ticket sales. At first glance many would think well, this is a project
that takes some money out of this city and I mentioned that I was going to talk further
with them about some things they haven’t talked about yet. And that being the fact that
this offer I think is a good first start because we also have facilities here and a lot of the
professional sports teams do have both on exhibition and regular season the opportunity
in hockey and in basketball to come to other sister cities in order to play. We shift
between the Atlanta Hawks, almost centrally located, Atlanta Hawks and the Charlotte
Bobcats. Have an opportunity to begin talks with them about having some of those
games to be shared in our facilities here. So I think it’s a good first step, one, to be able
to raise some money and to be able to allow some of the groups that have worked with
our younger people to be able to raise and to keep money and to also be able to sponsor
those trips to see a professional team just as we’ve done on Augusta Day with the Atlanta
Braves for years. Our Recreation & Parks Department has been a vital part of that, as
well as to begin a different relationship that will also hopefully bring them back to this
city. And I told [unintelligible] take that off her back [unintelligible]. I told her we
couldn’t [unintelligible] so you ask not, you receive not. So I think it’s great to start that
relationship so that we can begin to talk to be able to bring them to this side of the
[unintelligible] as well. Exhibitions are already being done in Macon, Georgia. No
reason they can’t be done here in Augusta, Georgia, and I think that’s a good way to do
What I would
[unintelligible]. Do any of you have any questions of her at this time?
like for us to do if we could is to at least maybe entertain a motion to working with
the concept of working with them on the Augusta Day Project for both sports teams
and let that be a beginning of what we can do with professional organizations.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Any discussion? If not, all in favor will do so
by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
14
Mr. Mayor: Thank you so very much and she brought one autographed basketball
from Dominique Wilkins and I knew if I had to cut it up eleven ways—so I left it over in
the Mayor’s office. But do tell ‘Nique if he’s going to deal with the [unintelligible] he’d
better hurry up. Thank you so very much and have a safe trip back.
Ms. Goduco: Thank you.
The Clerk:
E. Mr. Ray N. Walker
Re: Ordinance Amending the Noise Ordinance.
Mr. Walker: I’d like to introduce myself to the Commission and visitors here in
the Chambers. My name is Ray Walker. I’ve been living at 948 Horseshoe Road in
south Augusta all my life, which is 46 years. And the topic I’ve come to discuss with you
today is whether or not the Commission should amend the county code which defines the
local noise ordinance so as to allow for a special exemption for drag strips. As the
ordinance now stands, it would for all purposes prevent the practical operation of such an
enterprise. I suggest that if that reason, and that reason only, that the ordinance is being
considered for modification. There is no specific public dissatisfaction with the
ordinance that I have been made aware of. No, it’s not the public that’s demanding that
this ordinance be changed, but only this Commission [unintelligible] such an action is
within this body’s jurisdiction. What it boils down is that there two questions that need
to be answered about the proposed change. One, is the change actually necessary? And
two, does the change place an undue hardship on any given area or segment of the
population? I propose that the change is unnecessary. It is incredulous that a general
ordinance not only calls out for an exemption to a specific type of business but also spells
out in detail where the business shall be located and provides minute details regarding
times and days of normal operation, as well as exemptions to those details for so-called
special events. Restrictions on location and hours of operations for those businesses
which by nature generate consistent high levels of noise are normally controlled by
zoning. An operation such as we’re discussing here should be restricted by zoning
classification, not a particular location. By affixing a specific zoning classification for
such a business, a defined process would be in place for [unintelligible] such a facility
and the public can have a better opportunity to provide its input. Now, will this change
place a hardship on an area or a group of citizens? I feel that the answer is a resounding
yes. Since this modification is the noise ordinance is being driven by a business which
for all practical purposes operates every weekend, weather permitting, I feel that the two
congregations in close proximity to proposed site will be severely impacted. Now, there
has been some lip service paid to not interrupting their main services but revivals,
evening services, Bible studies, youth program, fellowship dinners—all of these are
hostage that day’s scheduled event. And let’s not forget that during the special events
which are spelled out in version three of the proposed ordinance, the only quiet hours
would be between 1:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. So in order to be able to worship in peace I
guess the phrase “early worship service” will take on a new meaning to these two
congregations. Now, it will be miserable for these two church families. But what about
15
those residents whose homes are near the proposed business? Will they be able to sleep
with their windows up on a cool evening? Can they sit in their back yard and enjoy a
conversation with family or friends without megaphone? Can they sit in their back yard
at any time and enjoy just the evening, the sunset? I don’t know. If the weather is bad
they might luck out. But if a similar facility across the river in Jackson is any indication
these residents can expect to give up 120 or more evenings a year. So I guess people out
near the proposed site will start praying for rain just to get a break. Now, should some
residents be inconvenienced if there is a significant benefit to the whole community?
Well, it really depends on what the benefit is and what is the inconvenience to the certain
groups. Let’s consider a recent example. In the case of Augusta needing to place a water
treatment plant near the river, close to existing water system infrastructure, the location
on Tobacco Road which best met the site requirement was not publicly owned. Now that
property owner did not really want to sell his property but he was more or less compelled
to do so. Yet at least he received some compensation. What compensation will these two
congregations and nearby residents receive? The same compensation south Augusta has
always received for having most of the county’s industry: heavy traffic and some very
enticing aromas. As for economic benefit, tell that to the family trying to sell a fairly
new home near the end of Horseshoe Road. Now, several years ago when those homes
were first built they were snapped up. But this family has been trying to unload this
house since the first week in October. This is when you began discussing this issue in
earnest. I wonder how much of an economic benefit they’re seeing? For those who
won’t leave because they’re too old or if they’ve got long ties with family property, the
modification of the noise ordinance will guarantee them two economic impacts—higher
property taxes due to increased assessment since they’ll be in close proximity to
commercial property, and also depressed resale values due to their proximity to a
commercial property with a noise ordinance exemption. Now, the proposed change to
the ordinance is just another slap at a section of our community which often gets treated
as an unwanted step-child. Contrary to public comments by one of the Commissioners,
the residents of south Augusta can be satisfied. We would be satisfied with the
development of the property in question by developers who would purchase the land, not
ask for it for free. We would be satisfied with the building of town houses, subdivisions,
or golf courses, family friendly businesses. We would be satisfied with the Development
Authority bringing in modern, safe businesses to this large, valuable tract of land off of
Highway 56. We would be satisfied with elected representatives who worked to bring
viable sources of long term employment to our community. And last but not least we
would be satisfied with the development of property in our area by businesses using
private financing and not dependent on very skimpy tax dollars. I will close with this.
Modifying this noise ordinance is just another step down the wrong path. I urge the
Commission to reject modification of this ordinance because it is not in the best issue of
our community. Yet whether the Commissioners approve or reject this ordinance, I ask
that they show some leadership, go ahead and put this issue to rest, vote their conscience,
and get on with the City’s business. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Any questions to the petitioner from any members of the
Commission? Commissioner Cheek? And before you begin, Andy, I want to do two
16
things at one time, on a time frame. If those who came in support of Mr. Walker’s
petition would raise your hand so that we can have a count for the meeting, please?
[22 supported noted]
Mr. Mayor: You can go ahead, Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me remind the body that this land is
indeed zoned heavy industry and several years back had a very large industrial plant
placed there. Under the current zoning it would be allowed to operate that type of
operation consistent with Procter & Gamble, the polymers plant, any of the industries
along river row, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Indeed, I am well on record as being
a supporter of wise development and growth. I’ve also been the guardian of south
Augusta. But the mindset of not going forward with this project is consistent with the
same mindset that has in the civic center sitting four blocks over that’s too small. The
same minds that would have us not developing the golf course on Washington Road that
creates noise during Sunday afternoon one week out of the year. Not building Diamond
Lakes, the soccer park, the baseball field, or any of the other things that have caused
industry and commerce and tourism to come to Augusta. I would hope that as we talk
about the changes that this could have on that area that we remember the two lane road
Highway 56 used to be. When Continental Can used to be there it was one-half the size it
currently is now. I drive down Tobacco Road toward the airport all the time and jets
come in and when you’re the same distance from the front gate where this facility will be
built to the runway, you barely hear the jets. This is not an effort to go in and change
something in a wrong way but to create specificity within and ordinance that would
require certain things to be done, like noise barriers, green space buffers and other things
to govern this specific venue. It is not that we want to dump something on the people of
south Augusta but when you drive down the street, those streets are paved by one cent
sales tax money. The people that are employed in the area that own the stores that are
dependent on the income generated from the residents and the passersby in that area will
directly benefit from that. That will enable us to build more parks, to pave more roads, to
take care of more things the citizens that live here need. While I am not in favor of doing
anything to diminish a neighborhood, I drive through Jackson, South Carolina five to six
days weeks on average all year long. I know the people that live in Jackson. I talk to
them daily. Many of the complaints that I’ve heard, while being something that are
indeed heartfelt and worthy of conversation, just don’t flesh out in the truth. We need
economic growth and development in this city. We need the ability to have income that
will help us offset the equivalent of one-half mill of revenue generated to pay for our
museums and other things. I don’t hear a different solution. All I hear is just do nothing.
Build houses. I’d like a new theater. A condo complex, a new neighborhood. That
property has been vacant for twenty years. And will be vacant for twenty years more.
No solution is not a solution. We’ve got to do some things in this city to make it
attractive and competitive with the remainder of this country. A place where people want
to come. All of us have watched TV [unintelligible] and seen races. That’s big business.
It has positive influence and impact on the community surrounding the Charlotte motor
speedway and many other speedways throughout this country and the motor sports
17
complexes. Truly, I live in south Augusta and I know that we don’t have the turnover
and the sales in houses. And if a house has only been on the market since October, that’s
not that long a period of time compared to all the houses and how they sell in south
Augusta. The reason is we’re not building things and doing things in this city to attract
people like they are in Aiken and North Augusta and Columbia County. We’re trying to
change that. This is not, truly not going to be the best thing that could happen for this
area, but again it is not the worst. Mr. Mayor, I support changing the ordinance to allow
specific guidelines for a racetrack. And I hope that we will not embark upon a course
that will kill this project. And every day—and I remind this body of this. While we have
a very fine group of people here today. I am stopped every day at work, on the way
home from work, in grocery stores, on the street by people supporting the race track.
Surely most of them—maybe none of them live in this area and want [unintelligible].
But this is in fact in the best interest of this city and certainly something that would be
better than an industrial complex which it is zoned for. I think it is something we
seriously need to move forward with.
Mr. Mayor: I was reminded by one of my Commissioners to the left that I did ask
for a count on persons who were here supporting the petition of Mr. Walker. I’ll also ask
are there any persons here that are on the opposite side of the petition? I ask you to raise
your hands.
Mr. Williams: I don’t think they understand your question, Mr. Mayor. Those in
favor?
Mr. Mayor: Actually, his is not in favor. He is actually against it. That’s why I
asked those who are on the opposite side of his petition dealing with the ordinance.
Those who came in support of the race track which is the opposite vein of his petition.
[12 supporters]
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to recognize my colleague to the left, the Mayor Pro Tem.
And your hand is up? Okay. Mr. Smith, Mr. Williams and then Mr. Handy.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate the opportunity. This area out
here in south Augusta is in District 8. Bennock Mill, Horseshoe Road, Black Road.
These people have been in this community [unintelligible] but there are people out there
who have been there for 75 years. And still live there and want to stay there and want to
be there in a quiet environment like they moved out there for. The traffic on Highway 56
is—there are probably more accidents out there than anywhere in Augusta. 18-wheelers
and if the addition is added on toe Plant Vogtle you just can’t imagine. I live on Brown
Road and I sit there now at 6:00 o’clock in the morning trying to get out for five minutes
before you can get out. I can’t imagine what it would be otherwise. The churches out
there, he mentioned two churches but there’s three. There’s one in McBean. Piney
Grove. And I promise you you can hear it in McBean just as well as you can on Highway
56 along where these other churches are. The Development Authority owns the 1700
acres that was given to them by Kimberly-Clark. This project is asking for 250 acres of
18
it. Can you imagine anybody that would go in there and build in the rest of that acreage
next to a race track? Now, about a year ago I took a gentleman to our government that
offered $500,000 for this place. And he was going to develop it into housing, a small city
is what he had in mind. And this would give a tax base. And there’s just so many other
things that we could do with it. I am totally against this, as my neighbors are. And I just
ask my colleagues to vote against it, deny this change.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, then Commissioner Handy.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate the constituents, Mr. Walker
who brought light to disagree or to be against. I’m a little bit disappointed in the news
media first of all—before I go any further I’ve got to say that Channel 6 news has not
done its part of what it should have done in reporting the good and the bad. I talked with
George Eskola several times about the sales tax. They showed all the negative side of the
sales tax and why—who wasn’t going to vote for it and why it shouldn’t it be here. And
it paints some pictures to people that this government, that you shouldn’t vote for
something that is going to be good for the city. Had they show both sides—and I said all
that to say the churches that they involve that show, that the news media show where they
was talking to one of the trustees of the church and maybe even the pastor and then they
showed the drag car going down the street as if it’s in front of the door. And that would
give people the impression of where—and I don’t blame them. I pastor a church, been
pastoring a church for nine years, got revivals during this week. But that gives people the
impression that they going to be in front of their door or behind their house, directly
behind their house, racing and raising noise. And I don’t blame these people for coming
and opposing something like that. But I go back to the transition center that we tried to
put in Augusta. We tried three different locations until we took a group of people to
Savannah to see what a transition center was really about and how it was going to be
constructed, how it was going to be set up. When they came back we had no problem.
But the media have painted a picture and I vowed I’m not going to interview any more
with Channel 6, Ms. Bonner. I may talk to other people and I got no problem talking.
But I got a problem with people project their image to people like these good citizens as
if we going to get in their front door or their back door. And I hear Mr. Walker say he
can’t raise his window. Those of us who may have been to the races and if you want
your city to grow, first of all, you got to give people choices. You got to have a variety
of things to do for folks to move into your community and buy your houses, buy your
land. There have got to be choices that people can make. As long as they within the
guidelines of the law then your city will grow. You can’t limit it to what people do or
what people don’t do by giving them only one or two things and think your city going
grow. [unintelligible] got choices to make. When they get back to the drag strip, the
Jackson Drag Strip, and Mr. Walker mentioned about that as well, there is a house, not
just a house, but a home, a ranch style home that’s probably from where we are sitting
now to the old museum across the street. You can stop in their driveway, get out of your
car and stand. You can’t hear no cars. Period. And you can see the entrance of the gate.
Now people probably don’t believe that. But that’s why I do what we did with
[unintelligible], you need to see for yourself. You need to go and see for yourself.
Nobody mentioned anything about any sound barrier we able to put up. Nobody
19
mentioned anything about the natural sound barrier that God gave us, the trees. We got
1700 acres of land. Now, [unintelligible] Highway 56? I wouldn’t even mention it. I
wouldn’t be in support of it. I wouldn’t want to interrupt the church service. Mr. Smith
talked about the traffic. Well, when you grow, trust me, you going to have traffic. We
ain’t riding in mules and wagons no more. You going to have to have an automobile to
get where you’re going. And when people come, when your city grow, when the Masters
in town, some folks don’t go to Washington Road, and I don’t blame them. Because of
the traffic. But it brings over $30 million to this economy. This event will bring the
same amount of money for one week a year. Over $30 million. That’s not made at the
race track. That’s to the economy. That’s the hotel, motel, and restaurant. Those are
things that been already proven to be done. Plus, another $30 million for the other weeks
of the year or weekends of the year. But I think we need to maybe take some people and
show them exactly how race tracks are set up. In Commerce, Georgia, that’s the biggest
event, that’s the biggest tax base that Commerce, Georgia have, and it sits right
downtown Commerce. And Commerce builds their homes and their business around this
race track. So if you go to Commerce, they got a sign on every business that says
welcome, race fans. Because they bring in money. They ain’t coming just racing cars.
They bring in money to the hotels, to the restaurants and all these other entities. You’ve
got to do some things differently if you going to get a different result. Commissioner
Cheek talked about the museum. We’re talking about taking $2 out of every ticket sold,
every ticket sold will be $2 coming back in to this government, not in our general fund,
but as an enterprise situation where we are be able to take those monies and take it off of
the back of the taxpayers. Well, we been taking taxpayers’ money and trying to take care
of the museum, the homeless shelter and all that stuff. We talking about millions of
dollars that will be given back to the city. So I don’t blame you. I sleep late. But if
[unintelligible] wouldn’t want anything interrupting, whatever I do, so I don’t blame you
for being concerned. But I think the media have put a picture out there that you think—
and I wouldn’t blame you now—if the perception they gave you is that the race track
going to be in your front yard, you going to hear it when you sit down watching TV, then
I wouldn’t want it either. But I wouldn’t fight a situation that I hadn’t really checked
into. I think we need to be careful about what we trying to do and look at what—we got
1700 acres of land been sitting there for over twenty years. We hadn’t done anything
with it. So, Mr. Mayor, I agree with Mr. Walker, I think there ought to be some concern
but I think we need to be sure and to explain and show them exactly what we’re talking
about. How much money it’s going to generate, how many jobs it’s going to create, how
many, how many, how many good things is going to be projected, is going to come from
this situation if we go ahead and do this? We can either do things like that to bring
money in to Augusta or we can raise taxes. Nobody want to talk about that word. But
either we can do that or do some things to bring money in to the county. I say again, I
would not want to disturb any of the neighbors, not one. I wouldn’t want one neighbor
disturb because of a facility this city put up. But those who do not believe me, and Mr.
Cheek said he traveled 125 six days a week, when you turn off of Highway 125 in
Jackson, those who don’t know it, it’s very easy to find. The first service station you get
to when you get on 125, turn to the left. A mile maybe down the road is where the race
track is. And there is a house that is sitting as far as from where we are now across the
street to the old museum from the gate. And you cannot hear a car even there. The drag
20
boat races. We got churches around the drag boat races. Nobody said a word about
them. [unintelligible] sitting right there. Rev. [unintelligible] has got a church down here
[unintelligible] right beside the river. [unintelligible] across the street is another pastor
[unintelligible]. But nobody says a word about that because it brings in so much money.
But the noise is not what the [unintelligible]. I don’t blame you, I really blame the media
for not giving you both sides of everything and trying to project it right. Mr. Mayor,
that’s all my comments but I wanted the people to understand. This is about bringing
economic development to Augusta [unintelligible] not doing anything. And as long as
we don’t do anything we going to end up with the same thing.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Handy? Mr. Handy has the floor.
Mr. Handy: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just have a suggestion and it may sound
crazy to some but it’s a very good idea. I am not against a race track if it brings the
money in to Augusta as Commissioner Williams has said and Commissioner Cheek. I
few years ago there was a problem with contaminant and flooding in an area in south
Augusta. Also junk yards that was abandoned and left for the city or the government to
clean up. And I’m talking about the Hyde Park area. The Hyde Park area has two
entrances from the Gordon Highway and one from Highway 56. A few months ago the
school board purchased a whole neighborhood to build a stadium and to improve C.T.
Walker and A.R. Johnson schools. What I am suggesting is that if we want a race track,
if we want the money to come into Augusta to help our economy why not have those in
the Hyde Park are who always wanted to go cause they don’t want to live there and buy
that neighborhood out and put the race track there? It would solve two problems. I know
it will cost us money to buy the land but if the school board cane come up and buy a
whole neighborhood, and I was affected by that neighborhood, with the school system,
why not buy the Hyde Park area, satisfy those people, and that noise will not interfere
with anything like that. I even heard Commissioner Williams [unintelligible] adding this
on, Commissioner Williams, I’m just using it because of the junkyard and because of the
people that came back in after Dixieland left and tried to relocate in there again, we will
get rid of all of that. That is just a suggestion. I’m not saying for this government to go
in there and buy land but if that will help the residents of south Augusta, and the zoning
is right where it is and the zoning covers the same type zoning, we would not have to be
changing the ordinance [unintelligible] noise and then we’ll be one big happy family for
the city of Augusta. And that’s just a suggestion. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Any other questions, comments? Commissioners to my left? Any
from my right? Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just for the record, Mr. Mayor, and I’ve heard this more than once
and I want it to be clear, that there is not—the vehicle for financing this particular project
is through revenue anticipation bonds. This will not come out of the general fund and
anyone that says that we are going to spend tax dollars on this is not telling the truth.
This project can pay for itself. It’s on private property, or property the government
already has control of, and it won’t cost us $100 million to buy out neighborhoods and
adjacent properties and flood plains. While that is a good idea it’s not economically
21
feasible probably for the next fifty years or so. So I just hope that we will look at this,
because this is a real opportunity for us. And I, like Commissioner Williams, understand
the concern because of the negativity and the half-truths that have been spread in this
community about this particular project. If we give up this, then we as a city need to
decide if we want to do anything at all, because I hope to goodness that Plant Vogtle does
add Unit 3 and Unit 4. I hope to goodness that we see additional industries along
Highway 56, which is already an industrial corridor. And it will not be going back to the
way it was. I suspect that every street in this city is going to get busier because we are in
fact growing. That is the way it is. That is not going to change in this city or any other
city if you look at population grown. We can all want it to be that way but the reality of
it we can be stagnant and everybody else can grow. Just remember that when you stop
growing you begin dying. Is that the true future that we want for our city? Is that he
legacy we want to leave for our children? No jobs, no local economy, nothing but homes
we can’t sell because everybody else is doing the things that attract people and give them
a quality of life. We have turned our back and walked away from them.
Mr. Mayor: Anybody else? Is there a motion already on this?
The Clerk: [unintelligible]
Mr. Williams: Motion to receive as information.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second to receive as information. Is there any
discussion on that motion? All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
PRESENTATION(S)
A. Presentation to Ms. Terri Turner for achieving the distinction of becoming a
Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM).
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Ms. Turner’s presentation
th
should have been scheduled for the December 6 meeting.
Mr. Mayor: So noted.
The Clerk:And if I could, Mr. Mayor, on our
We’ll reschedule that one.
addendum agenda, if we could add for consideration a #4, to reschedule the
thth
December 6 meeting to December 5 because of the runoff election, as well as to
add as item 5 to withdraw without prejudice at the request of the Planning
Commission item 7 under the Planning portion of our agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any persons here that have come for item number 7? You
might want to state what that zoning is, Ms. Bonner, because it’s on our regular—
22
The Clerk:
7. Z-05-113 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that if the sale of the
property is not completed within six months of the date of approval the zoning shall
revert to the current LI zoning; a petition by William Fulcher, on behalf of Fort
Gordon Land Partners, requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light
Industry) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the
northwest corner of the intersection of Gordon Highway and Bobby Jones
Expressway and containing approximately 45 acres. (Tax Map 68 Parcel 10, 10.3
and 126) DISTRICT 3
Mr. Mayor: Any persons here concerning that particular item? None noted,
Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: On our addendum agenda, the Solicitor General has also
requested that item 3 be deleted in light of the action taken previously by the
Commission regarding pay increases.
Mr. Mayor: So noted. It would be moved. Madame Clerk, can we go ahead with
the additions to the agenda, to get them on or off, and then let’s go ahead with consent. I
think there’s been enough time to [unintelligible] to move.
The Clerk: The addendum agenda:
1. Approve additional funding for December 6, 2005 Run-off Election.
(Requested by the Board of Elections Office)
2. Approve the auditing firm of Cherry, Bekaert & Holland for the audit of
2005. (Requested by Commissioner Grantham)
3. Deleted at the request of the Solicitor General’s Office and approved by
Commissioner Colclough.
4. Consider the rescheduling of the December 6, Commission meeting to
December 5.
5. Without prejudice a request from the Planning Commission of item 7 under
the Planning portion of our agenda.
Mr. Handy: So move
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to those being—
Mr. Williams: I object to item 2 being placed on. I think we had a situation
where there was a bid process and the company won, the other auditors that won that bid,
and we need to follow the process of what supposed to be done and not go around that.
So I disagree [unintelligible] item 2.
23
Mr. Mayor: Okay. How about any of the other items that are there? We
had two to be added on. Is there any objection to those, other than 2? Madame
Clerk, while we’re at it, the Chair will entertain a motion on the additions. If there
is only an objection to item 2 the Chair will entertain a motion while we’re on that
to both add and approve.
1. Approve additional funding for December 6, 2005 Run-off Election.
(Requested by the Board of Elections Office)
3. Deleted at the request of the Solicitor General’s Office and approved by
Commissioner Colclough.
4. Consider the rescheduling of the December 6, Commission meeting to
December 5.
5. Without prejudice a request from the Planning Commission of item 7 under
the Planning portion of our agenda.
Mr. Handy: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Cheek: Just a question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: On the non-addition of number 2, we I think instructed staff to come
back with another recommendation or review of the [unintelligible] nature of the
Securities and Exchange Commission ordinance they used to deny return of Cherry,
Bekaert & Holland, and that hasn’t occurred. Will this action today cause us to be late
with our audit?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: The audit should have actually been started. We usually start it
October, November. It’s obviously going to press us as we go forth with that.
Mr. Cheek: If I could have that item added to the next appropriate committee,
which I guess would be Finance, with a full standing, too, by the board of recommending
the audit firm, with a full explanation of why they used a non-applicable ordinance to
deny access to this bid by Cherry, Bekaert & Holland.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
24
Mr. Mayor: I think to go ahead and to add that to Finance would be appropriate.
It’s so added, Mr. Cheek, and put on with the coverage in order to do it. That will be on
our next Finance Committee meeting.
Mr. Cheek: They need to bring their band-aids, too.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible], Mr. Administrator? Okay. Let’s—what I’m going
to do is we don’t have unanimous consent, so I’m not going to allow debate on the item
that’s not been done by either side. We have that on there to be added and approved. All
in favor of the ones to be added and approved will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: All discussion will go to the proper committee. If we can go back,
Madame Clerk, to deal with consent at this time. And if we have been looking and have
perused enough we’ll so state those items for consent and we’ll recognize those
Commissioners who want to have something either pulled or added for the regular
agenda onto consent.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 14, items 1
through 14.
For the benefit of any objectors to our Planning petition items, once those
petitions are read, if there are any objectors would you please signify your objection by
raising your hand?
PLANNING
2. Z-05-96 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE with the following conditions 1) the property
shall be limited to two living units 2) that a cross easement be shown on the plat
giving 850 Heard Avenue have access to parking on this property 3) a wooden
privacy fence shall be erected on the north side of the property, either 4 or 6 feet in
height as determined by the standards of the zoning ordinance; and 4) there shall be
a streetyard that conforms to the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance; a
petition by Acre, Inc., on behalf of Chad Feuerhahn, requesting a change of zoning
from Zone R-1B (One-family Residential) to Zone P-1 (Professional) with a Special
Exception to utilize this property for a two-family residential purpose per Section
20-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property located at 846 Heard Avenue and containing .16 acres. (Tax map
35-3 Parcel 346) (POSTPONED FROM OCTOBER 3, 2005) DISTRICT 1
3. Z-05-108 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Acre Inc., on behalf of Chad
Feuerhahn, requesting a Special Exception in a P-1 (Professional) Zone to utilize
property for residential purposes per Section 20-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 850 Heard
Avenue and containing .16 acre. (Tax map 35-3 Parcel 345) DISTRICT 1
25
4. Z-05-109 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by God’s Life Changing Ministry
requesting a Special Exception to establish a church with day care activities per
Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County affecting property located at 1650 Barton Chapel Road and containing 1.09
acres. (Tax Map 54 Parcel 28) DISTRICT 3
5. Z-05-110 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that if the parking area
located on Aumond Road and Westminster Drive is paved it shall fully comply with
the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance; a petition by The Woodhurst
Partnership, on behalf of Covenant Presbyterian Church, requesting a Special
Exception per Section 26-1 (a) per the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County and modifying a condition placed on a 1991 zoning case
(Z-91-85) precluding access to Westminster Drive affecting property located at 3131
Walton Way and containing 4.13 acres. (Tax Map 32-2 Parcel 106) DISTRICT 3
6. Z-05-111 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that the property may not
be utilized as a day care facility; a petition by Peter Brown, on behalf of Wilhelmina
McMahon, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential)
to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 2716 Milledgeville
Road and containing 2.29 acres. (Tax Map 71-3 Parcel 45) DISTRICT 5
8. Z-05-114 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that a 40 foot undisturbed
natural buffer be maintained along the property line adjacent to Country Place
Subdivision; a petition by Lurton Lipscomb, on behalf of Floyd Miller, requesting a
change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone P-1 (Professional) affecting
property located at 3931 Mike Padgett Highway and containing .52 acres. (Tax Map
184 Parcel 7) DISTRICT 8
9. Z-05-115 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that any new development
or construction on this property shall conform to the Flood Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County; a petition by Tommy McBride Realty, on behalf of Neal Baker
& Cedar Knoll Limited Partnership, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A
(One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property
located at 1951 and 1953 Kissingbower Road and containing 1.61 acres. (Tax Map
86-1 Parcels 3 & 4) DISTRICT 5
10. Z-05-116 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Thomas Blanchard & Thomas
Robertson, on behalf of Dillard O. Browning, requesting a change of zoning from
Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone
R-1E (One-family Residential) affecting property located at the rear of 2134 and
2138 Walton Way and the rear of 925 Meigs Street and containing approximately
2.19 acres. (Part of Tax Map 34-4 Parcels 130 & 131, Part of Tax Map 44-2 Parcel
41 and all of Tax Map 34-4 Parcel 136) DISTRICT 3
11. Z-05-117 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE with the following conditions 1) that no alcohol
26
sales be permitted on this property and 2) that if the proposed use ceases to exist the
property shall revert to R-1C zoning; a petition by Thomas Clark Sr. requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 1301 Eleventh Street and
containing .10 acre. (Tax Map 59-2 Parcel 176.01) DISTRICT 1
12. Z-05-118 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by C & L Development requesting a
change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R-1C (One-family
Residential) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) affecting property located on
the east right-of-way line of Jimmie Dyess Parkway, 498 feet, more or less, south of
Harper Franklin Avenue and containing approximately 169 acres and is located
generally east and south of Section Two of Elderberry Subdivision. (part of Tax
Map 66 Parcel 56.3, all of Tax Map 66 Parcel 62 and Tax Map 81 Parcel 11 and Tax
Map 66-2 Parcel 136) DISTRICT 3
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those Planning petitions?
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible] Fuller?
Mr. Fuller: I stand in objection to item 8. A change of zoning located, the
property located on Mike Padgett Highway. This property is right at the doorway of
Country Place Subdivision. I am the first house. My home is the first house in the
subdivision. I don’t really preach against—being preacher of Macedonia I preach against
rumors and hearsay, but we heard on yesterday that zoning—this property has been
changed, requesting a change of zoning to put a transition center there. We were told a
halfway house for inmates who have psychological problems. We just found this out,
this information out on yesterday, was not able to be at the zoning meeting when they
voted to make this change. I stand in opposition to the change for this because we don’t
need a halfway house, a transition center at the door of this subdivision. Families are
there, children are there and that kind of thing. For safety reasons, and then of course it
will bring down property value. As I’ve stated, my house is the first house in the
subdivision and this property that this transition center is supposed to sit on will—the
only thing that will separate that property from my property is a fence. And so I stand in
opposition to this. I don’t think that we need to have a transition center or halfway house
here in this residential neighborhood.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll probably come back to that in a moment. What I want to do is
go ahead—I kind of opened that door for a second but I want to go ahead and get the
consent done. Obviously we have objection to number 8 so it does need to be pulled.
Are there any Commissioners that are going to need to pull any items, 1 through 14?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I have an item similar that. It’s not a transition house
but I’ve got people here for that, also.
Mr. Mayor: Is it on consent?
27
Mr. Colclough: It’s on regular.
Mr. Mayor: It’s on regular?
Mr. Colclough: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Because of the length of the agenda without having—many of
the committees were not meeting on the day prior to the election, have any of those
committee chairpersons formulated any possible consent items that may be added from
your committees, on working with any of your committee members, that we might be
able to move over to regular? The Chair recognizes both Commissioner Cheek and then
Commissioner Hankerson.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if it please the body, the consent agenda offered by
Engineering Services today will be proposed as items 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, and
52. That would leave us with item 46 and 53 to discuss, with item 47 recommended to go
back to committee, if it please the body.
ENGINEERING SERVICES
42. Approve additional funding for Dec. 6, 2005 Run-off Election.
43. Approval is requested to authorize condemnation of a portion of Property #
145-0-017-00-0 1832 Dixon Airline Road, which is owned by Bertha K. Toole for
8,243 Sq. Feet for a Permanent Easement and 8,095 Sq. Feet of Temporary
Easement. AUD Project: Highway 56 24” Water Main.
44. Approval is requested to authorize condemnation of a portion of Property
#139-0-310-00-0 2820 Harwood Street, which is owned by the George Stanley and
Marjorie Stanley for 2,095 Sq. Feet for a Permanent Easement and 2,101 Sq. Ft. of
Temporary Easement. AUD Project: Horsepen Sanitary Sewer, Phase 2.
45. Approval is requested to authorize condemnation of a portion of Property #
128-0-114-00-0 3864 New Karlene Road, which is owned by Gerald V. Merriweather
and Regina R. Merriweather for 3,999 Sq. Feet for a permanent Easement and
2,398 Sq. Feet of Temporary Easement. AUD Project: Horsepen Sanitary Sewer,
Phase 1.
48. Request to approve execution of Georgia Power Company’s Governmental
Encroachment Agreement No. 30812 (Augusta Newsprint Loop 230kv Transmission
Right of Way).
49. Approve an amendment to the Construction Management at Risk Contract
with Parsons Water and Infrastructure for an amount of $2,428,724.60.
50. Authorize execution of a contract with MWH Constructors, Inc. to provide
Construction Manager at Risk Services for the James B. Messerly WPCP 2003
Master Plan Improvements Project Phase 1 in the amount of $987,668.00.
51 Approve funding in the amount of $16,400 for the purchase of wetland
mitigation credits to offset wetland mitigation areas disturbed during the Sewer
System Improvements, Upper Butler Creek Extension Project.
52. Approve the purchase of 10 wind fences from Abletech, Inc. in the amount of
$60,473.
28
47. Receive report from staff regarding a requested report regarding
expenditures of city funds on private properties. (Referred from October 24
Engineering Services meeting)
The Clerk: [unintelligible] go back, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: 47.
The Clerk: 47 back to committee?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, ma’am, a report back.
The Clerk: And 48?
Mr. Cheek: 48 is consent. 49 is consent. 50 is consent. 51, 52, with a briefing
on item 53 on the solid waste collection status. That will be discussed today. 54 is also
recommended for consent.
Mr. Mayor: You’ve heard the recommendations from the—I’m going to get to
you next, Commissioner Hankerson. You’ve heard the recommendations for consent
from the Engineering Services Chairman. Are there any objectors to the numbers that
have been read off for consent, that need to be pulled? Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: From the Finance—
Mr. Mayor: Let me see if we’re clear on Engineering Services just first. I’ve got
administration, and then I’ll recognize you, Madame Chairman. I’m sorry on that. What
I wanted to do is make sure Engineering Services is clear. Are there any objections on
the numbers stated by the chairman that need to be pulled off to go to regular? On
Engineering Services. Anybody need any time to look at Engineering Services? Call for
it once, twice, it won’t be three times a lady, but they’re on there. Commissioner
Hankerson and then I’m going to recognize Commissioner Beard.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Administrative Service, would like to
send 18 back to Administrative Service.
18. Discuss Augusta Comprehensive Policy and Procedure Manual.
Mr. Hankerson: Like to—we need to delete 17.
29
17. Approve the proposed job titles, to include salaries, and the new positions for
the Augusta Cares Program and approve the reclassification of the existing
Administrative Assistant position. (See Attachments A & B, respectively.)
Mr. Hankerson: Consent, 24. Delete 26.
26. Approve reclassification and salary increase for Juvenile Court.
Mr. Hankerson: Consent 27, 28, and 29.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
24. Approve Early Retirement of Mr. Willie Booker under the 1949 Pension
Plan.
27. Approve reprogramming of $190,000.00 in FY 2003 HOME funds to the
Demolition/ Rebuild Program, and the reprogramming of $119,692.00 in FY 2003
HOME funds to the Down Payment Assistance Program.
28. Approve reprogramming of $870.00 in UDAG funds to reimburse the Down
payment Assistance Program and the reprogramming of $7,995.00 in UDAG funds
for architectural and engineering fees incurred by the Façade Rehabilitation
Program.
29. Approve a Temporary Change for the Housing Rehabilitation Program.
Mr. Mayor: Any to be pulled?
Mr. Williams: Yeah, need to pull 27 and 28.
Mr. Mayor: 27 and 28 [unintelligible]. Commissioner Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I would like to add 15 Public Service to consent.
The Clerk: Beg your pardon, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Item 15 from Public Service to consent.
PUBLIC SERVICES
15. Approve an assignment of lease, from HWS Baseball, Inc. to Augusta
Professional Baseball, LLC. at Lake Olmstead Stadium.
Mr. Mayor: It moves over. Commissioner Beard?
Ms. Beard: From the Finance Committee, we’d like to consent number 32, 33,
34, 35, and 36.
32. Receive a report from the Administrator regarding mosquito control.
(Requested by Commissioner Williams - November 1, 2005 meeting)
30
FINANCE
33. Approve transmittal of the results of an updated study on fleet maintenance
in the City of Augusta prepared by the Finance Department. (Referred from
November 15 Commission meeting)
34. Adopt a budget Resolution making appropriations in such sums as the
governing authority may deem sufficient in the budget Resolutions as required by
OCGA Section 36-81-6(a).
35. Consider a request from the Garden City Rescue Mission for an abatement
of 2005 property taxes.
36. Approve an amendment to the lease agreement between Augusta and MAU
for space within the Hatcher Building located at 501 Greene Street for a period of
36 months in order to relocate the Soil and Water Conservation Department offices
from their current facility at 2027 Lumpkin Rd.
Mr. Mayor: You have a question on [unintelligible] , Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Just need clarification, that’s all.
Mr. Mayor: Do we need to go to regular or is something that can be cleared
quickly?
Mr. Grantham: [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Grantham: It would be I think in the best interest if we take [unintelligible]
back to committee to have further discussion on it before we bring that in to be discussed.
31. Receive a report from the Administrator regarding mosquito control.
(Requested by Commission Williams – November 1, 2005 meeting)
Mr. Williams: I don’t think we need to get on the floor today about it. I think it
would be better for it to come back to committee, so I would refer it back to committee.
Mr. Mayor: How about 36 [unintelligible] go to regular?
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] I just [unintelligible] process.
Mr. Mayor: It goes to regular. 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 go to regular.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, is it [unintelligible] 41, that’s the review of the financial
operating statements, back to committee?
Mr. Mayor: Back to committee?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
31
Mr. Mayor: Any objection on that, Madame Chairman?
Ms. Beard: No.
Mr. Williams: What is going back to committee?
Mr. Mayor: 41. Madame Clerk [unintelligible].
The Clerk: Mr. Williams, are you offering any under Public Safety for consent?
Mr. Williams: Yeah. Public Safety [unintelligible] two items [unintelligible].
The Clerk: [unintelligible].
Mr. Russell: Mr. Chairman, [unintelligible] back to committee?
Mr. Williams: Yeah, we’ll put that back and we just [unintelligible] that one
[unintelligible].
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible] is going to consent?
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] is going to consent and 31 going back to
committee.
The Clerk: 30 is consent?
Mr. Mayor: Any objections on 30 going to consent?
Ms. Beard: So we’re going to pull 33?
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible]
Mr. Grantham: Which one?
The Clerk: 33.
Mr. Mayor: Ladies and gentlemen, if we are through adding and subtracting, are
we ready to hear the Clerk go over the roll of numbers, please?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: So that we [unintelligible] Ms. Bonner, but if we can go through it
and see if we missed anything on the additions and then we can go ahead and take a vote.
32
The Clerk: Under our Planning portion of the agenda, item 7 being deleted
and item 8 being referred to the regular agenda. Item 15, to be added to our
consent agenda, item 17 being deleted, item 18 being referred back to committee,
item 24 consent, item 26 being deleted, items 27, 28, 29 and will remain on the
regular agenda, item 30 consent, item 31 referred back to committee, item 32 being
referred back to committee, item 33 will remain on the regular agenda, item 34 and
35 consent, item 36 will remain on the regular agenda, item 41 referred back to
committee, items 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 54 consent, with item 47
being referred back to committee.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, 46 wasn’t on our agenda.
The Clerk: You want to add it?
Mr. Hankerson: No, no. We are going to talk about that one.
Mr. Mayor: Everybody clear on numbers?
Mr. Grantham: Did we have number 13 as consent?
The Clerk: It’s on the consent agenda, yes, sir.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you.
CONSENT AGENDA:
PLANNING
1. FINAL PLAT – MCCOMBS ROAD ESTATES – S-718 - A request for
concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission to
APPROVE a petition by Steve Bargeron & Associates, on behalf of Charles Allen,
requesting final plat approval for McCombs Road Estates. This residential
subdivision is located on McCombs Road and contains 12 lots.
2. Z-05-96 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE with the following conditions 1) the property
shall be limited to two living units 2) that a cross easement be shown on the plat
giving 850 Heard Avenue have access to parking on this property 3) a wooden
privacy fence shall be erected on the north side of the property, either 4 or 6 feet in
height as determined by the standards of the zoning ordinance; and 4) there shall be
a streetyard that conforms to the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance; a
petition by Acre, Inc., on behalf of Chad Feuerhahn, requesting a change of zoning
from Zone R-1B (One-family Residential) to Zone P-1 (Professional) with a Special
Exception to utilize this property for a two-family residential purpose per Section
20-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property located at 846 Heard Avenue and containing .16 acres. (Tax map
35-3 Parcel 346) (POSTPONED FROM OCTOBER 3, 2005) DISTRICT 1
33
3. Z-05-108 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Acre Inc., on behalf of Chad
Feuerhahn, requesting a Special Exception in a P-1 (Professional) Zone to utilize
property for residential purposes per Section 20-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 850 Heard
Avenue and containing .16 acre. (Tax map 35-3 Parcel 345) DISTRICT 1
4. Z-05-109 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by God’s Life Changing Ministry
requesting a Special Exception to establish a church with day care activities per
Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County affecting property located at 1650 Barton Chapel Road and containing 1.09
acres. (Tax Map 54 Parcel 28) DISTRICT 3
5. Z-05-110 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that if the parking area
located on Aumond Road and Westminster Drive is paved it shall fully comply with
the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance; a petition by The Woodhurst
Partnership, on behalf of Covenant Presbyterian Church, requesting a Special
Exception per Section 26-1 (a) per the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County and modifying a condition placed on a 1991 zoning case
(Z-91-85) precluding access to Westminster Drive affecting property located at 3131
Walton Way and containing 4.13 acres. (Tax Map 32-2 Parcel 106) DISTRICT 3
6. Z-05-111 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that the property may not
be utilized as a day care facility; a petition by Peter Brown, on behalf of Wilhelmina
McMahon, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential)
to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 2716 Milledgeville
Road and containing 2.29 acres. (Tax Map 71-3 Parcel 45) DISTRICT 5
9. Z-05-115 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that any new development
or construction on this property shall conform to the Flood Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County; a petition by Tommy McBride Realty, on behalf of Neal Baker
& Cedar Knoll Limited Partnership, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A
(One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property
located at 1951 and 1953 Kissingbower Road and containing 1.61 acres. (Tax Map
86-1 Parcels 3 & 4) DISTRICT 5
10. Z-05-116 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Thomas Blanchard & Thomas
Robertson, on behalf of Dillard O. Browning, requesting a change of zoning from
Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone
R-1E (One-family Residential) affecting property located at the rear of 2134 and
2138 Walton Way and the rear of 925 Meigs Street and containing approximately
2.19 acres. (Part of Tax Map 34-4 Parcels 130 & 131, Part of Tax Map 44-2 Parcel
41 and all of Tax Map 34-4 Parcel 136) DISTRICT 3
11. Z-05-117 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE with the following conditions 1) that no alcohol
sales be permitted on this property and 2) that if the proposed use ceases to exist the
34
property shall revert to R-1C zoning; a petition by Thomas Clark Sr. requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 1301 Eleventh Street and
containing .10 acre. (Tax Map 59-2 Parcel 176.01) DISTRICT 1
12. Z-05-118 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by C & L Development requesting a
change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R-1C (One-family
Residential) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) affecting property located on
the east right-of-way line of Jimmie Dyess Parkway, 498 feet, more or less, south of
Harper Franklin Avenue and containing approximately 169 acres and is located
generally east and south of Section Two of Elderberry Subdivision. (part of Tax
Map 66 Parcel 56.3, all of Tax Map 66 Parcel 62 and Tax Map 81 Parcel 11 and Tax
Map 66-2 Parcel 136) DISTRICT 3
APPOINTMENT(S)
13. Motion to appoint Jana Dunway to the Augusta-Richmond County Citizens
Small Business Advisory Council representing District 6.
ATTORNEY
14. Resolution of the Augusta Commission on the unacceptable performance of
Reeves Construction Company.
PUBLIC SERVICES
15. Approve an assignment of lease, from HWS Baseball, Inc. to Augusta
Professional Baseball, LLC. at Lake Olmstead Stadium.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
24. Approve Early Retirement of Mr. Willie Booker under the 1949 Pension
Plan.
29. Approve a Temporary Change for the Housing Rehabilitation Program.
PUBLIC SAFETY
30. Agreement for 911 Ambulance Response and Emergency Medical Services.
FINANCE
34. Consider a request from the Garden City Rescue Mission for an abatement
of 2005 property taxes.
35. Approve an amendment to the lease agreement between Augusta and MAU
for space within the Hatcher Building located at 501 Greene Street for a period of
36 months in order to relocate the Soil and Water Conservation Department offices
from their current facility at 2027 Lumpkin Road.
ENGINEERING SERVICES
42. Approval is requested to authorize condemnation of a portion of Property #
145-0-017-00-0 1832 Dixon Airline Road, which is owned by Bertha K. Toole for
35
8,243 Sq. Feet for a Permanent Easement and 8,095 Sq. Feet of Temporary
Easement. AUD Project: Highway 56 24” Water Main.
43. Approval is requested to authorize condemnation of a portion of Property
#139-0-310-00-0 2820 Harwood Street, which is owned by the George Stanley and
Marjorie Stanley for 2,095 Sq. Feet for a Permanent Easement and 2,101 Sq. Ft. of
Temporary Easement. AUD Project: Horsepen Sanitary Sewer, Phase 2.
44. Approval is requested to authorize condemnation of a portion of Property #
128-0-114-00-0 3864 New Karleen Road, which is owned by Gerald V.
Merrieweather and Regina R. Merriweather for 3,999 Sq. Feet for a Permanent
Easement and 2,398 Sq. Feet of Temporary Easement. AUD Project: Horsepen
Sanitary Sewer, Phase 2.
45. Approve change order number 1 to the existing contract for Cooper, Barnet
and Paige in an amount not to exceed $1,700,000 for the construction work related
to pond H, an alternate and permanent access road(s).
48. Request to approve execution of Georgia Power Company’s Governmental
Encroachment Agreement No. 30812 (Augusta Newsprint Loop 230kv Transmission
Right of Way).
49. Approve an amendment to the Construction Management at Risk Contract
with Parsons Water and Infrastructure for an amount of $2,428,724.60.
50. Authorize execution of a contract with MWH Constructors, Inc. to provide
Construction Manager at Risk Services for the James B. Messerly WPCP 2003
Master Plan Improvements Project Phase 1 in the amount of $987,668.00.
51. Approve funding in the amount of $16,400 for the purchase of wetland
mitigation credits to offset wetland areas disturbed during the Sewer System
Improvements, Upper Butler Creek Extension Project.
52. Approve the purchase of 10 wind fences from Abletech, Inc. in the amount of
$60,473.
54. Approve a construction contract with Blair Construction, Inc. of Augusta,
Georgia, who submitted a low bid of $5,485,149.66 to install a 20-inch diameter
force main that will convey wastewater from the Spirit Creek Pumping Station
(previously approved as AUD Bond Project 80501) to the James B. Messerly Water
Pollution Control Plant (WPCP).
OTHER BUSINESS
58. Discuss the cancellation of the December 27th committee meetings and
forward all agenda items to the January 3, 2006 Commission Meeting. (Requested
by Commissioner Don Grantham)
The Clerk: Item 60, Mr. Grantham, can we get that added to the consent?
Mr. Grantham: Which one?
th
The Clerk: Item 60. That’s the cancellation of the December 27 meeting.
Mr. Grantham: Yes, we can add that. 60 added.
36
Mr. Mayor: Everybody’s hearing those new numbers there that’s going to
consent? Would you repeat those, Commissioner Grantham?
The Clerk: That was item 58.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible] hanging out there to go to regular.
Mr. Grantham: Right.
Mr. Handy: I can’t vote on 58.
Mr. Grantham: You can today.
rd
Mr. Handy: I don’t know whether I’ll be here January 3.
Mr. Mayor: Like they say at the funeral home, Freddie, somebody will be here.
Somebody will be here. If we—Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Shepard: Just so that I’m clear, if I could take a moment to get with the Clerk
on the numbers. Apparently my items are numbered differently. [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: While y’all are clearing on those numbers, are the Commissioners
clear on numbers that have been moved?
Mr. Williams: Number 8, was that pulled?
The Clerk: Yes, it was pulled to regular and it’s that first item because it’s
numerical order. We got to clear this consent out first. I’m trying to get clear so I can
eliminate about ¾ of them right now.
Mr. Mayor: Are y’all ready? We’re going to go ahead on item number 8. The
Attorney is reconciling some numbers there.
The Clerk:
8. Z-05-114 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that a 40 foot undisturbed
natural buffer be maintained along the property line adjacent to Country Place
Subdivision; a petition by Lurton Lipscomb, on behalf of Floyd Miller, requesting a
change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone P-1 (Professional) affecting
property located at 3931 Mike Padgett Highway and containing .52 acres. (Tax Map
184 Parcel 7) DISTRICT 8
Mr. Patty: This is a house, an old house that’s been there a long time, and
Country Place Subdivision was actually built behind it out on Mike Padgett Highway.
37
It’s on the west side of Mike Padgett, pretty far out. And they want to rezone it to P-1.
Frankly, I don’t know what the proposed use is, but P-1 zoning will not allow any kind of
residential use without special permit. The idea that that would be a half-way house for
these prisoners of whatever that has been floating around, that’s never been brought up.
Never been brought to our attention. It’s not a use that would be allowed by the P-1
zoning, so I don’t know where the gentleman got that information, but as far as I know
it’s not correct.
Mr. Mayor: Did they have a proposed use at all or was that asked by the zoning
board?
Mr. Patty: It never came up, frankly. It’s a property that could have been asking
for commercial zoning. It’s right there on 56 and you’ve got other commercial uses in
the area. So P-1 is a reasonable use of the property and we recommend you approve it.
Mr. Mayor: The gentleman that had his hand up there. Do you need to address
something on item 8? Are you the petitioner? If you could come to the microphone and
state your name and address for the record, please.
Mr. Speaker: I am [unintelligible]. I am a mortgage broker. We’re presently
located [unintelligible] Deans Bridge Road. We are a growing business. Mr.
[unintelligible] is a CPA so we were looking to renovate the building, move our office to
that location. How the idea of a halfway house came up I don’t know. We originally
approached the planning folks with general business. They said for what you’re doing
just go to a P-1. We did. All we were doing—we’re mortgage brokers and we’re CPAs.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible]?
Mr. Fuller: As I stated, I don’t like rumors and that type of thing. This thing did
hit us on yesterday. A number of residents in Country Place area really disturbed by
what we heard about that. If this is, the use is for professional buildings and that kind of
thing, I rescind my objection.
Mr. Speaker: I concur with Dr. Fuller. If that is the intended use for this facility,
we certainly have no objections as residents, representatives for Country Place, but we
would like for that to be stated and so noted in the record.
Mr. Mayor: Nothing like a good understanding. [unintelligible] I can tell you
how rumors fly. You can be in places for [unintelligible] tell you how they get started.
[unintelligible]
Mr. Speaker: I live at 1009 Country Place Drive and I didn’t even know this was
coming before. I didn’t even know anything about it at all. And this young man I think
lives on the opposite side of the street from me and I concur with what he is saying. If
it’s going to be a halfway house or something like that, I would be really adamant,
against it, because we’ve got a lot of children out there, school kids catch the business
38
right in between my house and his house. So if it’s going to be a viable business, that’s
one thing. But I don’t what it’s going to be—I didn’t even know it was on the agenda
until I seen the reverend stand up over there. And I’m with him 100%.
Mr. Mayor: I think we got a good understanding on that all the way around. This
is on item 8. Is there a question before we entertain a motion? Rev. Williams?
Mr. Williams:
Just want to make a statement. There were a similar situation that
came before this body on our last meeting. Had it not been for a rumor rather that the
neighbors came down and inquired about, they was almost about to attempt to do the
same thing. So I think you was very conscious in coming and speaking and at least
I’m going to make a motion we
asking the question about it. So I’m glad to know.
approve this so the gentleman can get his business going and the neighbors can get
about their business as well.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Any further discussion? None being, all in
favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes care of that.
The Clerk: The next item is item 16.
16. Reconsider use of funds as approved by the Administrative Services
Committee on October 24, 2005 and ratified by the Augusta Commission November
1, 2005.
Mr. Mayor:
We’ve got a whole bunch of folks here on some of these consents
now. I’m not [unintelligible] but I’m just saying they’ve been discussed, voted on, been
in here—go ahead with 16, but I’m fixing to get unhappy on [unintelligible]. Ladies and
gentlemen, pardon the interruption [unintelligible] numbers [unintelligible] make sure
they’re right. [unintelligible]. If we could resume, Madame Clerk, and go ahead and
deal with the [unintelligible] out of the [unintelligible] those that were added so we can
try and cut as much of those numbers, please. Is everybody clear on your own books in
reference to what’s been on consent and what has been added to consent to be voted on
without any objection, from regular on to consent? Any repeats on any of that? None
the Chair will entertain a motion for consent and for those
being, Madame Clerk,
that have been added.
Mr. Hankerson: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
39
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Any clarification?
None being, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Handy out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: If you would, Madame Clerk, even though it’s carries unanimous,
just for the sake of any person in the audience that may be here, what we’ve done on
consent or regular moved to consent, if you could just do a brief through just a numbers.
The Clerk: Okay. Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 7 being deleted. 8 being approved.9, 10,
11, 12, 13, and 14 approved. Those are the planning petitions. And the other two items
under our consent agenda. So if there is anyone here regarding those planning petitions,
they’ve been addressed.
Mr. Mayor: How about the ones from regular onto consent? Cause we shifted
some of those [unintelligible], if we could read those out as well.
The Clerk: Okay. Item 15 is a consent agenda item, assignment of the HWS
Baseball to Augusta Professional Baseball league. Item 17 deleted. Item 18 referred
back to committee. Item 24, approve early retirement, Mr. Willie Booker. Item 26,
deleted. Item 30, consent agenda, agreement for the 911 ambulance response and
emergency medical services. Item 31, referred back to committee. Item 32, approve
transmittal of update on the fleet maintenance, referred back to committee. Item 34,
consent, approved, a request from the Garden City Rescue Mission. Item 35, an
amendment to the lease agreement with MAU for space in the Hatcher Building,
approved, consent agenda. Item 41, referred back to Finance Committee. Item 42,
approved, consent. Item 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, and 54 approved, consent
agenda. Item 47 was referred back to committee. Item 58, approved under our consent
agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Madame Clerk. Appreciate that. That gets us through ¾
of those numbers. Before going ahead with the—we’ve got people still here concerning
the item on the ordinance and then we will just move around and get finished up. Before
you get into that, Madame Clerk, I told, I told our Young Mayor for the Day I don’t want
to have to box with Coach [unintelligible] this evening, so with I [unintelligible] get out
of here today so you can go to practice. If you want to get relieved of about 100 laps you
can stay for a few minutes. I don’t know, he may add some to it. But if you need to go
on and get to practice—but we appreciating having you here today. Okay, young man?
I’ve gotten so old I asked him if he was riding with his daddy. I remember
[unintelligible] senior I guess he should be driving.
The Clerk:
23. 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
40
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. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Commission, this
ordinance was the result of discussions that were had between the Mayor Pro Tem, the
Administrator’s office, my office, and the operators, potential operators of the Augusta
drag way, drag strip, and the International Association of Hot Rod, IHRA, International
Hot Road Association. And they were looking at our format and they wanted an
amendment that would create what I call a safe harbor for the drag way. And so I have
drawn it—first of all, some of you wanted to have the noise ordinance and its full text as
written in our Code in front of you. So the first thing I did was to furnish you with that.
Some of those prohibited noises are regulated by hours, some are not. And basically
what I did, and I had on your drafts up at the time the main differences in the language.
So Draft 1 would be the one that permits a drag race track and appurtenant uses and
[unintelligible] such an operation would not constitute a prohibited noise under that
section. And it’s the broadest operation of the ordinance. Then in the subsequent draft,
which I believe you have in your book, I made a change in section 1 so that this
exception would operate, safe harbor would operate on the Development Authority
property, and that’s in the first paragraph of section 1. Then I suggested that there would
be time limits which are stated in the ordinance, Saturday night, 11:59 p.m. for example
would be the conclusion of the racing; other nights, 11 p.m., and did some regulation to
protect the church hours on Sunday so that no race or practice commences before 2:30.
In Draft 3 I was taking into account the site, as well as additional hours of operation,
regulation, which would be for hosting International Hot Road Association sanctioned
special events. Here again, I repeated the regular hours of operation in section 1B, and
then in section 1C I crafted a series, a section that gave special recognition to what we
call specially-sanctioned events, the idea being that the permitted hours during the
sanctioned events would be increased. And the final draft would be that there would be
again the noise ordinance would except the Augusta Drag way at a particular location,
and that could be [unintelligible] sited on a different location, as Commissioner Handy
suggested—the regular hours of operation are as stated before, and then I tinkered with
the hours of operation again with specially-sanctioned events and I permitted operations,
for examples, that were during such a sanctioned event to begin at 8:30 on any day of the
week and they would be permitted to continue to [unintelligible] the day next following.
And the drag way would host not more than IHRA sanctioned special events in any
twelve month period. So these are, these are variations and the Commission needs to
make a policy judgment to pass or not pass any of these versions or modify these versions
and write what you think would be the appropriate, the appropriate ordinance so that this
could not be shut down under the noise ordinance. Like I say, it creates a safe harbor for
these type of activities that are enumerated in the ordinance, Mr. Mayor.
41
Mr. Mayor: Instead of one thing for them to get confused on, they’ve got about
four. [unintelligible] ordinance per se. I realize there are [unintelligible] but I just—I’m
going to leave that alone. Is everybody clear on how many different options of this
ordinance are there for you all to make any choice to go up or down on where we’re
going? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, one thing I didn’t hear that I would like to hear in at least
one version of the ordinance would be some stipulation governing sound barriers. Is
there any language in there, Steve?
Mr. Shepard: Not at this time. That’s why we’re discussing it. That could also
be placed in there. I heard barriers. I’m just trying to bring forward versions that were of
interest to various Commissioners. Commissioner Williams started the process and
there’s been indications of interest in these other formats. So—
Mr. Cheek: I would, Mr. Mayor, if at some point if we’re not at complete
loggerheads on this issue, I would like to see some representatives from the
neighborhood, to work together perhaps if there is some way we can come up to a
consensus on what would be an acceptable alteration to protect the neighborhood, one,
and to allow us to develop this valuable asset. And perhaps we’re at loggerheads and we
don’t want to do anything other than just defeat this today but it seems to be a shame that
we can’t come to some terms to both protect the community, as well as develop the 1,700
acres into a facility that’s both used and enjoyed by everybody in this city.
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to come back to the attorney in a minute. Any other
questions on this end right now? Commissioner Smith on this end first.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we deny this.
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Let me just ask a real crazy question. Is it on any one of them
specifically, or is on all of them?
Mr. Smith: All of them.
Mr. Mayor: And I say that not in being funny, but I guess, Andy, going back to
where you were on that a minute ago, I think what we heard from residents to a point that
we probably needed to have something about noise in every one of the [unintelligible]
and that’s [unintelligible] gap in there [unintelligible] obviously you’re going to have
some objection to a point that if you’re not talking about sound barriers, noise control
[unintelligible] starting off problem. That’s just an observance. Commissioner
Williams?
42
Mr. Williams: I want to make a substitute motion that we approve with the
attorney bringing not just a natural buffer but with 1,700 acres, a man-made buffer and a
natural buffer that could be [unintelligible] into this. I said again that I don’t want to
inflict any noise or any inconvenience on any of the residents. And I think if they were
abreast as to how this situation would benefit not just them out there in that area, but even
the businesses in that area, that they would understand. But all of the negative feedback
they’ve gotten, from what it sound like, from when it was when you was in your front
yard dealing with automobiles that was loud, this is totally different. So I just think that
ought to be a substitute motion put together with some man-made and natural barriers,
sound barriers put up for, to protect, to make sure that they are not [unintelligible], that it
is not a problem. I don’t think they ought to be inconvenienced one bit and I’m sure they
wouldn’t if the process is done. It’s not going to be on Horseshoe Road, it’s not going to
be on Highway 56, it’s going to be down in the 1,700 acres of land, not close or adjacent
to any residence. But that’s my motion, Mr. Mayor, is to make sure there is a natural
buffer and a man-made buffer added to it.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. And I’ll ask the same question, that applies to
every version of the ordinance that’s out there?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I mean for—
Mr. Mayor: This is for the record.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: I’m only doing that in chairing because [unintelligible] four versions
of what’s out here. Any questions further on this end on the substitute motion? This side
here? Okay, we’ve got a motion and a substitute. If no one needs clarification on either
one of the motions—I’m sorry, Andy, go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: I just, for the original motion, is it the intent of the maker of the
motion that by defeating this today would limit all growth and progress and anything that
was possibly be negative as so forth stated as a byproduct of this tract in the area of so-
called south Augusta? I’m just curious because this seems to be what we are attempting
to state today, that we are going to stop that kind of negativity in the area by defeating
this ordinance and I, for one, would like to know for goodness’ sake how we are going to
stop any of these other things that are growth, that will change this area, which is
inevitable.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Cheek, as you know, I formed Pride and Progress South Augusta
13 years ago. There’s a lot of accomplishment that’s been made, bringing economic
development there such as Lowe’s, the recent Applebees. I can go on. We were heavily
involved in Diamond Lakes, which Mr. Beck can tell you about. We were heavily
involved with Youth Challenge Academy at Fort Gordon. We have continued to I think
43
be the lead dog in south Augusta trying to get economic development. And I’m sure that
you heard what these people said, the same as I did. And it’s not about stopping
economic development. And I know you know that. It shocks me that you asked that
question.
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the—any other questions from any other
Commissioners? All in favor of the motion, which will be the substitute motion will be
voted on first, will be done by the usual sign.
Vote on substitute motion:
Ms. Beard, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Mr. Handy votes Present.
Motion fails 5-3-2.
Mr. Mayor: Substitute motion has been defeated. We return to the original
motion. All in favor of that motion will do so by the usual sign.
Vote on original motion:
Mr. Rearden, Mr. Smith, Ms. Sims, Mr. Grantham and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Mr. Handy votes Present.
Motion fails 3-5-2.
Mr. Mayor: There is no action on either motion. The Chair rules we have had
adequate discussion on that item today. Madame Clerk, would you move to item number
60?
The Clerk: 60?
Mr. Mayor: 60.
The Clerk:
60. Discuss SWAP Interest Rate. (Requested by Commissioner Richard
Colclough)
Mr. Mayor: 60 is on the board.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, this is an item that I placed on the agenda. It’s been
on the agenda a couple of times and pulled and I think that we’ve heard a lot of positive
stuff about the SWAP interest rate and I would just like to bring it forth and make a
motion that we approve it.
44
Mr. Mayor: There is a motion on the floor. Is there a second on item number 60?
Ms. Beard: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. On the floor. Item number 60. Is there
discussion or are there questions? The [unintelligible] open.
Mr. Hankerson: I have some questions about it. When it came it before, when it
was coming it before I had the questions but I never did the floor, and I asked, I think I
asked some of the group about it. My question is what happens if the interest rate
increases? I was going to get some clarity on that. If the interest rate increase what
happens as far as—do we get more when interest rate increase? That’s what I was told.
Or do we get less if the interest rate increase? Cause I’m accustomed to you getting less
money if the interest rate increase. That need to be clear, cleared up. My other question
is, and Steve, you can get your pen cause I need the answer to these questions. Can we
use the money—I think the initial step was we be able to use the money to—for salaries?
The next question is if we, if we can’t use the money for salaries and the money goes to
Utilities, does Utilities need that amount of money? And then how much money are we
talking about and how much it going to cost us each year to manage this? What’s the
cost going to be to the city to manage it? How much money we’re talking about we’re
going to receive and whether we could use it for salaries? How much are we going to get
initially and each year? I just need all that information clear. Can we use it for salaries?
Mr. Shepard: If I could go first, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: These, this item was on, as Mr. Colclough correctly stated, before
and the group to discuss this, the expert group was brought in, some from Philadelphia
Image and also a special counsel for the SWAP, which was tentatively identified as
Kilpatrick Stockton. You’ll recall that we had to have an interest rate management plan
and the professionals wanted some kind of basic proceed in concept type vote, either yes
or no, and the amount of the income that would be generated would be dependent on
what the indexes were. I think when one index exceeded the other Augusta was paid, and
vice versa, when the index was reversed Augusta having to pay. And the use of—so the
income depends on the market experience in the future, but these are more items that
should be addressed to the expertise of the Finance Director. I’m—I can say that the only
way that we could take those monies out would be through the payment in lieu of taxes
and the payment in lieu of franchise. And [unintelligible] shifted over. Now, today you
have approved usage of general fund monies for those salaries and I’m thinking that you
have used that in that fashion. So like I say, the up or down vote is what I was suggesting
would be the appropriate thing and then we could have your documents and more specific
calculations done if those, if those [unintelligible] basic votes in concept to support this.
Mr. Hankerson: I just, I mean I’m not just want it to be up or down vote, and I’m
not against something that’s good. I don’t want you to get a misunderstanding. But those
45
questions I need to ask when we’re talking about a variable rate versus a fixed rate. And
I think I asked, I asked about that because I don’t know—I have some good resources
that I rely on to give me the information about banking, but it’s kind of a little bit
different. I know that the interest was that we can take the money and do salaries. I
know there was a discussion about that and we were kind of left hanging whether or not
that could be done. So those are the questions I’m still asking. What could be done with
the money? If we do it now what could be done with the money? Do the money just sit
in Utilities and fatten their chest and that’s all we could use the money for, or some other
things? That’s what I’m asking. And then I’m asking if the interest rate, which is going
to increase, [unintelligible] increase, would it be a loss to the city if the interest rate
increased? And then how much it would cost us, you know? What are we receiving?
How much it going to cost us to manage this program? I mean this transaction. Those
are just the answers that I need.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible] jump in one second. Commissioner Colclough—he
put the item back on. I think he wants to ask a question and may want to ask in terms of
those that have brought forth the SWAP proposal. I’m going to allow you to go on and
then our Finance Chairman.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I would like to refer to the experts who brought the
SWAP proposal forward and the gentleman standing at the podium there. Maybe he can
shed some light on Commissioner Hankerson’s questions.
Mr. Mayor: State your name and who you represent for the record, but just for
one second, one of the things I think that we did leave on, and I stand to be corrected by
the other ten of you, but I thought at the last meeting when we were dealing with this that
we actually had two items of discussion, one that we were going to—when it came back
and we were going to deal with whether we passed the SWAP package and whether we
were going to have a policy decision which needed to be legal and explained
[unintelligible] in terms of usage in terms of where we would go. And I can be corrected
on that. But I thought we were talking about two different situations [unintelligible]. I’ll
get out of the way of that. Go ahead.
Mr. Stallone: Good afternoon. My name is Marty Stallone and I’m with
Investment Management Advisory Group. And I’ll answer your questions, but just about
a thirty second history of who our firm is and why I’m standing here. Our firm is a
nationally-recognized SWAP advisory firm. And pursuant to a proposal, we were
retained by this counsel in July of this year to analyze the SWAP proposal that is now
before you. In August we submitted a favorable report recommending you consider the
SWAP transactions and evaluating some of the pros and cons of that particular
transaction. Since then there have been a few questions that have been raised, as we have
had some conference calls and so forth over the months that have transpired. Once of the
46
questions that has recently been raised is, is this transaction a SWAP into a variable rate?
And the answer is no, it is not. And we all read the newspapers and understand that the
Federal Reserve has been raising interest rates over the last twelve months and the
expectation is for those rates to continue to go up. Your risk is this transaction is not
based on interest rates. The one risk that you have is essentially our federal tax system.
Based on the current federal tax system and the system that has been in place for the last
twenty years, if you were to take this transaction and look back over each and every year
for the last twenty years, the transaction has actually been more economically beneficial
to you in high rate environments rather than in low interest rate environments. And you
would have had a positive economic cash flow in 19 out of those twenty years. The one
year that you would have been negative, it was a slight negative. Cumulative over that
twenty year period of time, it would have provided approximately $17 million of positive
cash flow to you. And again, I emphasize that in the higher interest rate environments
that has been when it’s been most beneficial, not least. The second question I believe you
raised was with respect to the management of the interest rate SWAP. The transaction
will be essentially automated for you. The way that you will manage it with your finance
office is that our firm provides a system that simply through internet access your finance
staff will be able to monitor the value of the transaction on a daily basis, reconcile the
cash flows and view any of the related documents and business terms at the click of a
button on your desktop. So the active management of the transaction has been automated
for your and will be provided essentially on the internal for a nominal annual cost of
approximately $5,000. Now, that cost obviously pales in comparison to the expected
economic benefit of the proposed transaction. And again, with respect to the other item
in the use of funds, that’s not an economic question and not one that we’re retained to
address. That goes back to a policy and legal issue, which I understand is a separate
matter.
Mr. Hankerson: Follow-up. In the history—and we talked about it a little bit in
the hall before the last meeting—
Mr. Stallone: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: You remember. And that’s what I’m asking. In the history, the
past history you spoke about and the variable rates and when the rates were up it showed
that if we would have had the swap at that time we would have had an accumulation of
excess funds; right?
Mr. Stallone: That’s correct.
Mr. Hankerson: Does that stand true now for the future?
Mr. Stallone: Right now, if you did the transaction in the market as it stands
today, it would produce approximately $1 million of positive cash flow benefit for you.
Now, I cannot guarantee that that is going to be each and every year for the next twenty
years. The future risk in the transaction that would materially change the economics is a
47
material change to the federal tax system. Again, not interest rates, but a change in our
federal tax system.
Mr. Hankerson: I’m sorry, excuse me for my ignorance, but kind of explain that a
little bit to me, those tax system—I don’t know nothing but paying income tax.
Mr. Stallone: If you have money and you want to buy a fixed income security, a
CD or a Treasury bond or something like that, or a municipal bond just like those that
you issue to finance a project, if you buy a Treasury bond you pay taxes on the income.
If you buy a tax-exempt bond that you issue or any other governmental body issues, you
do not pay income tax on that income. And what this transaction does is locks in a
spread so long as there is a tax on tax-exempt securities, then you will be benefit by that
marginal income tax difference. Okay? So you are as a tax-exempt issuer you are using
the difference between tax exemption on tax-exempt securities versus taxable securities.
You don’t ordinarily issue taxable securities. And as long as that benefit exists for any
investor of owning tax-exempt securities, this transaction should provide positive
economic benefit to you.
Mr. Hankerson: And if we approve the SWAP how much money will the City
receive now? We have a choice I think—I don’t have the papers before me but I
remember it’s a choice to do a lump sum—
Mr. Stallone: I think that gets back to Mr. Shepard’s comments, that the exact
decision to take some money up front and a portion of it over time or all of it over time,
those fine tuning measures, if you will, the structure, had not really been debated that
much because we need to know whether you wanted to proceed with the transaction.
Even if you approve the measure this afternoon, we need to come back to you for an
additional resolution which, pursuant to state law, requires you to adopt what’s called an
interest rate management plan, and compliance with this new state law is that you have
properly evaluated this transaction, you’ve retained an independent advisor, like
ourselves—that’s one of the reasons you retained a firm like ours—to evaluate that,
you’re aware of the structure of the transaction, and you also approve the form of the
document evidencing the interest rate SWAP with the counterparty. All that needs to be
approved in a resolution and at that time, that’s when the final decision would be made as
to any money up front or all of it over time.
Mr. Hankerson: In retaining an advisory, how does that work? The advisor
gets—what’s that, on a percentage?
Mr. Stallone: We have a fixed fee that—we responded. Again, you asked a few
firms to respond with proposals and our fee was part of that proposal. Our fee for the
entire transaction is $80,000.
Mr. Hankerson: $80,000 one time?
Mr. Stallone: Yes, sir.
48
Mr. Hankerson: And your job would be to what?
Mr. Stallone: Our job is both what we have done thus far, which is evaluate the
proposal, submit a report, answer questions as we’re doing this afternoon, and then if you
approve going forward then the interest rate management plan needs to be put together.
That complies with your state law. We’ll draft that. We’ll also help along with your
counsel and your special counsel to negotiate the documentation between yourself and
the financial institution that will be on the other side of the contract of the interest rate
SWAP. And then on an ongoing basis we are always available for any future questions
that arise regarding the transaction, but we do charge only a one time up front fee
Mr. Hankerson: There was a figure. Help me to remember that. It was like a
lump sum figure of so many millions. How many was that?
Mr. Stallone: If you were to try to take—based on projections if you were to take
100% of the expected economic value in a lump sum payment today it would be
approximately $14 million.
Mr. Hankerson: I thought that was what it was. Okay. Thank you. Now, back to
my other question, I think have to come from legal of what can we do with the money or
what can you fix that we can do with the money?
Mr. Shepard: If you left it in Utilities, the money could be used there. If you
wanted to reduce increasing water rates, that would be a possible use. If you wanted to
use it—
Mr. Hankerson: Wait a minute. You said reduce water rates?
Mr. Shepard: You would have the money, Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: I talked to Utilities about that and I didn’t think that was—that
was a bad idea to deal with the utility rates. But my question is—cause I thought about
that, well, you could reduce utility rates but they said that’s a bad idea to do that. But my
question is what else can you do with the money besides putting it in Utilities? That’s the
only thing I want to know. Can we use the money to do anything else besides Utilities?
That’s all I want to know.
Mr. Shepard: And the answer is through the payment in lieu of taxes and
payment in lieu of franchise, reasonable amounts can be taken out and shifted to the other
side of the house, the general fund side of the house, so to speak. But you—they’ve got
to be reasonable and they have to be defensible in terms of what amounts you take out. I
thought that that had been—in one of the sessions we’d had I thought that had been
demonstrated. I’ve never computed the figures but they could be computed by our
Finance Director or perhaps Mr. Stallone could.
49
Mr. Hankerson: Steve, I’m dealing with some money I’ve never seen before and
never had before and I don’t play the lottery so I don’t think I’ll ever win $17 million.
But when you say reasonable of $17 million, what is reasonable? We can deal with $1
million a year out of it, or $2 million, or we only can get $20,000? What do you call a
reasonable amount that we can use in general fund? I mean how is that determined? I’m
trying to get where I need to get cause I need to vote.
Mr. Shepard: I thought I had done some calculations on that but I really didn’t
know what you wanted to know exactly.
Mr. Hankerson: But the money can be used in general fund?
Mr. Shepard: If we, if we take it out and [unintelligible] as a franchise fee. Some
of the franchise fees we use are on the order of 4% to 5% and payments in lieu of taxes.
They have to be calculated based on the value of our improvements, if we tax the money.
Those are calculations that have to be made, Commissioner Hankerson. At one time, I
had more familiarity than I do this afternoon. I did not review the matters that I—I did
not review that specifically for today.
Mr. Hankerson: I’m not trying to put you on the spot but I need to make a
decision. You know, I’m a lame duck. I want to be resurrected one day. I want to make
a good decision. I’m finished. Somebody else can ask.
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to recognize our Finance Chairman and then
Commissioner Grantham, in that order. But let me just say this. If—inasmuch as we
didn’t have committee meetings and a lot of this stuff was put over here to the regular
one, and I [unintelligible] not on it, don’t vote here either, but if 60 is going to tie us up
into a full workshop on SWAP today, then if that’s where it’s going, then I’m going to
recommend that we do some type of postponement, go back to the other items that’s on
the agenda, go through them to a point of where we are. That’s going to be my
recommendation. I’m going to deal with [unintelligible] lot of people searching as
opposed to knowing and of making up their minds. Commissioner Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Shepard, I think with the telephone hookup, did we not discuss
this with two professionals, maybe your company—
Mr. Stallone: That’s correct.
Ms. Beard: --and the company out of Atlanta with a Mr. Earle Taylor?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Taylor was the proposed special counsel, Madame Chairman,
that’s correct.
Ms. Beard: And didn’t both of them recommend this transaction at the time?
Mr. Shepard: I think the attorney—he recommended.
50
Ms. Beard: And didn’t he also state that these funds, that there was a method, that
it could be transferred from Utilities into the general fund?
Mr. Shepard: The methods of transfer was the payment in lieu of taxes and
[unintelligible]. That’s my recollection of that. The question is does this body as a
matter of policy give its conceptual approval [unintelligible]? That’s what was
communicated to me, that it was not—the last time it was on the agenda was not when we
had the conference call. You had it on the agenda sometime after that. And I know Mr.
Colclough put it on today but I was not requested to have Mr. Taylor here or one of his
representatives.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Rearden? I’m sorry, Commissioner Grantham and
then Commissioner Rearden.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you. I hate to jump in front of you, Commissioner
Rearden, but I think that this is important. Based on the down side, and I’ve not heard
any down side here today—we did discuss this previously—and I know there is a down
side to this type of transaction. Being familiar with derivatives and what you’re involved
with I think we’ve got that type of situation. Maybe not exactly a derivative but a similar
situation. And also since we started discussing this issue and we’ve had interest rate
changes that would reduce our income that we would be receiving—
Mr. Stallone: No, it’s actually increased.
Mr. Grantham: Well, by how much? I mean from that standpoint, we’re locked
in at a certain rate.
Mr. Stallone: Based on current levels you would receive approximately $1
million per year.
Mr. Grantham: Right, current levels.
Mr. Stallone: Six months ago that number was probably about $600,000 a year.
Mr. Grantham: And then you mentioned as far as your fee to do what you would
do and then you turn it over to a management situation, such as—
Mr. Stallone: Electronic system.
Mr. Grantham: --such as a system, and the fee there. And I’ve talked to our
Finance Director several times in regards to this and I don’t know that he feels as
comfortable with it as we need to be. I’m going to make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor,
that we deny the request for the SWAP interest rate.
Mr. Rearden: Second.
51
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second on the substitute that we deny the SWAP
interest rate. Is there any discussion on the substitute motion?
Ms. Beard: Well, I have a question. If for some reason things should change—
and my understanding is that interest rates go up, we will receive more. And if it goes
down, then that’s where we will run into a problem.
Mr. Stallone: Historically that has been exactly the case. And therefore—as an
advisor try to look at not just an individual transaction but also your entire balance sheet
and financial statement. When interest rates go lower to where the economic value of
this transaction would be less, then you refinance other outstanding debt, which you have
done in the past. So if rates go lower you will benefit in other areas, whether it’s new
financing or refinancing old transactions. When rates go higher and you generally don’t
have the opportunity to do that, this is a transaction that historically has provided much
more value. And also, I’ll add one other point, which is you’re not being asked to do or
suggested to do a transaction that is that unusual. It is certainly not without risk. I will
report to you we identify each of the potential risks of the transaction. However, many
issues similar to yourselves throughout the country have done identical transactions to
this, including right down the road for the City of Atlanta. MARTA, the transaction
system, did a transaction of this type about seven months ago to the tune of about $720
million. And that transaction thus far in that relatively brief period of time has produced
significant economic benefit to MARTA and continues to do so, and there are issues
around the country. Our firm alone, as I said in my introductory statements, we do
transactions of this sort around the country. Our firm alone has participated in about $15
billion worth of transactions structured similar to this. Not identical, as each transaction
is a little bit different, but substantially the same. And so again, it’s not a novel
transaction or something that is out of the ordinary for public bodies such as yourself.
Many governmental units around the country are doing just the same thing.
Ms. Beard: You know, I’d just like to say in our professional magazines they are
talking about this all the time now. You know, it’s just something we haven’t done here.
But it really—
Mr. Stallone: In fact you have. I’m sorry to interrupt. Your SWAP that you did
for the 2002 transaction is similar to this, smaller size, but the proposed transaction
actually has less risk than the one you’ve already done because this does not require you
at some future date to issue a series of bonds. This does not require a future issuance of
bonds and so it has fewer risks, even if it’s in a lot larger dollar amount. And so you
already have accepted on your books and records and financial statement the same type
and more risk than this transaction is proposed to have. I’m sorry for interrupting.
Ms. Beard: [unintelligible] if we should have a problem with this transaction, can
we get out of it?
52
Mr. Stallone: Yes. SWAP transactions are liquid instruments. The SWAP
market in general of all sorts of interest rate SWAPs is in the trillions of dollars. Now,
can you get out of it? Absolutely yes. Can I guarantee you what the cost is going to be to
get out of it at and at that time will you have made money? If I could guarantee that, I’d
have super powers. I can’t guarantee, no more than any of us can guarantee any sort of
investment or decision we make is never going to lose money. All we do as advisors is
analyze the historical data and try to put that to you in a concise fashion for you to make
a business and a policy decision, and based on historical data this type of transaction has
been very beneficial for at least the last twenty years. But yes, you can get out of it for
whatever reason you may decide to in the future.
Ms. Beard: How many companies have you worked with approximately?
Mr. Stallone: Thousands. In the thousands. Well, I don’t know if thousands is
right, but it’s probably a thousand and totaling north of $15 billion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Rearden?
Mr. Rearden: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This was the first issue I was presented
with when I joined this august body and the Mayor was kind enough to put if off to give
me some time to mull over the information. And part of that information, Steve, was that
we were very close to the maximum of [unintelligible] fees that we could take out of the
Utilities Department. There was about $50,000 or $100,000 a year difference on the
calculations you made on the payment in lieu of taxes and the franchise fees were
negligible. So if those are the only two ways to get this money out, we’re taking a fair
amount of risk to reap $80,000 to $100,000. And I don’t believe that that is a good
venture for the city and the county to be involved in, is to bet a good portion of to me a
risky investment for $80,000. The return is not there, in my opinion. And if that’s all we
could use over twenty years, we’re looking at what, $1.6 million that we could use, and
we could easily end up owing $2 million or $3 million depending on the way things went.
This is just not a good deal, folks.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Handy?
Mr. Handy: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t which way to go here today. On the
agenda it says discuss. And we are in a discussion now. But I think Mr. Colclough’s
motion was to approve.
Mr. Colclough: That’s correct.
Mr. Handy: And I have a problem with getting something on the agenda that say
discuss and then you end up wanting to approve it. It did not say discuss and approve. It
said discuss. And I’ve learned a lot here today because I’m new, just like Mr. Rearden,
and haven’t had the opportunity to hear all the do’s and don’ts of this particular proposal.
And I wouldn’t want to just kill it if—if it’s not what we want we need to say it’s not
what we want. But on the agenda it said discussion and I have benefited from the
53
discussion we’ve had here today. But I’m not prepared to vote on it to say approve it
when I just received the discussion and I would like to now think about all the do’s and
don’ts that I’ve just heard, before I can make a decision whether to vote for it or not.
And I would rather do what the agenda says, is discuss, rather than try to discuss and
approve something that I’ve just received the majority of the information about. Thank
you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Any other Commissioners? Ms. Sims? Any Commissioners down
here? We’ve got two motions there, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a substitute. The substitute will be voted on first. All in
favor of the—does anybody need anything repeated?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, yes, yes.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner, please. The substitute—
The Clerk: The substitute motion, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Rearden, is to deny the
SWAP interest rate transaction. The original motion, Mr. Colclough and Ms. Beard, is to
approve the transaction.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible] closer than the [unintelligible] earlier. All in favor of
the motion will do so by the usual sign. That’s the substitute.
Vote on substitute motion:
Mr. Rearden, Mr. Smith, Ms. Sims and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams abstain.
Mr. Handy votes Present.
Motion fails 3-4-3.
The Clerk: The original motion is to approve the transaction.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion will do so by the usual sign.
Vote on original motion:
Ms. Beard and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Mr. Cheek and Mr. Hankerson abstain.
Mr. Handy votes Present.
Motion fails 5-2-3.
Mr. Mayor: No action on either motion. I do have a suggestion I will make over
lunch or breakfast or dinner with two or three of y’all at a time as we involved parties,
particularly that come [unintelligible] city and discuss professional business with us to a
point particularly when we talk about some things four and five different time
54
[unintelligible] idea of what they’re going to be [unintelligible]. And if we’re going to
deal with things on an agenda, particularly on Tuesday, that we get some type of
[unintelligible] as to where a consensus is or is not and then we will [unintelligible] long
discussions and we will not have to deal with wasting their time, either, or the expense
and time of them coming to our city. Next item, Madame Clerk.
Mr. Hankerson: I’ll do supper with you tonight.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible]
The Clerk:
16. Reconsider use of funds as approved by the Administrative Services
Committee on October 24, 2005 and ratified by the Augusta Commission November
1, 2005.
Mr. DeCamp: [unintelligible] background to refresh your memory. On
st
November 1 of this year, this body approved a list of expenditures of CDBG funds and
reprogramming of certain funds to—in order to show timely expenditures, spend down of
CDBG funds. At that time, this body approved a list of projects totaling $1,871,000 as
follows: $261,000 was to be a reimbursement of HED administrative costs back to the
city; another $850,000 was to be allocated for the acquisition of Sunset Villas apartment
complex by the Augusta Neighborhood Improvement Corporation; the third project was
the acquisition of property at 2439 Peach Orchard Road by Care Management
Consultants in the amount of $475,000 for their offices and for the operation of certain
service programs that they carry out; another $85,000 was allocated for the Weed and
Seed Program in Barton Village; and finally an additional $200,000 was to go in part to
fund certain facility improvements at St. John Towers on Greene Street, that was to be
$129,000; and the remaining $71,000 was to go for purchase of equipment and facilities
to be used at a couple of our neighborhood centers and a couple of our parks. Since that
time at the staff level we’ve been doing our due diligence, contacting, talking to HUD
folks, getting additional information from these sub-recipients. And what you have
before you is a revised recommended list of projects based on our evaluation and it
really—as you can see from looking at the bottom of that first page, what we’re
recommending now is that the—is essentially three projects. One would be the full
reimbursement of admin costs to the city by the department in the amount of $461,000.
The ANIC project, of the purchase of Sunset Villas, as originally recommended, in the
amount of $850,000. And then what we consider the public facility portion of that
$200,000, or $129,000 for project, two projects at St. John Towers, totaling $1,440,000.
That does leave out the Care Management Consultant Project, the Weed and Seed
program, and the aforementioned equipment purchases for the two centers and the two
parks. What we’ve essentially—in essence, what we’ve found out through our due
diligence is that the reason we’re recommending this is that we want to try and—we’re
recommending that you limit the projects to ones that are eligible and acquisition and
public facility projects that have no feasibility questions outstanding at this time. We feel
with the Care Management project, it’s a very worthwhile project, one that we should
55
continue to look closely at. But time being of the essence in terms of spending these
funds, we feel like there are a lot of feasibility questions with regard to that project that
still need to be answered and would probably take some time to work through. We also
feel that reimbursing the city for the full admin cost of $461,000 can be done right away.
It doesn’t require the thirty day public comment period that these other activities would
require. Thirdly, the recommended list is pared back to exclude activities that would be
classified as public service expenditures. And you may recall from previous
conversations that we’re right at that 15% cap on public service expenditures for the year
and so we jeopardize going over that amount, that cap by adding spending any additional
funds or allocating funds for public service activities. This pared back list of
recommendations gets us to about 85% of the amount that HUD, based on the numbers
we see from HUD, would be 85% of what they expect us to spend, they expect the city to
expend in a timely fashion. And we feel like that, that will address obviously the vast
majority of the need and if we can show over a short period of time thereafter that we’re
going to spend the remaining 15% on eligible activities, that will address this issue.
Mr. Mayor: I won’t get my chance to get my hand in on this discussion for a long
time. [unintelligible] Commissioner Handy and then I’m going to go straight down the
line on the right side over here as we go. [unintelligible] I’m going to recognize
[unintelligible] department head first.
Mr. Handy: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just have one question for Paul. I haven’t
missed a meeting since we discussed this and the last discussion I had, we didn’t have
anything about St. John Towers. How did it get there and make that decision? Cause I
don’t know anything about that one. That wasn’t even nowhere near what we talked
about.
Mr. DeCamp: Do you mind if I hand this to you?
Mr. Mayor: While you’re waiting on him to give it to you, Commissioner Handy,
if I might break in for a second, Paul, let me say this. And what I did, because this thing
has flipped two to three different times on information. And I probably had maybe, to be
honest with you, probably about [unintelligible] that I asked about that was in there on
smaller items that I thought we could still do, not in terms of knocking the projects that
were there, but of maybe reducing the amount that was there in administrative fees that
we had for the city. My first thoughts were that the money ought to be spent on projects
to be done and to try and get as many of them as we could. And what I asked
[unintelligible] in terms of those smaller ones, that could we try and find a way to get
some of this money spent that was ready to be spent, and that’s the general language that
I got. But then we got back on the deal of the question of where the public hearing had to
be and of so many days prior to that. There were a lot, quite frankly, I thought of
misdirections that we have been given on a federal level [unintelligible] our folks and to a
point how then are you directed by people who come to town and say spend money by
such and such a date and then on the other level it says you can’t spend it unless you’ve
had the hearing first. Well, then that’s contradictory to what you say when you ask to
spend the money in the very beginning. So some of those, Mr. Handy, may have been
56
[unintelligible] list not [unintelligible] call some of these folk and see who can spend this
money and who is eligible to spend it, that can spend it right now and move it. And that
was where you had some of those that got into that list with. So [unintelligible] in order
to do that. So my list was probably [unintelligible] when it came to say [unintelligible]
the key thing was to find out who could do something, cause we had some in there that
went everywhere from whether it was [unintelligible] all over [unintelligible] to find
ways that people who could actually legitimately spend money on a particular given date.
But that would coincide with the numbers [unintelligible].
Mr. DeCamp: I just ask for the benefit of the entire Commission, it was our
understanding, Mr. Handy, that when the Commission voted on this November 1 that part
of that $200,000 was to be allocated to this St. John Tower project.
Mr. Handy: When I voted the other day we voted for Care Management, the
Weed and Seed, ANIC, and to repay our Housing Authority. That’s what my vote went
for. I don’t know anything else about what y’all shifted around and changed. I don’t
know anything about that.
Mr. DeCamp: Not to add to anybody’s confusion, but originally we had
recommended the full $461,000 in admin costs be reimbursed. And $200,000 of that was
pulled and allocated to two St. John Towers projects and for these other—what turned out
to be public service related activities at a couple of the community centers and to the
parks.
Mr. Handy: I remember the $200,000 being taken out of the money that we owed
for administrative services. But Ms. Beard suggested she wanted some computers and
things.
Mr. DeCamp: Those are some of the things we looked at.
Mr. Handy: But that’s still not St. John Towers. Still not St. John Towers. I
remember that $200,000. I don’t know how St. John jumped in there. I remember the
$200,000.
Mr. DeCamp: Right.
Mr. Handy: That’s all. I’m getting old but I still remember.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible] refresh your memory, I came in late on that
committee and [unintelligible] because I even backtracked to the point of one van that we
were going to buy and of who wanted to turn it down and I’m like saying if we can get
the van bought, take the van, somebody will help you find a way to get insurance on it
[unintelligible] buy it. And so you’ve got a lot that went on since those meetings have
taken place. A lot of juggling there to be done to say who can go ahead and spend.
That’s the problem we’ve run into [unintelligible] would rather see us spending money
on stuff where we can actually see [unintelligible] see something where the results are
57
[unintelligible] and I thought really, frankly, that on the amount of money that was there
on the program on the south side, that it was on tap, ready to go, and I didn’t know that
there were really any, any, any procedural problems with it. The only thing I made a
suggestion of the alternative was that we not, we not get into a situation where that
project gets lost, even if we had to take some money and find a way to deal with the
leasing aspect and make it a number 1 project on the next round of where we were going
so that it could be held and that it would be there maybe [unintelligible] contract so that
they could move into that. And so that’s where I was trying to just search for every
option that we could to keep it. But I didn’t know that it had gotten to a point of where it
was not say eligible per se to move at this time. And I [unintelligible] there wasn’t
enough money then let’s find a way to save it at whatever cost so that even if we had to
lease for twelve months in order to secure the building operations of it and then move
into a buy-in situation out of the next round of money that was in there. But of making
sure that it was ready and at the [unintelligible] weather vane a little bit there. It hasn’t
been easy in terms of some of the direction. But I think we need to kind of get it straight.
Mr. Handy: Can I just say one other thing, please?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Handy: I am not against the project but I just want to know how things
changed without we voting on it or coming back to the Commission. That’s all I’m
asking. If you’d brought St. John Towers back and we’d of said this is where we want to
go, you’d still have had my vote. So what I’m saying is that when I left here the other
day St. John wasn’t on there. Some of you all may have met and decided to put it on
here, but I don’t know anything about it. That’s what I’m saying.
Mr. DeCamp: [unintelligible]
Mr. Handy: Okay. No problem.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams and then we’ll go straight down the line.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In agreement of what’s been said, there’s
been a lot of changes, a lot of confusion, I don’t understand first of all the rush that we
was, that was put upon us that we had to spend this money by the certain time. Well,
even before we get there we had a full audit done in that department that have not been
brought out yet in any discussion about monies that would be left or need to spent by a
certain date. We was told when folks came to work, who left early, who shared lunch
with somebody else, but we didn’t hear anything about we was going into a situation
where the money had to be spent. Then we get up here close to the end of the year and
then we was bombarded with a situation saying that we in danger of losing these federal
dollars. Then we came back and said that we would send these [unintelligible] out but
they couldn’t be spent because of the time constraints it take to spend them. Then we
heard that we had to do a thirty day community forum with it, a comment period, before
we spent it. So somebody lied to us, Paul. Somebody told us some stuff that wasn’t true.
58
Somebody had us believing—I mean it was almost like pushing a panic button for us to
panic. This is not the first year since I been hearing this. This the sixth year we been in
this same situation about the same kind of money that we had not done anything about.
So it ought not look like it falling on your shoulders, on your watch, cause everybody
been in that seat that you in dealt with the same identical thing every year. We have not
addressed the issue about spending the money. Over here, Mr. Mayor, I guess I got the
liberty to skip over to 27, just to reflect back, we talking about approving some money
from 2003 that we hadn’t spent. So there’s a lot of problems. Now, I know the problem
we done investigated, we done checked, we done divided, we done put three or four
people over. In fact, we don’t know who in charge of the department but this give us
more problems and with more money [unintelligible] looked at it. So I can’t vote on
none of this myself, Paul. This is not directed at you. This has been an ongoing process,
ongoing problem that’s in that department we have not addressed. We got
[unintelligible] HOME funds, folk been asking for money to use to do some things with
and they was denied. And for really no good really. So I’m a little bit confused. I’m
going to pass the torch on down the line. Ms. Beard then Mr. Cheek can assume
[unintelligible] I don’t know what to do with it.
Ms. Beard: Paul, I called and I talked with you about awnings.
Mr. DeCamp: Right.
Ms. Beard: And you gave me the impression that it wouldn’t be a problem and
they really weren’t that extensive, but such a need.
Mr. DeCamp: I understand, Ms. Beard. In the case of the awnings at that
particular location, you’re really looking at a maintenance item that would be ineligible
item in and of itself. Now, if you were doing a façade rehabilitation project then that
would be an eligible part of that.
Ms. Beard: But what is the difference? Now, this is the Galleria and it’s built by
probably HND funds.
Mr. DeCamp: Well, they were Community Development Block Grant funds
involved, going back a number of years in the development of that property.
Ms. Beard: And while I’m at it, that’s such a wonderful building but it’s leaking
all over now. It just seems if we have funds available, why can’t we use the funds where
they are needed? I really do [unintelligible] that all of this is here and nothing can be
used for items such as what I’ve discussed.
Mr. DeCamp: There are limitations, Ms. Beard, with ineligible activities on any
federal program.
Ms. Beard: Well, I [unintelligible] redo it.
59
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard, are you—
Ms. Beard: I’m through.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: It’s almost been a calendar month since this first crisis came up, if I
remember correctly. And then we were given a list, had to have it, had to have it spent.
November 1 rolls around, I think I was one of many on this board that said we need
notification if we’re not going to be able to spend it now. And I remember what I would
term the sounds of silence, like the old Simon and Garfunkel song. Paul, does a city-
approved program like Lyman-Dover qualify for purchases of those properties under this
program? Does it meet CFR for that?
Mr. DeCamp: That would have to be done through some sort of non-profit. You
can’t use—the city in and of itself cannot use block grant funds to acquire property for
residences. I mean if you’re talking—
Mr. Cheek: Economic development [unintelligible] could it be done through the
land bank?
Mr. DeCamp: Yes, but there are—I mean there are funds in land bank already.
Mr. Cheek: No, let me—and understand my position. I’m very tired of the delays
and getting the land bank moving. I’ve got two dozen properties in Lyman-Dover I could
buy right now with funds, if we [unintelligible] adequate funds to the land bank to begin
economic development. I’ve got vacant properties in Hyde Park. Other things that we
could begin to spend this money down. I’m looking at a case where I had half a million
dollars now in the property acquisition to buy these properties, was told thirty days ago
we had to spend it down. Since I knew the land bank was stalled out at that point in time,
I didn’t follow through with it because we had a list of programs that qualified, now I
don’t have a list of programs that will qualify—well, we’re going to be hard strapped
now, correct me if I’m wrong, to refund the $290,000—the $260,000 that we’re
transferring from the land bank, land acquisition programs next year. You know, I guess,
and this is not just Housing and Economic Development, but what do I need to make the
connection between the staff, the land bank? Because I know I’ve brought this up and all
the rest of us have that when we have opportunities to acquire hard assets like that to
accomplish city-mandated goals put forth by this Commission, that the pieces of the
puzzle just don’t seem to match. And now we’ve gone out looking for all these other
things. It’s almost as if—and we did this with the green space initiative, we mandated it,
we have target areas. Do we need to reassert those target areas to where there is a clear
understanding from this Commission? We were told that there was a ready list of other
projects available, that the spend down had to be accomplished by November 1. Here we
are—I want to see some of these areas reprogrammed. But you know, before I can go
from point B I’ve got to finish point A. Right now we’re stalled out on point A. Unless I
could do it myself it isn’t going to get done, it doesn’t seem like. You know, we’ve got
60
east Augusta, we’ve got Lyman-Dover, got Hyde Park, and god knows how many other
areas where we could buy out [unintelligible] and redevelop these properties and give
some people some relief instead of going and looking—I mean these are easy things to
do. Buying real estate is done every day in the city of Augusta. Do I have an opportunity
to get that list of properties together and put it in somebody’s hands and make that
happen as part of this package or am I too late? I think I asked the same question about
fifteen days ago.
Mr. DeCamp: Well, time continues to be of the essence, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: I can have a list tomorrow.
Mr. DeCamp: And [unintelligible]—
Mr. Cheek: [unintelligible] tonight.
Mr. DeCamp: Acquisition—I mean we’re talking, even in the list you approved
st
on November 1, we’re talking about a limited number, a very limited number of
activities, and acquisition of property was only involved in two of those. If we’re talking
about a number of small parcels, some of which may be absolutely, positively ready for
purchase, and others which may take some time, it’s going to be—
Mr. Cheek: Understand I can go find a house today and qualify for a loan and get
it closed in fifteen days. I’m an individual, but mighty powerful government of Augusta,
Georgia ought to be able to put together with all of its staff—but it’s just not happening.
And somebody somewhere ought to be embarrassed about that. And I don’t—
[unintelligible] level of concern about the fact that we ain’t getting it done. And we
ought to be about getting it done. I want to know, and I asked this question before, and I
said this when we were thirty days out, when this became an urgent emergency, did I
have time to go put the list together? Thirty days ago I could have had the list together in
five days, had it in here, had it approved. I won’t have this opportunity to get these
properties that are in foreclosure or ready for sale to complete this project and move on to
another area in this city. There is a window of opportunity there. I, for one, am going to
be very disappointed if we come back in fifteen to thirty more days and still haven’t spent
this money down and me miss out on the opportunity, we miss out on the opportunity to
help these areas that need to be helped. This is one of the city mandated economic
redevelopment zones that we targeted. We have a plan. I guess my question is what do I
need to do to plug the plan into this? Is that doable?
Mr. DeCamp: Is it—well—
Mr. Cheek: If I bring them tomorrow, can—
Mr. DeCamp: It’s doable but we’re just—again, we’re postponing the start of this
public, this thirty-day public comment period that we need to get past and then spend as
much of the money down as we can right now. If we can’t, if we can’t spend all of it
61
before the end of let’s say the calendar year, my understanding is that if there is a portion
of it that needs to be spent and we provide HUD with an aggressive schedule of the
spend-down of the remainder of those funds, that we can—that they will grant us some
leeway.
Mr. Cheek: This is the puzzlement of all of this to me. I asked the question
[unintelligible] initial spend-down, was there a period of time that we had for additional
input. No. Never heard about a thirty-day public input on this. Not included. Now, did
somebody read a new CFR or was this some revelation?
Mr. DeCamp: No, it’s in the department’s public participation policy for CDBG
and HOME programs. Any time you reprogram funds, create a new activity, it’s subject
to a thirty day public comment period.
Mr. Cheek: So if I had a list of projects, of properties qualifying through the land
bank to your office by close of business Thursday, those three additional days would just
kill us with HUD?
Mr. DeCamp: Well, I doubt that.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Decamp: But I haven’t—again, it’s my understanding that the official letter
with regard to this whole timely expenditure, it hasn’t arrived on the Mayor’s desk now,
it should shortly, and what the specifics of that letter will say, we won’t know until we
see the letter.
Mr. Cheek: I understand. But understanding my perspective on this, I don’t want
th
to be December 1 finding out that I could have done something October 15 if I’d gotten
clear direction on October 30 or sometime thereabouts. I don’t want to be there. I’ve
seen the deficiency of nearly $500,000 between the two accounts that we’re not funding
for land acquisition. Land acquisition is crucial to economic redevelopment. Economic
redevelopment is part of the name, Housing and Economic Development. I’m all for
giving charity out to people but until we start turning some of these neighborhoods
around we’re not going to get it done. And the only way to do that is acquire the
properties, assemble them, get them in the house of somebody like ANIC or someone
else and start redeveloping the property. And we’re just not getting there from here, from
what I see. And so I will have the list of properties and put that together, and if Legal has
a problem putting together a timely turnaround on these properties--it can probably
assembled in five days—well, we’re going to address that in a little while but it just
seems to me there ought to be some sense of urgency or embarrassment. Maybe I’m just
not seeing it. In fact, we’re here today and I know you got the ball late. I mean it was
handed off to you, but we’re just not getting it done. We continue to seem to repeat the
same mistakes. And like I said, the sounds of silence or either somebody punches the
same number on the juke box over and over. And I, for one, my patience is running very
thin with it. And not only that, the patience of the people who—when I go to the Rocky
62
Creek Neighborhood Association and see people energetic about turning their
neighborhood around, rewriting covenants and doing other things that we ask them to do,
and then we’re not doing our part. That makes us, y’all, all of us look very bad in the
eyes of the public, and rightfully so. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: It’s something to [unintelligible] I can tell you that because I’m tired
of all the changes in it and the difference [unintelligible] of direction but I think we are to
decide [unintelligible] what the Commission—I know I’m going to recognize Mr.
Colclough—but we need to have one path on one day that’s definitive. Somebody give
us an answer. Put it in writing. And then we’re go on and move with it. Because
[unintelligible] items to do with [unintelligible] acquisition. I mean what kind of bothers
me is that I hear something different each time I hear it. An when it got to me to a point
of where putting things on there [unintelligible] list, and I know where you’re coming
from, Commissioner Handy, but it got where you either [unintelligible] and move it, that
was [unintelligible] but then once that got done, then we got a different set of directions.
And that’s just not good. Commissioner Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Question, Paul. Care Management Consultants [unintelligible]
cut but here [unintelligible] purchase land, commercial buildings.
Mr. DeCamp: Right.
Mr. Colclough: What would have happened if they were not [unintelligible] of
the organization, just put down there purchase of Cross Creek Shopping Center,
$475,000, and not for the purpose of what they wanted to do? Would they still make the
cut?
Mr. DeCamp: I don’t mean to imply that it’s not—
Mr. Colclough: [unintelligible] the question.
Mr. DeCamp: Yes.
Mr. Colclough: [unintelligible] any land acquisition [unintelligible] license and
inspection, but what would have happened to them if they had not put the purpose of
requesting the money? What if they said the wanted $475,000 to acquire Cross Creek
Shopping Center, which is 4.2 acres of land but not specify what they wanted the land
for, would they have made the cut?
Mr. DeCamp: They still do. It’s still and eligible activity.
Mr. Colclough: [unintelligible] purchase?
Mr. DeCamp: If they wanted to purchase, then we would have asked for more
information about—in order to determine if the use of that property was going to be an
eligible activity under the rules and regulations for the Community Development Block
63
Grant Program, we would have asked them to spell out what they were going to use the
property for, how—
Mr. Colclough: [unintelligible] land acquisition [unintelligible] they’re going to
build single-family homes, put individuals in, purchase the house [unintelligible] and
Care Management is going to provide a service for seniors [unintelligible] that does
not—
Mr. DeCamp: That is an eligible activity.
Mr. Colclough: Eligible.
Mr. DeCamp: It is eligible.
Mr. Colclough: Eligible.
Mr. DeCamp: Right. We just thought there were a lot of feasibility questions
with regard to—we know they have initially $22,000 to make some repairs to the exterior
of that shopping center but we need more information on clarification and documentation
that they were going to secure additional funding to do renovations of the interior of the
property for use of their, for use by their agency for creation of this technology center
that they were going to house there, we need more information and documentation about
what, if any, other service agencies would locate in their facilities and what kinds of
commitments could they make to occupy those facilities.
Mr. Colclough: [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: Let me do this. Let me let her answer some of those questions that
are in there, that we’re on right now. But I think probably before we end up losing a
quorum there needs to be a decision made about this tonight, because what I’ve got the
greatest fear on is two things. As y’all keep getting different directions, we also keep
getting different directions. The bottom line is, the worst thing that could happen is that
money does not end up getting spent on people that it’s intended to get spent on
[unintelligible], that’s my first problem. The second problem that I’ve got is that when I
left the committee room that day, I assumed that this particular one that you’re talking
about right now, Richard, had been checked from top to bottom by our staff or else it
would not have been put on there as something to move forward with. Or at least—if it
wasn’t, it shouldn’t have been thrown in the mix, verbally or any other kind of way, to
think about doing it. [unintelligible] say, this one can’t be handled, it’s got to go to
somebody else to spend this amount of money with. I left the room thinking
[unintelligible] we could expend some of that maybe out of admin to help some of those
smaller groups. The bigger ones I thought were intact. Now, I’m hearing to a point
we’re going through a reinventing that whole wheel and what we stand a chance of doing
of unfortunately [unintelligible] losing all that we got to spend and then that ends up
being the worst thing that could happen. I think there [unintelligible] decision on a
[unintelligible] what is eligible, not eligible, vote on something to a point because I don’t
64
have a favorite in the whole list, because all of them are eligible, and there is a need
where all of these monies need to go. But the thing of end up getting nothing done is the
worst case scenario that could really happen. But if you want to come to the microphone
a minute, I still say, Ms. [unintelligible], where I won’t be wrong. You are going to be
there forever.
Ms. Benjamin: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I am Juanita
Benjamin, Juanita Robinson Benjamin, Care Management Consultant’s [unintelligible]
director and I just wanted to let you know we are ready to go. We’ve been ready to go.
We had everything ready. Our project is not for services. It did not come in under the
service cap. It is a land acquisition project. I met with Paul a couple of times to try and
find out if they had any problems with this project that we could resolve. All the
problems that he identified to me are in this book. We took a whole week—I have a
development committee. On my development committee I have [unintelligible] Reeves,
who is here, who is the real estate agent here. I have Cedric Johnson. His bank, First
Bank, has agreed to be a partner with Care Management with the financing of the
renovations. In addition, I have negotiated with Jim Reeves [unintelligible] just like any
other building renovation grant. Although we do a service, we are establishing
something for the community. We are removing blight from the community. We are
establishing services for a very needy population. Our frail, our elderly, and our severely
disabled persons. We have support of all the agencies in this plan that I developed, which
is about 300 pages, which I gave to Paul, although he does not recognize that I’ve given
him this plan. I gave it to him, I discussed about the tenants that were in there. I
researched with HUD. I had to call over the country to get information about HUD
[unintelligible] consultant [unintelligible] helping me, but I did the work myself. I
researched the HUD pamphlet 313-78.0 which stated that if there was an un-economic
remnant associated with the project, even though it wasn’t part of the project, it had to be
combined with the project, which is what we have done. I have met—Mr. Reeves assures
me the tenants are willing to stay. There is no reason for them to leave. There is no
economic impact for the City of Augusta, Richmond County, Augusta-Richmond
County, and if there is we have agreed with the seller that if there is any cost coming
back from the project we will handle that. All we are asking the city to do is to move
forward and let us purchase this land for $475,000. We have the money for renovations.
I have submitted a development pro forma. I have submitted a whole project plan. I
have submitted support letters. Let me just read you the names on my support letters if I
can find them and calm down. That might help me. You know my dad was a minister so
if I get excited, it’s because sometimes I go and preach. All right. We have a support
letter from Charlie Norwood, Congress. We have a support letter form Quincy Murphy,
State House of Representatives. We have a support letter from Ernestine Howard, State
House of Representatives. We have the letter from Cedric Johnson, who is going to be
our financial partner in this project. We have a support letter from United Way, of whom
we are a United Way member. We have a support letter from the Partnership of
Community Health, which Care Management has been an integral part for years. We’ve
been in business fifteen years. In our fourth year of existence we purchased the building
at 1105-1107 Druid Park. We increased the value from $140,000 to $275,000. We sold
the building because it’s a Richmond County School Board project in the partnership.
65
We established programs in the 30906 zip code area. We established a transportation
service. We helped them in the establishment of the 30906 clinic, neighborhood
improvement project. We work very closely with everybody in that community. We
have a letter from Walton Rehab, another one of our partners. As you know, they have
done nothing but develop senior projects throughout Richmond County. And
[unintelligible] was the person who developed this project. I’m also on her advisory
committee. And we have established a transportation portion. This was established
especially for Care Management so that they could help us in obtaining funds for the
projects that we want to put in this building. She has offered to lend her expertise in the
development of this project. We have a letter from Ellen Goldberg, Southern Care
Services. Southern Care is one of our home agencies that Care Management works with.
They have agreed to help us in terms of sponsoring programs to the community for home
care. We have a letter from Quality Health Care. They will do the same. We are
familiar with the medical community. I have everything in here that you might want Our
former location, our present location, appraisal. We have all the paperwork from the
owner. I’m going to pass up this little information packet—you all have it already? We
are ready to go. We went to [unintelligible] ready to go. He said we had to wait thirty
st
days. After the Commission approves on November 1. I called and asked him why it
was not approved, and he never returned my phone call, which is why I had to call to
Massachusetts to get a consultant. I had to talk to people in Atlanta just to see what are
the HUD requirements so that I can write them up and present them in a logical form so I
can move forward with my project. I’m ready. I want to help Richmond County. I want
to take care of our seniors and our disabled persons. That’s the purpose of Care
Management. But this project is strictly land acquisition and building purchase. And we
are ready to go. All I need for the Commission to do is to vote approval of this project so
that we can move forward.
Mr. Mayor: Chairman Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A couple of things. I know that in your
presentation that there was a missing piece when I was in a conversation with HUD and
was listening, because I thought the program was on the way to go, too, the same way.
Now, you mentioned—it was several things that were addressed by Stella Taylor in
Atlanta. The first one was the ability, a plan showing the ability to renovate after you
received the money to purchase the building, that that was missing. The second—I’m
going to go back to that. The second thing was the tenants, because they mentioned
something about commercial tenants, where we could be liable for a suit if you asked
them to move or so forth on the tenants. I think those were a couple of issues that I heard
and a plan and a proposal had not been—now, I heard you mention the bank. In your
proposal do you have the amount of money that you are good for to renovate the building
after it is purchased?
Ms. Benjamin: We have an amount that we have gotten project costs. We have
an amount of the cost [unintelligible] money that we will be borrowing to renovate the
property. It’s in our pro forma, and how the money is [unintelligible] to repay that
amount.
66
Mr. Hankerson: You can show in your proposal the ability to renovate, financial
ability to renovate after you receive the property?
Ms. Benjamin: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: That was one of the things that I heard wasn’t there. Okay? So
I’m going to tell you what I heard, so then if you can justify all of that then I don’t see a
problem with your project, was—that was the money to do that, there was question about
your funding, your money was coming in to run the facility after you receive it. It was
understanding that currently now where you located is, located now you receive what,
about $1 million or something a year?
Ms. Benjamin: $1.6 million.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay, $1.6 million a year. And you use that for operation, right?
Ms. Benjamin: We use it for everything, which includes buildings, maintenance,
everything.
Mr. Hankerson: So that $1.6 million you’ll still have coming in, right?
Ms. Benjamin: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay, so that’s coming in.
Ms. Benjamin: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: And also you have ability to borrow?
Ms. Benjamin: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: Approved?
Ms. Benjamin: Well, it can’t be approved until we actually do the paperwork.
But we have the commitment of the bank to be a partner with us for that funding.
Mr. Hankerson: So you have something that you can show HUD that the money
is coming, that’s what I mean.
Ms. Benjamin: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: The money is good?
Ms. Benjamin: Uh-huh.
67
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
Ms. Benjamin: And Cedric Johnson will be working with us, so whatever
paperwork they need, [unintelligible] forward [unintelligible] but of course you can’t get
the final papers until we close on the building and we’re ready to negotiate for the
renovations.
Mr. Hankerson: And what did you say about your tenants? And how many and
written agreements or anything been done with them that they would not be asked to
relocate after you—
Ms. Speaker: No, we’re not asking any tenant to relocate.
Mr. Hankerson: What I’m saying, listen to me now. I know what you’re saying
cause you told me that. But do you have in writing—HUD wants all of this in writing,
that agreement that you made with the tenants in writing in your proposal?
Ms. Speaker: On, in the proposal?
Mr. Hankerson: Right.
Ms. Speaker: We don’t have that in this proposal but we can get it.
Mr. Hankerson: That is a guarantee that you won’t be asking them to relocate and
if you did ask them to relocate, the liability or whatever it is, because they mentioned
something I’d never heard about the acquisition—what is that?
Ms. Speaker: Relocation.
Mr. Hankerson: Relocation. That they would [unintelligible] if you asked a
[unintelligible] person to move out, what you have to pay them, you have to relocate
them to another commercial site and so forth. You will need those agreements in there.
That’s what I’m saying. What I heard the reason that the project was declined was
suggest by HUD that it wasn’t a good plan to go after because those items were missed.
But you have those items in that and I see where your plan is still good because I thought
it was good in the beginning, too, because those are some of the things that we were
looking for right quick. So—
Ms. Speaker: We can add the agreements from the tenants. I have the paperwork
to proceed but I was waiting on clearance from the Housing and Economic Development
Department to go ahead and get those. I think I gave a [unintelligible] to the realtor. We
can have those to you in the next couple of days. But we do not require anybody to move
because the actual project is going to be in the larger building so there is no reason for
them to move. Like I said, according to the research that I did of the HUD regulations,
that’s what you call an un-economic remnant that is attached to the project, but the
68
project is actually in the larger building. So they can stay there as long as they need to
stay.
Mr. Hankerson: That need to be in writing.
Ms. Speaker: Yes, we’ll get that in writing.
Mr. Hankerson: HUD wants to see. I’m just telling you what I heard about the
project. I want the project to work and that’s what I heard. Now, let me say this, Mr.
Mayor, to the Commissioners. I’ve been in conversation, listening, too, because I know
that my committee said that they wanted to know if there are any changes, and a lot of
this change look like every two days, it was [unintelligible] from the beginning that we
needed to just spend this money, buy vans, buy computers and all of this, just go ahead
and buy it. Then we find out that we were over the cap as far as public service. We
couldn’t spend the money in public service. You’ve got St. John Towers, public facility,
I questioned HED about all of that. That’s public facility versus public service. So that’s
how all those projects were dropped. Weed and Seed and all the other projects for
computers and vans and buses, because they said we were at the cap. I was hoping that
we could spend that money in those areas, as you were too, Mr. Mayor and other
Commissioners. But that’s what they said was ineligible because of our cap. It is very
important, and you said it right, that we really hurry up and make a decision. We don’t
have a whole lot of time to do that. I heard Mr. Cheek mention about the acquisition of
property and I know the key thing is what I heard is that can it be turned and do it and the
appraisal in the amount of time that it need to be done [unintelligible] quick. I continue
to ask about the ANIC project on here and I was assure that this project is ready to go,
ready to turn around, is no problem. That’s what I was told from HUD. So even with the
land acquisition that Mr. Cheek was talking about, I think something can be worked, if
[unintelligible] timely manner it could be done. But I also asked about Antioch, I asked
about that project and I was told about Antioch that that was something that was six
months out. That’s what I was told when I asked about [unintelligible]. And that wasn’t
one of the projects that they was looking for [unintelligible] lawyer and [unintelligible]
appraisals [unintelligible] and just go ahead [unintelligible] thirty day. We didn’t hear
about the thirty day announcement. That wasn’t told by Washington, D.C. nor Atlanta at
the day that they met with you, Mr. Mayor, briefly. We wasn’t told about the thirty days.
We was told we had thirty minutes, more or less, than then thirty days to spend the
money. But then we find out that the announcement had to be made to the public thirty
days. So I would try to make sure that all of these projects were included that can be
included, and this was a final list last week that we came up with that it could be spent.
Now, I was told and explained about Care Management, which I thought was a go, some
of the things that they needed. So if these things are ready, I’m hearing different—and I
think those things need to be presented and we locally has to make that decision, whether
we want this project to go. They have the plan for HUD, the financing that she said she
[unintelligible] and that was one of the key things, so I don’t see a problem. Paul, do you
see a problem with what she’s saying now, what is different than what we were told?
69
Mr. DeCamp: No. We have yet to—I mean for any of these new projects we
have yet to hammer out the written agreement between the City and the non-profits. We
hammer out the agreement but she’s addressed some of the—
Mr. Hankerson: Who? Somebody needs to put in writing to me—
[End of tape 1, beginning of tape 2]
Mr. Hankerson: I think the communication of why, you know, the status of these
particular projects to each individual, so today we wouldn’t have to explain to them why
their project didn’t pass and approve. And I’m hearing with Care Management that they
did not [unintelligible] sit down and say this is what you need and can you get this and
can you provide this for me to make your project work? So it’s a lack of communication
that I think we need to improve on that and let all the organizations know why they were
rejected. We don’t want to reject someone and they don’t know why they were rejected.
Even the credit bureau send you a report back. But we need to do something. We need
to do something. We need to move forward.
Mr. Mayor: My suggestion is going to be this. It seems as though—and Paul,
what I really need you to correct me on, and some guidance for all of us at this point.
[unintelligible] and maybe it’s through the chairman in a particular called meeting or a
called meeting of this Commission, particularly if it cannot wait until Monday’s
committee meetings, is to—if something changes from what’s here, if something else is
going to be added, whatever that finalization is to be signed on, we need to have a
meeting on that particular day, because one thing is obvious, we do not have enough
money to reprogram to take care of everybody’s business. But we do need to be taking
care of some business. And that needs to get done. And whether it’s on a committee,
Mr. Chairman, committee/workshop so that we could actually take a vote if the full
Commission is here to get something signed off. I think that needs to get done, because
the worst scenario of all is, again, I think is not spending the money and in terms of
where those things need to be going. Because when I left I thought that there was some
ongoing talks that already been held and that you all were back mainly because you
didn’t make an earlier round, but that you were ready go to [unintelligible] you had.
That’s kind of where I thought that situation was and then now to a point of dealing with
something else. That’s just, that’s just not good. And we just need to get this on in to a
point that I’d rather, I’d rather to a point—I know it’s got to be done by the letter of the
law, but I’d rather ask for forgiveness in terms of trying to move on with something as
opposed to us having nothing there, and then we end up to a point where whatever we’re
doing is still down in Augusta, Georgia, and they’re to moving anywhere. I just don’t
think that we’re going to get that type of punitive answer from the standpoint if some
corrections have to be made on whatever we’re doing. The second thing I’d like to say is
that as it relates to this particular project, if there are some things that are in question or if
we don’t get done, I still would like to see an alternative in there that if we’re not doing
the full purchase of what we’re doing, so that a good project and acquisition of a property
that still needs to be done, that even if there is not a full funding on our part to do that
purchase in this time span and frame that maybe there could be some good faith that the
70
city can exercise in terms of who you’re buying from to a point that that can be near the
top of what we’re putting on as a first project so that whatever it means, whether it’s on
short term lease, whatever it is, and I think that’s what we have to be creative in, as a
department in doing, to a point that if it can’t be worked out of avenue A, you work it out
of avenue B. But the important thing is that it doesn’t die. And so I’d like to see us do
that. If it goes on where it is, excellent. If it can worked another way so that it doesn’t
die, that’s still good. But I just think whatever needs to get done, we need to get it done
in the next few days. Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to just make this public announcement for the
record for everybody here. I will have a list of ten to twelve properties in the Lyman-
Dover area in this office, either by the close of business on Wednesday or Thursday. It
will go to this body, to your office, sir, to the attorney, to HED and the Clerk of
Commission. I will touch base with the realtor that has the property. I will make
arrangements for all the contacts to be made and if I need to call and make arrangements
for an attorney to handle it I can do that, too. I just—you know—as my twin brother
says, it’s time out for this. Quite frankly, if I have to do my other job at Savannah River
and a couple of other people’s jobs here, then damn it, I’m going to do it.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Benjamin?
Ms. Benjamin: I just need some clarification. This is my understanding. We
need letters from the tenants stating, signing off that they know they will not be
displaced, and we have the letter from Cedric as being the partner—how firm a
commitment do you need from First Bank so I can get that for you tomorrow?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Hankerson: I think that she need to meet with Mr. DeCamp and if they need
to get on the phone with HUD right then or whatever, everything that she needs, that she
would know right then that this is what she needs to make the project work.
Mr. Mayor: Can y’all touch base before we leave here after we finish with the
item? Can y’all touch base on a time that y’all can get together in the morning or moving
a checklist of directions on this so that regardless of how we move, half, whole, whatever
the case might be, if we can start in that direction there? Because we need to finish out a
list of some sort very quickly, whatever we do.
Mr. DeCamp: And I just remind the Commission that you have approved a list
st
prior, back on November 1.
Mr. Hankerson: You’re talking about the list that we had, the big list, right?
Mr. DeCamp: Right.
71
Mr. Hankerson: With all the public service projects on, requests on, too? That’s
the one you’re talking about, the one we approved, right?
Mr. DeCamp: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: This one was approved. What happened, what we’re doing
today, we ask that you reconsider what was approved, what we did with the letter,
because a lot of those they said was not eligible projects so they came up with a new list.
That’s why you’ve got this list today. We’ve got one that was already approved but they
said a lot of ineligible projects were on it.
Mr. Mayor: I think to make it easier is that when we—if there is going to be a
vote on this we need to have everything that can be eligible, eligible. And one common
denominator that fits it all is that you’re going to run out of money before you do all of
them. And decide it up or down, the votes on it, and put it together and go on and vote on
it and be done. It will be able to still help some people. It will not satisfy everybody.
But I think at least to a point we can agree it needs to be spent where people can have at
least some of those needs satisfied. And that’s what I think is most important
[unintelligible] gets it [unintelligible] get into the switching, we don’t need a whole lot of
different determination of rules, we just need to have stuff that’s legal and ready to go.
And that [unintelligible] walk away from the table where there are going to be some
people that may not get, but it ought to be at least where you determine that it’s not
something that you learn two months later or a month later that it can’t be done. And I
think that’s the clarity that needs to be on there [unintelligible] when the total runs out of
it, it’s out. And that’s all you’re going to be able to do on that. But I would particularly
like to see in this case, if that’s not there, that we have an alternative, particularly in that
area of what’s there rather than losing a project where everybody else is on board to
dealing with it, other than us. Andy?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, in the interest of clarity, I’m going to say that with the
measure we passed, it also included language that said we would refund the land
acquisition portions that we were reprogramming, and if we can accomplish that now
then that reprogramming won’t be necessary and then we’ll have those same monies next
year for some other projects and fund the land acquisition at its normal, predetermined
amount of a half million dollars a year. But I wanted to also add that to the record for
clarity’s sake.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain one that I hope that at least sets a tentative
date with some options for us to get back, whether that’s for your committee, Mr.
Chairman, or whether it contains a recess from here to finish out this item and some
others on some other particular day. I’m all ears.
72
Mr. Hankerson: [unintelligible] next committee meeting.
Mr. Mayor: You’ve got some cross-committee items left on here, on this table
today. What I’m looking for—I [unintelligible] where you’re going with this one, but
how many more we have, Madame Clerk? Because [unintelligible] and if we need to get
[unintelligible]—
Mr. Cheek: 37, and update on trash collection.
Mr. Mayor: Let me say this before we get to switching now. We can’t commit
all of them. We down to quorum. Either we need to recess all of them, cause I don’t
want to get where—I’ll say this. The crowd we got now will basically stay but I don’t
want us at a point where when one person gets whatever they going to get, they gone, and
then I’m out of a quorum. And I think that’s a little unfair to everybody who has been
here. So we need to make a decision to either move this [unintelligible] another time and
deal with it and take them on so that if we want to handle HED’s business at the tope of
the heap and bring it back so that we can get this stuff passed and get it out of Augusta,
Georgia and then move on with the rest of the stuff we need to clear. If we got some on
there we need to clear tonight then I need to kind of get a consensus and know we can
clear that in a few minutes, but if not, no sense in us starting it and then we not going to
be able to finish it. Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I think what we need to go, we have one that we approved. And
the changes were made on that, is the one we’re asking to reconsider, which eliminated
Care Management. I think that what we need to go back to this list right here since now
we have some information from Care Management that we can still go forward with the
one that we approved and only come back with eliminations of those other public service
if you can’t do those, and then you just eliminate off of this list and add back to your
administrative cost, that what you can’t do on this list right here. Because the big issue
now is Care Management. That’s the issue. And now they’re coming forth with what we
needed, so the point is going to be between tomorrow and the next day, whether Care
Management has what we need to continue, so we can continue with this list and just
eliminate the public service projects that were not being acceptable. Does that sound
[unintelligible], Paul?
Mr. DeCamp: Sounds fine to me.
Mr. Hankerson: I think that’s what we need to do. We don’t need to—the motion
was to reconsider so we don’t need to just let them go back and work on some that we
approved.
Mr. Handy: But if we voted on 16 and [unintelligible] go back to [unintelligible].
Mr. Hankerson: Pardon?
73
Mr. Handy: I said we voted on 16, voted it down, it would go back to the
[unintelligible].
Mr. Hankerson: If we don’t reconsider it, yes.
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t we do this, Mr. Chairman? Since there is going to be
some talk with Ms. Benjamin on that one item, but also so that there could be clarity on a
final list of where we’re going to do, why don’t maybe we recess until Thursday, say 3:00
o’clock, well, 4:00 o’clock [unintelligible].
Mr. Hankerson: I won’t be available Thursday because of the funeral.
Mr. Mayor: Funeral Thursday.
Mr. Hankerson: I mean—you’re got a co-chairman. I don’t want to stop it
because I can’t be here.
Mr. Mayor: What I think we need to do, we’ve got some stuff on this
[unintelligible], we’ve got some things that I think need to be moved to another date
period [unintelligible] maybe this can come out again first and I think it may give
you some time also to at least know what we are going to vote on and how those
things will be lined up. I think that’s what’s most important. If we can get that
done, on the chairman’s [unintelligible] and bring those items back in here
[unintelligible] and not add anything to this agenda list, just only what we got left
and move with that, if that’s okay with everybody in doing that. And that will end
us up for the evening, deal with that on Thursday and barring some emergency or
something [unintelligible] voted on [unintelligible]. Is that okay with everybody?
The Chair will entertain a motion that’s what we do.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Handy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. All in favor of that motion will do so by the
usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk: Recess to Thursday at 4:00 p.m.
Mr. Mayor: We stand adjourned. Recessed.
[MEETING RECESSED UNTIL THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2006]
74
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
(Continued from November 15, 2005) November 17, 2005
Present: Hons. Willie Mays, III, Interim Mayor; Smith, Colclough, Grantham,
Handy, Williams, Beard, Cheek and Rearden, members of the Augusta Commission.
Absent: Commissioners Sims and Hankerson.
Also present: Jim Plunkett, Attorney; Fred Russell, Administrator; Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion to reconvene our recessed
session.
And even though we did at the beginning of the other meeting, we can never
have too much prayer around this place, so I’m going to ask Commissioner Williams
from District 2 to do our invocation, after the motion is made and second. And we’re
going to start putting our Commissioners-elect to work right away and start in
alphabetical order. So Joe, I’m going to get you to do the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag today, our newest Commissioner-elect, Mr. Joe Bowles. Calvin, if you stick around,
we’ll find something for you to do before it’s over with.
Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Rearden: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion
will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’re officially reconvened. Will you all stand for our invocation
and our Pledge of Allegiance?
The invocation was given by Rev. Marion Williams.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor: If there be no objection, maybe we can resume to item—where we
left off. I believe we were in the middle of our HUD.
The Clerk:
75
16. Reconsider use of funds as approved by the Administrative Services
Committee on October 24, 2005 and ratified by the Augusta Commission on
November 1, 2005.
The Clerk: Probably need to get the revised list.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, may I have just a moment, please?
Mr. Mayor: Sure.
Mr. Cheek: I went through Lyman-Dover and a month ago there were several
homes for sale in various stages of foreclosure. And in spite of calling realtors and
several other people in the interim, it appears the window for us to purchase those
properties has closed at this point in time and therefore I will be unable to provide that
list. Although I have the addresses I have not been able to raise a point of contact to
move forward. So I just wanted to offer that up.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you for that information, Mr. Cheek. And I had the
opportunity of being there on last evening at that meeting as well and it was quite a good
meeting in which Mr. [unintelligible] was there and continue to work real hard on that
project and that program. In fact, he was there until very late on yesterday evening and in
working with that group there. So I wanted to inform you of that. I think we left there
probably a little after—maybe 9:00 o’clock last night. Go ahead, Mr. DeCamp.
Mr. DeCamp: Following Tuesday’s meeting—yesterday morning I met with
representatives of Care Management Consultants and Mr. Jim Reeves, who is the realtor
acting on behalf of the seller, to go over a checklist of items needed from the
organization, some of which we already had, some of which we did not. I greatly
appreciate their time and effort in responding to our request for additional information.
We acknowledge the support the project has and the committee that’s been formed to
spearhead that project. Generally speaking, this project does meet a valuable community
need, it’s an eligible use of CDBG funds, and is certainly worthy of consideration.
Having said that, it’s the department’s responsibility to give you, the Commission, the
best advise we can from the issue of the timely expenditure of CDBG funds. We have
reviewed approximately 32 funding proposals and screened them based on the following
factors: their eligibility under the CDBG program and their ability to meet the national
objective of that program. We further isolated those that can be implemented in a short
period of time and for which funds can be spent as soon as possible. This is why one of
the key things we recommended on Tuesday in that memo of that date was that the
reimbursement, full reimbursement of administrative costs be included, because
essentially the money has been budgeted, we owe the city all of those funds, and it’s an
easy, no-brainer way of addressing part of this issue. Thirdly, we isolated the projects
that the department has experience with. The ANIC housing project, the purchase, the
rehab of Sunset Villas is an example of a project that the department has a lot of
experience with. We work with housing rehabilitation, inspection activities every day of
the week, and work with many of the codes and related issues. And finally, the fourth
76
factor we considered was we wanted to minimize the risk and the possibility of any
findings by HUD on the back side. That’s why we recommended on Tuesday was
another item was to eliminate from the original proposal any expenditures on public
service activities, because we’re so close to that 15% cap as it is. Anything that we add
to that will jeopardize the possibility of [unintelligible]. I would personally feel more
comfortable about the Care Management project if in addition to the information we
already have, that we had more detailed plans pertaining to the phased renovation of the
property. We do have some information on the time schedule for the first phase and they
laid that out fairly, fairly well in the binder that they provided to us last Friday. I would
also feel a little more comfortable if we had a complete scope of program services and
agencies that will use the facility. They did provide, based on our conversation
yesterday, and I think some of you, maybe all of you already have a copy, did provide an
addendum within the last half hour which I’ve been able to review briefly. It does
indicate that they will—they plan to recruit additional service agencies to occupy the
space in the spring of next year. I would suggest that if this project remains in the mix
that that be done immediately, even while we’re waiting to finalize any formal written
agreement related to this project. We’ve had additional consultations with HUD
regarding the Care Management project and they have the following concerns about the
project: HUD officials will not look favorably on this project as part of the spend-down
package of projects. You’ve got to remember we’ve got to be able to—the letter with
regard to the spend-down issue is probably going to arrive sometime next week. It’s
going to ask for the city to participate in the appeal process to fully document the reasons
why the timely expenditures have not taken place, what factors have gone into delaying
projects that already have money programmed for them, and they’re going to expect to be
able to see a list of projects that can be implemented quickly that don’t raise a lot of
additional questions that can address the issue in a timely fashion. In our conversations
with them they’ve had—of the projects we’re now—this is the one project they continue
to have questions about. Now, granted we have not had an opportunity to provide HUD
with every single piece of information about this project that we’ve received at the
department and that you have. Obviously, especially the information that was provided
just today. But they—if it is included in the spend-down list of projects they are going to
be questioning us fairly closely about this project. The second thing they have a concern
about is the precedent that this project sends, that says. This is the type of project where
we’re essentially giving a fairly large amount of money to one non-profit service agency
and they feel like it will possibly open the door for additional non-profits to make similar
requests of the city. Thirdly, they are concerned that if the funds are given strictly in the
form of a grant that there’s really no way for the city to have any kind of control, measure
of control over the project. Not that the city would want to dictate things, but remember
the city, on the back side with HUD, is responsible for assuring compliance with all the
laws and regulations that come with this type of funding. I’ll conclude by saying that I
continue to believe that the recommendation—from a staff perspective that the
recommendations we made on Tuesday to limit the spend-down, the list of spend-down
projects to the reimbursement of the administrative costs in this Sunset Villas project and
the public facility improvements for St. John Towers be approved by this body, but
obviously—
77
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, [unintelligible] 48-hours [unintelligible] fairly extensive
conversations, as has [unintelligible]. We listened to the HUD information there and
while I conferred and conclude, too, that the Care people have a wonderful project it
seems to me at this particular point in time that the recommendation that you have in
front of you from the staff is the best choice and best direction to do, to move forward
with taking care of the issue that’s placed itself in front of us because of HUD’s
regulations at this particular point in time. And I, too, would encourage you to pass the
recommendation of the department.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners’ questions first to Mr. DeCamp or to Mr. Russell?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I’m just a little bit confused about the list we had before versus the
list we have now. I think Commissioner Handy brought that up last time. How did the
list change, who changed the list, what’s the—I mean my mind was set to list at those
projects that we had lined up. Then we heard about the thirty-day grace period we had to
do and all that. So I’m really confused, Paul. And I said it Tuesday, you just happen to
be at the driver’s seat. You driving the bus. So I don’t think it’s nothing you created. I
think there been a problem there for a few years back. But I’m just wondering how, you
know, when we change projects of that magnitude and people been standing in line and
asking for money to do things before, and they didn’t get it. Now we going to change
projects and go totally different and put it in another situation where those CHDOs or
everybody else who applied, who legally—quote—supposed to be able to help do some
things, you know, wasn’t afforded the opportunity. And I’m a little bit confused about
that. So I don’t know how the list got changed. Who decided on changing the list?
Either one of y’all?
Mr. Russell: If I can, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Russell: As we talked about initially, we obviously got some information
from HUD in relationship to spending down the dollars in a fast manner basically. It’s
my understanding that they [unintelligible] in the past. We were not doing anything
different than what we had done in the past. All of a sudden rules were changed by them
and they told us basically. And based on further conversations with HUD they
[unintelligible]—in further conversations with HUD they then refined their instructions,
in further conversations with HUD, they again, in my mind, redefined the mission that
they gave us the first time we talked to them and began to eliminate some of the issues
that we thought we could cut from the first list. After numerous conversations with them
and with our internal staff, which you have in front of you is what I feel to be the best
78
way to get this money spent down as quickly and as expeditiously as possible without
violating the rules.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Fred, I mean we need to vote on something. But if HUD
changed their rules and did not tell us, they cannot expect fro this city or any city to know
what they’re thinking and where they are. So if the rules change we ought not be under
the gun as if we going to lose anything. If anybody, they ought to be trying to bring us
some additional money to help us with the new rules they brought in. So I mean I don’t
want to go there. I’m going to leave that alone, but I’m just saying by the rules changing,
and you just said that it just kind of told you. When the rules change, they should have
notified us that the rules change so we can change with them. But this is an ongoing
problem. We been dealing with this for six years that I know about. Every year this time
we get threatened about the money we going to lose because we hadn’t spent it. And
folks come asking for money. And that’s the easiest thing in the world, is to spend
money. You may spend it foolishly but that’s the easiest thing in the world to do is to
spend money. So I’m through. I’m going to let—I see Commissioner Colclough and
some other Commissioners got question but that bothered me when we change like that
because this is serious. This is a serious amount of money we’re talking about to make
that switch to and to do things in one area, when there are areas that been crying and
asking and coming and we even did investigations and I don’t want to get into this thing
here. It just a lot to this.
Mr. Mayor: I think you’re absolutely right, Commissioner, but [unintelligible]
extend that just a little further is that maybe in terms of rule changes, not so much in
terms of rule changes I would think but I would think a change of directions per se in
terms of some following, and it’s not just with that lettered agency. That meeting this
morning that we spent in reference to dealing with another issue that’s come from another
federal agency in terms of an abruptness and a change in what’s there, that not only is this
city having to follow it but counties period. And well, I could say it, but I’m going to
leave that alone. But the changing of direction from some of these agencies leaves a lot
to be desired. Now, I’ll leave it at that. Commissioner Colclough, Commissioner Smith,
and then we’ll swing back up on this end, Commissioner Rearden and then to
Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t get confused too often, but I’m
sitting up here totally confused. After all the dialogue we had at our Commission
meeting on Tuesday concerning this agency, what you’re saying is all this agency had to
do was to go back and bring back certain pieces of documentation that would qualify to
meet the requirements that you guys are asking for. One of the things you asked for was
a letter from the bank. [unintelligible] letter from Mr. Cedric Johnson saying that these
folks are working with the bank. [unintelligible] I’m looking at—and I have nothing
against the rest of these projects on here. [unintelligible] putting down carpeting and a
security system in a building versus providing services to seniors. I mean it just doesn’t
equate to me. And I don’t know, I’m not an expert on HUD rules and don’t claim to be.
But after the dialogue we had Tuesday concerning this agency, you know, I was under
the understanding all they had to do was supply you with the documentation that you
79
requested on Tuesday and they would qualify for this money. But now I’m hearing that
you went back to HUD and HUD change the rules on you or HUD modified the rules or
HUD did something. Explain, seek if you can help me understand. I’m not the brightest
page in the book, but help me to understand what happened from Tuesday to now to deny
an agency funds.
Mr. DeCamp: First off, on Tuesday, if there was any misconception, this is
generally an eligible project, as with of the 30+ that we reviewed.
Mr. Colclough: Wait a minute. This is the one that came off. Don’t talk about
the 30. Let’s talk about one.
Mr. DeCamp: Right. Right. The only thing that changed—well, nothing really
changed. HUD has reiterated to us verbally the same concerns they had even before
Tuesday about this particular project and as I outlined to you in my remarks—
Mr. Colclough: [unintelligible] HUD [unintelligible] and they said you have to
[unintelligible] memo or letter that we reviewed this project and we feel [unintelligible]
we recommend it not be funded—is there nothing in writing?
Mr. DeCamp: No.
Mr. Colclough: Can we get something in writing?
Mr. DeCamp: Well, we’ll get something from HUD in writing after this—if this
project is included in the list of spend down activities and it’s a part of a package that we
present to them in appealing the whole spend down issue. Then we’ll get verbal
questions, face-to-face questions from them and probably something written after that
point. We won’t get anything written at this time.
Mr. Colclough: But they can give it to you verbally on the telephone but they
can’t send you a memo saying as per our telephone conversation on such-and-such a date,
these are our recommendations concerning this project?
Mr. DeCamp: Well, they might do that.
Mr. Colclough: Well, I think that that’s something in writing that to me is kind of
[unintelligible] and to help me to say well, okay, but the people who are providing the
money to us [unintelligible] what they’re recommending [unintelligible]. Thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Russell: I think that’s part of the problem, if I may respond to Commissioner
Colclough real quick. What you have in your packet as I read it is a letter from Mr.
Johnson that says that they’re willing to review the loan application and I think that’s far
80
from a commitment of the dollars that I think we were looking for to actually move
forward with the project.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you. Nothing would suit me better than to see that building
renovated out there. And so many things in south Augusta need this kind of attention.
We have a lot of projects out there that need help. However, remembering all the
problems we’ve had with HUD this year, and as late as it is with this project, I just feel
like we need to go with the recommendation of our director and then bring this back at
another time. I certainly believe this is a good project and I think we ought to do it but I
think time is of the essence right now. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Rearden?
Mr. Rearden: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Paul, I want to go back to some procedural
th
questions. When we had our meeting on October 24 we were told that this money
st
couldn’t be allocated, it had to be spent no later than October 31 or we would have to
appeal the use of that money to HUD or face the loss of that amount of money this year
and next year.
Mr. DeCamp: Commissioner Rearden, the funding would have been taken out of
next year’s allocation. Any difference between—that was over the threshold.
Mr. Rearden: So had we not met these requirements we would have lost $1.8
million next year?
Mr. DeCamp: Probably about $1.7 million. Again, we’ve been working without
this official letter, which is still not scheduled to arrive until next week and that will have
the specific number in it. But we believe it’s around $1.74 million.
Mr. Rearden: But will it have a new date for this spend down to have occurred
by?
Mr. DeCamp: It will have in that letter—it will state that the city is in violation of
the particular regulatory requirement. It will further go on to state that the city has the
right to appeal that either in person or via teleconference with HUD officials in
Washington. It will go on to state that HUD will expect the city to first address several
issues, primarily ones related to an explanation of why the funds have not been spent
down, what factors, outline what factors have delayed particular projects or impeded the
expenditure of those funds. It will ask the city further for a time line and list of projects
with specific time lines attached to them that show as expeditious a spend down of those
funds as can be done feasibly by the city.
Mr. Rearden: So we received the original notification of these funds in January,
February, March? When did they become available?
81
Mr. DeCamp: When did the 2005 year funds become available?
Mr. Rearden: Yes, sir.
Mr. DeCamp: They became available—I believe the grant agreement was
actually not fully executed until March of this year. Late March of this year.
Mr. Rearden: So basically we knew for six months that there was some imposed
deadline and we drug our feet or whatever.
Mr. DeCamp: I mean it’s an issue that’s out there, as Mr. Williams mentioned,
every year.
th
Mr. Rearden: And also when we met on October 29 no one in your department
knew of this thirty day public review comment period?
Mr. DeCamp: People in our department are aware of that thirty-day comment
period.
Mr. Rearden: The way you put it in the memo there it would leave one with the
stndrdth
impression that we just discovered this on November 1 or 2 or 3 or 4, not that it’s
been there forever.
Mr. DeCamp: It’s a part of the city’s public participation policy.
Mr. Rearden: So we violated about four policies so far in this thing roughly, give
or take, of city policies. So now these people who have come in good faith and have a
worthwhile project, we’re sitting here to decide whether they are going to have to wait six
months or eight months? I believe based on what you have said on the HUD requirement
that we have no alternative but to wait at this point in time, to be sure that HUD will clear
this project because then we’ll be in another mess if for some reason they don’t. And the
letter from the bank says they’ll review it at whatever time it comes before them subject
to their normal policies and procedures, so I doubt that HUD would look at that as a
semi-concrete offer of a loan. So I believe we have to go with the list that you submitted
on Tuesday, and Mr. Mayor, I so make that motion.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there further discussion? The Chair
recognizes first Commissioner Cheek, he’s had his hand up.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ll be very brief. I lamented long and hard the other
night about the current state of affairs and how, why we’re where we’re at today, but I
agree with Commissioner Rearden and urge passage. While this is a worthwhile project
82
and the façade is falling off of that building as we speak, I think that again we have to
trust staff to go forward and make this thing happen. So I just urge passage.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion to my right? Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: I’m in support of Mr. Rearden’s motion as well but I hope
something comes out of this rather, other than this motion we’re voting on now, that there
is a serious and has been a serious issue in that department and something we needed to
deal with to get on track. You know, HUD have said—and I don’t whether HUD said it
but we was told that HUD said that we had CHDOs out of compliance and we had
something done and we found out they wasn’t out of compliance. So I don’t know who
doing the talking over there, Paul, but somebody needs to do a little more listening, I
think, rather than coming back—and you understand why we’re confused.
Mr. DeCamp: I understand.
Mr. Williams: We’re a little leery about whatever. Mr. Rearden did a great job in
dissecting this thing. I’m going to have to give him a pat on the back when I get on that
end cause I appreciate somebody else trying to address the—we need to do what’s right
and do it the same way all the time. Ain’t no sense in swapping back and forth. I urge
that we pass this, as well.
Mr. Mayor: Any Commissioners on this end?
Mr. Smith: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: One thing before taking that vote, and I realize this is not the only
project out here. This one has taken up probably the time because in committee meeting
it left there with the intentions that it was basically to be moving ahead. But if we’re
going to approve what’s on the list, and I said this the other night, that I thought we
needed to, one, not lose the money. That’s been my main concern all along, regardless of
where it went, small projects, large projects, whatever. And believe you me, even the
small ones that are on there, those are not the final list of the ones that came in when they
heard that spend down. It’s probably twenty of them that are there and one of those
things was concerned—well, some were not ready to do it in that so-called short window
of opportunity time. But what bothers me a little bit, we’re still out here talking about it
in a time period, has extended itself. That’s one issue that to a point it may have given
others an opportunity to also move ahead who were maybe three or four days away or a
week away--this has now been two weeks [unintelligible] so some of them could have
been up to the table now. But what I think has worked fairly well [unintelligible]
decision to [unintelligible] the budget calendar [unintelligible] keeps us away from being
here between Christmas and New Year’s, deciding when a budget is going to be passed
and a time line for doing it. One of the first things, Mr. Russell, I think that needs to
happen in this department is that there needs to be a parallel type of deadline and system
to a point that when the clock strikes a certain time, be in July 1, whatever that date might
be, or some sixty to seventy day period prior to those finalization of times, that agencies
83
all over be notified at that point, they be given a very short window of opportunity to
move, and then those other agencies that already be brought up to the table and to move
and also then have a period of time that they can get ready. And I think it needs to be
th
strictly enforced. I may not be here after the 6 but I’m going to leave that on the record
that it gets done to a point because I think if it’s worth in Finance to be able to do that, it
ought to be able to work in that department. That’s going to make some people unhappy
when it happens, but to a point we will not be under the gun as though we are holding
monies and that they are not going to places where they’re intended to go. The second
thing is, is there anything, though, that still [unintelligible] fall off the table today, what
I’m concerned about, Commissioner Smith, is the fact that there may be some type of
way this department can operate on a smaller basis with [unintelligible] so that this does
not shut down in this interim, and if there is a way that somehow we can still work within
a smaller amount of money and they be able to get them ready for next year’s
assignment. [unintelligible] to a point because there may be some technicalities right
now and it just totally falls off the wagon. Is there something that we can still continue to
work with and on that might be private at this point of discussion but I think it’s
something we need to continue talks on.
Mr. DeCamp: Well, mayor, as I mentioned this is—among many, this is a very
worthwhile project and we’re more than willing to work in any way that we can to assist
this agency.
Mr. Mayor: I would hate to see us where we have been very pro-active with sales
tax and other monies in terms of [unintelligible] two health centers we put in
[unintelligible] Laney-Walker and now on Windsor Spring, the working with 30901 and
30906, to be in the same vein of moving that we end up coming to an abrupt halt in doing
[unintelligible] too much progress that has been made out of monies that we’ve had that
we can actually see those differences that have been made, to end up with something like
this going on. But all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard, Mr. Handy and Mr. Colclough abstain.
Motion fails 5-3.
Mr. Mayor: Let me, let me say this, since it looks like that’s going to be the only
motion that’s going to get out there today on this item. Before moving on, Mr. DeCamp,
cause we are going to move on with the rest of the agenda. But the Chair is going to
hopefully entertain a motion that when we get through the rest of the agenda that we have
some motion for reconsideration because what’s fixing to come out of this is exactly what
I think we don’t want to come out of it. There may be some people who may be unhappy
but the worst thing that could happen is that we end up with no direction in terms of the
spending and of dealing with it there. You know, I’m not necessarily pleased with where
the motion is going but the point is are we going to end up to a point with another one of
these baby and bath water deals. So I think, Madame Clerk, we need to move on, but
we’re pressed for deadlines. We’re on drop dead time at this point. We better think very
serious not just about this money that’s out here but we better think seriously about how
allocation is going to be for next year, too. We need to tighten up the belt and tighten up
84
some heads and [unintelligible] at the same time as they move on. But I think we also
need to not let us get into a situation where we are into a non-spend down period. That I
don’t think we can afford to do. So if you continue on, Madame Clerk, and I think
hopefully we might get a reconsideration on that at the end of this period.
The Clerk:
19. Approve reprogramming of “CDBG” funds to administer a “Sewer
Connection” program.
Mr. Speaker: Good afternoon. Some time ago a number of the citizens and
Richmond County specifically, south Augusta had approached our department and a
number of you Commissioners with regards to concerns, financial requests to have—to
be aided with regards to the sewer line connections. The county has installed
[unintelligible] sewer lines and unfortunately there are a number of families who cannot
afford the sewer tie-in connection fees, which can run up to as much as $4,000. What we
are proposing is the reprogramming CDBG dollars to allow for there to be a grant and/or
a loan situation to assist those families so they can comply with the city’s edict with
regard to the sewer tie-in. And this request, this agenda item is requesting permission
and approval for that to happen.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Cheek:
Mr. Mayor, this is a follow-on to actions initiated by this
Commission years ago to provide a very comprehensive approach to the more than 7,000
homes the city will be tying in to sewer. It provides a third leg of support for those who
we knew would be in a position financially not to be able to afford the mandatory
I’m going to make a motion to approve this as recommended by staff
program. and
congratulate staff on providing this. Augusta has the most comprehensive assistance
program available of any city I know and the efforts this body has made to assist
residents of this city with this important program.
Ms. Beard: I second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. The Chair recognizes Commissioner
Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: I also support the program but I need to ask a question. I know
the sewer tie-in started first I do believe in District 4. There are a lot of folks who went
out and borrowed money who couldn’t afford it, who borrowed money to tie in to the
sewer line. Does this have any impact on them for reimbursement or something?
Mr. Speaker: I don’t know, Commissioner. At that time when we were
developing this that information was not—I didn’t know about that information so we
[unintelligible] from this point on to address a program that would deal with everybody in
85
Richmond County at this point in time. But for past situations, there is nothing I can do
about that at this time.
Mr. Colclough: [unintelligible] subdivisions who tied in out there, the people had
to go out and borrow money to tie in to this line, they just missed out on this program?
Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Rearden?
Mr. Rearden: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just have a housekeeping point. In the
chart on page 2 of the program description, it says the median family income in this area,
I’m assuming, is the $53,400?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir, for a family of four.
Mr. Rearden: For a family of four?
Mr. Speaker: Yes [unintelligible].
Mr. Rearden: So a family of eight would actually receive—could have $3,000
more in income and still qualify for this program?
Mr. Speaker: I don’t have the family of eight chart in front of me, I don’t even
know if we went up as far as eight. I don’t know if we did or not.
Mr. Rearden: It says on here a family of eight is considered low income if their
household income is below $56,400, which is more than the median income of the area,
based on the $53,400. That just struck me as odd.
Mr. Speaker: Those are the figures that we received off of the HUD chart itself.
That’s not something that the department has [unintelligible].
Mr. Rearden: Okay. It just struck me that 80% should be less than $53,000.
That’s all I’ve got.
Mr. Mayor: There is a motion and a second. The only thing I add is that across
the board in there with these numbers, there are going to be some mixes even within
some of those subdivisions, particularly because even next-door situations, and that was
one of the things that we ran into. Mr. Rearden had started off with how did we balance
that out and there were some of those areas that initially did not qualify probably when
we started talking about it, but then going back and objecting to see where some of them
were at the present time with the add-ons, then we actually ended up with more people
86
coming on board because [unintelligible] in there. And so that part has pretty much been
cleared [unintelligible].
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed,
the same.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you.
The Clerk:
20. The First Amendment to Operating Expense Contracts with CHDOs.
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor of
the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Motion carries 8-0.
The Clerk:
21. Approve Contract for Paint Program Supply Vendor.
Mr. Speaker: This agenda item is a request to have the Commission approve
staff’s recommendation on having a supplier supply the paint materials which are used in
the department’s pain program. There was an RFP that was circulated throughout the
municipality requesting the services and supplies from the specific vendor. The vendor
will supply the paint supplies for the course of one year and at such a point in time that
we would issue another RFP.
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Cheek and I visited some
homes that was painted at one time with some paint that I don’t think it was really paint.
And I hope—I don’t know who the supplier was at that time but I’m going to trust staff
but I seen some stuff that really didn’t meet standards when it come to any kind of color
87
or any kind of texture to it. I’m hoping and trusting that staff that this contract or this
paint that we going to be buying is going to be of some, of some quality. I hear Mr.
Handy talking about Sherwin Williams. Sherwin Williams just a name. Sherwin
Williams makes cheap paint, too. So I mean the name don’t show me nothing. I mean I
need to—I’m just asking the question because we have been to some homes that we have
supplied paint for and even did work on that was really embarrassing. I’m just hoping
and trusting staff. I’m not against it. I’m serving notice now that if I see it I’m going to
have to bring it back to staff’s attention that I hope we’re not just throwing stuff out,
we’re putting—I know we can’t buy Sherwin Williams’ best and Glidden’s best and all
the other paint but we need to make sure that we’re getting what we paid for and not just
paying out some money. All right?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I’m just going to be quick. My twin brother, paint’s only as good as
the water you add to it. I just urge staff to listen and heed the Mayor Pro Tem’s
comments because paint is only as good as the rotten wood you’re painting over, too, and
the inspection process and some of the subcontractors had a lot to be desired in the past.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed,
the same.
Motion carries 8-0.
The Clerk:
22. Approve subordination of one housing rehabilitation program loan and one
down payment assistance program loan.
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve, Mr. Mayor.
This is common practice.
Mr. Handy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Rearden?
Mr. Rearden: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I got a couple of questions. This one
second mortgage seems awfully high at $32,390. What’s the tax appraisal on this piece
of property?
Mr. Speaker: We don’t receive the tax appraisal until after the rehab is done and
in many cases we don’t even receive that information until the house is assessed,
88
reassessed. The $32,390 represents the rehabilitation amount loan, the amount of the
loan in order to rehab that unit.
Mr. Rearden: And there is a written plan for repayment?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir. This goes on a deed. It’s recorded. Actual lien against
the property.
Mr. Rearden: It says we have an existing second mortgage so I would assume this
has been recorded in the past; what is the payment history of this particular loan?
Mr. Speaker: The payment history on this person—this person has not been in
default. As a matter of procedure, if the person is in default we don’t even look at
honoring any kind of subordination request at all.
Mr. Rearden: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Y’all coming down my street so I got to
invite you in. [unintelligible] situation right here we did in re-habbing a home, Mr.
Rearden, where we put $49,000 in a house that probably wasn’t worth $15,000. And a
block away, ANIC was building brand new homes for $61,000. But we put $49,000.
The house was so small there wasn’t even room enough to park a car in the driveway.
Had to park the car on the street. And I’m surprised that we don’t have no figures to go
along with what Mr. [unintelligible] is bringing to show us what the property value is,
and we need to assist—I’m certainly not against that. But I don’t want to do the same
thing we did before. I don’t want to take and spend good money after bad. Not having a
tax appraisal or knowing what this property is, that ought to be one of the first things we
should have had when we going to take this kind of money and put in there. I mean the
house may not be worth $5,000. That should have been—if that’s not in the guidelines,
and I know we change, HUD change, we need to change that one, but if anything else
come back there ought to be some tax appraisals to let us know what we invested in and
what we doing. It would have been a lot easier for us to buy a house or to put a family in
a house and put a little money with it than to spend the money that we spent. This house
burned down, Mr. Rearden, all but one room, and we added to it and put $49,000. I ride
by it today and I’d love to take you buy and let you get a first hand look at it so you’ll
know exactly what kind of work we been doing. But I’m going to go along with this, I’m
going to approve this, but I think we ought to have some records to show what the
department is doing and how [unintelligible]. That ought to be one of the criteria that
come back to this Commission, that we know what was there and what we going to add
to it and how much we adding to it. Those my comments, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed,
the same.
89
Motion carries 8-0.
The Clerk:
25. Approve award of contract for property appraisal services related to
neighborhood revitalization activities.
Mr. Speaker: This agenda item requests permission to enter into a one year
contract with an appraisal firm. The department had circulated and RFP through the
proper channels, the purpose being that in our plan, consolidated plan, one of the
activities which was approved by the Commission was for the department to identify and
acquire property and also assist the land bank in that procedure, in that process. If federal
dollars are to be used or utilized, we have to make sure that a proper appraisal is
performed, the purpose being now that we require that service. As such, this is the
request that we’re making by way of this agenda item.
Mr. Handy: Move for approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. The action plan we’re talking about here, there
was some discussion about the action plan before and I don’t have my old minutes here to
reflect back on. Is this the same action plan that came through committee that we talked
about—I’m trying to remember, and I’m a little hesitant because I don’t remember what,
exactly what, Doug. I mean we got a [unintelligible] back to back. Is this the original
action plan that came through?
Mr. Speaker: A couple of months ago, sir, the department prepared and submitted
for your review the consolidated action plan. The specific item which is associated with
the appraisal piece was the approval of $500,000 to be reprogrammed as a means to
purchase property. And as such, in order for us to have the proper vehicle to do that we
need the appraisal services so when people are contacted, homeowners are contacted, that
the proper appraisal be performed in order for us to make the proper offer to them.
Mr. Williams: The attorney we supposed to be getting, Jim, to go in HED, I think
there is a job opening or something to hire a full time person—is that going to be related
to this?
Mr. Cheek: That’s the land bank attorney.
Mr. Williams: That’s the land bank attorney position? Will he use this?
Mr. Grantham: He probably would—would use that attorney to do this work, I
would think.
90
Mr. Speaker: That would be just to handle the sales negotiations, not the
appraisal. The appraisal is going to be needed I order to establish the value of the
property.
Mr. Williams: So we would get an outside appraiser, you’re saying, or we would
hire?
Mr. Speaker: We would hire, we’re asking to hire through a contract for that
service on an as-needed basis. The same procedure that the Commission approves for
architectural work, we have that same contract as well on a one-year basis and on an as-
needed basis.
Mr. Williams: And this may pass, but y’all have to [unintelligible] some stuff that
happened here recently with architect work and stuff that I wasn’t privileged to know
about and we spent a bunch of money, Don, on services that we had [unintelligible]. I
would love to see the plan again. I mean you may have enough votes to get that, Doug,
but I can’t support that one cause I need to know for sure what I’m voting on here.
Mr. Speaker: With regard [unintelligible] I think I can answer that question. I
think as you know, there have been certain neighborhoods and communities that have
been outlined and have been approved in order for us to look at and provide some type of
pre-development work and specifically the first community that is in need of their service
is the Lyman-Dover Street area. In order for us to think about purchasing any properties
that are associated with the activities that we’re doing right now, we definitely need an
appraisal on those properties before we can even make an offer.
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] I mean I understand about he Lyman-Dover and
there are some things with that, too, but naming a project or specifying a project don’t
make any difference. We got communities we trying to help. Whether it’s Lyman-
Dover, whether it’s right there on Telfair Street, that don’t help me none. I mean you
may have the votes. I can’t support it because I need to see those, I need to see that plan,
because I remember when it came through committee there was some questions that
came up and there was some questions that wasn’t answered. I just can’t support it
myself. I’m not trying to hold up any specific area, whether it be Broad Street or any
other street, so naming out the projects don’t help none, Doug. I want to do it but I want
to make sure that what we voting, that I understand what we’re voting on. I ain’t just
voting because there’s a green light up here. There’s other areas out there that need and
ask for some things. This is overwhelming. I think you will understanding. We just
passed three things for you while you stood there. You stand there just like we passing
out doughnuts, and I don’t blame you. But I’m not going to support this because I
remember when it came to committee there were some concerns that I didn’t understand
and it wasn’t explained. Now, you might have enough votes to get there but I want to see
that and I hope we ain’t in a tight. I hope we ain’t against the wall where we going to
lose somebody or lose something because we don’t do this today. If we ain’t going to
lose nothing, I think we ought to be able to look at it, bring it back, I don’t think it going
91
to be no problem. I would like to just see it. I would like to know for myself
[unintelligible] discussion about the action. That action plan created a lot of conversation
in our committee. But that’s just my take, Mr. Mayor. That’s all I got.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have I guess some concerns about the per
unit cost but I’ll say this much. These—we are structuring the land bank in this
government to be placed in a position to finally begin acquiring properties. We can give
them the tax appraised value that’s on the books, fair market value, or some independent
assessment necessary for arbitration, if it comes to that. This gives us an independent
appraisal, be it a little more pricey than I would like to see, in order to take it in for
arbitration to qualify for federal funds, which we are using for this revitalization effort. It
is another brick in the foundation of us beginning and proceeding with economic
development that is essential for us to truly begin economic development and
revitalization in areas all over this city. I urge passage. I make a motion that we approve.
Mr. Speaker: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? If not—
Commissioner Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: I’ve been quiet today, Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible]
Mr. Grantham: The only comment I have to make is that back to a year-and-a-
half or two years ago, when this discussion was going on, Ms. Beard chaired a sub-
committee that we had in regard to the revitalization program and that we were trying to
exclude at that time various neighborhoods that were in need of this type of revitalization.
And at that point we had the downtown district and we asked to even incorporate the
district up by where the Salvation Army is getting ready to move into. And we talked
about those and we had the maps out here, that we incorporated all those and went as far
as part of the areas off of Deans Bridge Road, I believe. So we allocated the $500,000
for revitalization and for the appraisal use of those properties in those districts. And with
that in mind it was going to take about three years, and that was the purpose—if you look
at the analysis of this recommendation, it indicates that the RFQ was put out for a
[unintelligible] two-year period with a one-year option based on that particular
[unintelligible] and then those remaining funds would be used for the revitalization of
those properties in those particular areas. And that was the districts that we discussed.
And it took quite a while to go through there and I’m not questioning what you say, Mr.
Williams, but just to kind of try to bring some kind of summary to what you’re looking
for, I think that these monies were set aside specifically for those purposes on the
revitalization of those districts.
92
Mr. Williams: And if I could respond, Mr. Mayor. Don, I agree, and what I was
trying to make sure of—and I’m not fighting the project, but I remember the dialogue
about what we had. You know, we talking about land value, getting somebody to look at
the properties and appraise them, but certain properties in certain areas ain’t worth the
same thing on one side of town as on another side of town. You take a $50,000 house in
the bottoms or east Augusta or however you want to look at it, and then you go to some
other part of town and that same house ain’t going to be $50,000. So I’m not against it, I
just want to make sure. I remember the dialogue. I remember we talked about it, Don. I
remember seeing the maps and everything else you talked about. So I mean y’all may be
able to do it but I can’t support it myself, not at this time, not until I at least look at what
I’m remembering.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Handy and then Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Handy: Mr. Mayor, I only have a question [unintelligible] motion to approve.
Did I lose it when Andy came with his second one?
The Clerk: No.
Mr. Handy: Okay, I was just wondering. I just wanted to make sure I made the
motion. I didn’t want Andy to steal it away from me.
Mr. Cheek: I got credit for one today I didn’t make.
Mr. Mayor: It was made on another day, to be honest with you. [unintelligible] I
thought it had gone. [unintelligible]
Mr. Cheek: I’m just going to say that for the record this money was approved for
us to—as part of a comprehensive plan to begin economic redevelopment to purchase
vacant lots across the city. This Commission set aside $500,000 per year, some of which
has been reprogrammed this year in the earlier initiative. But this is a real step. This is
one of the elements necessary, along with the land bank and the staffing for that position.
These are things that are coming together to get us moving forward in this very important
initiative across this city and so I do urge people, ladies and gentlemen, please vote for
this measure.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
61. Motion to add and approve a Declaration of an Emergency at 2549 Deans
Bridge Road.
93
Mr. Russell:
Mr. Mayor, if I may, early this afternoon we received information
regarding a situation at a trailer court located on Deans Bridge Road. That particular
location is a private facility. We had our Utilities people check it out. But there is a
problem there with their power, their sewage, and there’s some issues there that the
Health Department has looked at and become very concerned with. Because of that
we’ve had people involved with them since about noon today, working with them. It
seems—the phone call I just took a second ago, we have been able to correct the issue
with power, but what I have placed in front of you is a document that would allow the
Mayor to declare that a local emergency so that as we deal with this over the next 48 to
72 hours we might have to do sheltering, we might have to do other types of things in that
area, and that would allow us to do that without any further action. There are about 25
families there, 25 trailers, with about 22 families to my knowledge there, approximately
sixty people, I believe is what they told me just recently. We have a shelter that would be
available. We made an offer of that shelter to these people. Because they’ve got the
power back on and the inspectors are there as we speak, they have not, they have not
decided to take advantage of that. But given the moving nature of that situation, if it is
I’d like you to add and approve the declaration of that as a local
permissible,
emergency and authorize the Mayor to sign that, which would give us an
opportunity to deal with it as necessary instead of having to potentially wake the
Mayor up at 3:00 o’clock in the morning and have to deal with it in that particular
situation.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t mind waking up at 3:00 o’clock in the morning but I think
with the temperature changes that we have—and let me first applaud Chief Willis, Mr.
Russell and staff for being on top of this, after we first got the notification.
Commissioner Williams was familiar with it earlier in the day and Dr. Rumph, the Health
Department people, have declared this area uninhabitable. I think it’s imperative that the
city move ahead and follow through with the emergency procedures. The shelter is
ready, Mr. Russell has said, so may be a little reluctant to go at first but I think with the
amount of raw sewerage that’s in that area it won’t be very long before they will utilize
what has been prepared there. It may even have to be some things past shelter that still
has to be done. So I appreciate that motion and a second to add and to approve and I’m
going to ask all in favor of that motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Handy: Can you tell us where it’s located at?
Mr. Mayor: Deans Bridge Road. 2549.
Mr. Handy: Where is it?
Mr. Mayor: Right across from K-Mart.
94
Mr. Handy: I know about where the trailer courts are.
Mr. Mayor: On that corner.
Mr. Handy: Okay.
Mr. Russell: Thank you.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioners.
The Clerk:
27. Approve reprogramming of $190,000.00 in FY 2003 HOME funds to the
Demolition/Rebuild Program, and the reprogramming of $119,692.00 in FY 2003
HOME funds to the Down Payment Assistance Program.
Mr. Speaker: This agenda item is a request to reprogram to address the need to
have the demo/rebuild program continued. There are a number of properties that are in
need of that service. The demo/rebuild program takes into consideration homes that
rehabs, the dollar amounts are above $35,000 and as such we have had a waiting list for
properties that are in need of that service, and given the fact that those monies are
[unintelligible], we run out of that money much quicker than any other money that we
have. So the purpose of that is to ask for permission to have that money to for that
program so that we can extend the number of houses to be performed and constructed.
Mr. Handy: Move to approval.
Mr. Rearden: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Commissioner?
Mr. Rearden: Excuse me, but being the new kid on the block, I might ask a dumb
question. But these are fiscal year 2003 funds?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Rearden: They’re almost three years old. Is there any more money in these
two programs that are—any more money that’s fiscal year 2003 HOME funds other than
this three hundred-odd thousand dollars?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir, there is money that will be used for the competitive
[unintelligible] special projects which the CHDOs and non-profits can request money for.
Mr. Rearden: Do we have fiscal year ’04 and fiscal year ’05 monies available?
95
Mr. Speaker: Fiscal ’04 and fiscal ’05 monies were combined in order to
accommodate that need that I just spoke about that would allow for the special project
money to be available.
Mr. Rearden: And just one other question. Why did the department decide not to
implement the one stop, one stop shopping?
Mr. Speaker: The HOME shop?
Mr. Rearden: Yes, HOME shop.
Mr. Speaker: It required the employment of two additional staff people at the
time and we had brought back to committee, and at the time that we brought it to
committee it was not necessarily favorable and as such we could not operate the program
without those two additional staff members.
Mr. Rearden: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Any other questions from Commissioners? All in favor of the
motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 6-0.
The Clerk:
28. Approve reprogramming of $870.00 in UDAG funds to reimburse the Down
payment Assistance Program and the reprogramming of $7,995.00 in UDAG funds
for architectural and engineering fees incurred by the Façade Rehabilitation
Program.
Mr. Grantham: Motion to approve.
Mr. Handy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor of
the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 7-0.
The Clerk: Want to deal with the budget now? That’s the next item. Or do you
want to do the other [unintelligible]?
96
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got guests and business people here. We can go ahead and
leave ours till the bottom and try and move through other items that citizens are here for.
The Clerk:
53. Update from staff regarding solid waste collections. (Referred from October
24 Engineering Services)
56. Discuss defining a resolution for Solid Waste.
Mr. Mayor: If it’s okay with the Commission, and there are two separate items
that’s there, but if we can—some of this discussion may carry on both sides of it—if it’s
okay we can allow that to take place, if there are no objections, we can still have motions
to vote on different things but I think we need to maybe have some of this together.
Mr. Speaker: From the last time we talked a couple of updates. One is we
received back some bids on carts. Number two is we put together a contract with R.W.
Beck to assist us in facilitating implementation of the contract, as well as getting the carts
out. Number 3, and these are for review, consideration, these were supposed to come out
at committees, the first is kind of a [unintelligible] process and procedure, goes through
when things become delinquent. And the second item that I’ll be giving you guys is
defining a unit. Our current solid waste—we have a resolution that provides us the
authority to bill certain and specific accounts. Right now it’s set up as a single-family
dwelling which has utilities. Whatever that utility is. As we proceeded over the course
of time, we’ve identified that there’s some potential issues with commercial, with
churches, with mobile home parks, so we’ve put together what we would like to look at
as part of what would define a unit for the defining resolution. The first document that
we gave out just basically outlines the fact that we would be billing in advance, when we
would be sending out the bills, that the customers would have the option of paying us
annually or quarterly, as the Commission had asked that we provide some billing options.
Then one of our secondary issues, which is actually a primary, is how do we collect the
money? And when do we sent things out? This kind of shows that we would keep those
accounts in house 75 days and then send them out to a collection agency. We’re still
working with Mr. Shepard’s office to identify what authorities and powers we would
have with liens, since we’re a municipality and it is a municipality fee, to keep it in house
and utilized the court system internally. Questions?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Chairman first, he had hand up over there, and then
Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to hear—aren’t we just getting an
update today, correct?
Mr. Speaker: That’s correct.
97
Mr. Cheek:
And we thank you for bringing that forward. What I’d like to do,
to receive as information
Mr. Mayor, is I guess make arrangements—one, move and
two, to just announce to the Commission and those interested that I’d like to set up a
meeting with Mr. Russell and with Mark on Monday, depending upon schedules, at or
about 10:00 to 11:00 o’clock to discuss the solid waste collection and some issues that
have come up as it pertains to our small haulers locally and one of our prime contractors
to make sure that we’re on the right track and to discuss information on Monday, so I’d
But
like to invite all the Commission to do that, members that are interested in attending.
I make a motion we receive this as information
with the notice of that meeting.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I second that, but I thought we would discuss—Ms.
O’Brien and some of her staff folks are here, some of the haulers are here—I was hoping
we would at least get to first base with where we are, what we need to do. I been in
conversation with several of the small haulers and also Ms. O’Brien called, and I
apologize publicly for not returning that call, but it’s 12:00 or 1:00 o’clock when I get to
a phone where I can just stand still. And you invited me to call and you would call me
back. I understood that. I think we need to talk. I think there is some serious issues that
we need to talk about, whether it be in this vein or even off to the side, but this is
something that’s getting further and further. We getting our backs up against the wall
and then we want to come out swinging. And we need to address this at one point and
get something settled one way or the other. We want to make sure that the haulers are
taken care of, but at the same time we want to be fair with the contracts as well, but we
need to discuss some things. We need to talk and we have not done that. I think we been
talking, Mr. Mayor, in different veins, some over here and some over there and some in
another area. But if we going to do it Monday—Mr. Cheek, I won’t be able to make at
11:00 o’clock. I’ll try to get here as soon as I can after that. I just, I would love to be in
on it. I seem some of the haulers are here and I just think we needed to kind of put some
things on the table so everybody will know exactly—I thought that was going to happen
today. I mean really I did. But if it can’t happen today I don’t know what’s a convenient
time but the billing process and where we bill and what the attorney does, Mark, that’s in-
house stuff that we can handle. I think we need to talk to the people that’s here and try to
get something resolved in some way, Mr. Mayor. I second his motion to receive as
information but I would love to at least get some dialogue started to know which
direction we got to go in or what—at least where we at. I mean we may have to—
[unintelligible] move forward but at least get something going.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Chairman, I’m going to have a suggestion, if it’s to add on as an
amendment to this motion. But I want to hear from Commissioners first. Commissioner
Handy and then Chairman Cheek.
Mr. Handy: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d just like to ask if the agenda items,
update from staff, why are we not receiving the update, and why the Chairman put it off
till Monday.
Mr. Cheek: I think the Commissioner received the update. It’s in his hand in the
form of two documents. Do I need to read them for you?
98
Mr. Handy: I’m not going to answer that. Okay. If this is all the information,
what’s the meeting that’s being set up for Monday?
Mr. Cheek: The meeting is to discuss—and this is why I opened—and Mr.
Mayor, if I may?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. And I don’t really think I’m going to follow with that
amendment. I think [unintelligible] there has to be some dialogue about this and it needs
to be done not at a rush [unintelligible] doing but at a particular time to do it so that the
details are covered. That’s no disrespect to staff and what they’ve brought in.
Mr. Cheek: And Mr. Mayor, that’s exactly why—everybody knows that I have
been very diligent in trying to make sure we didn’t get our back up against the wall, but
there are some issues and concerns being expressed to me. In the beginning when we
embarked upon this agreement, it was that we would make a proposal, put together that it
would be beneficial, and we all expressed an interest in the care and well-being of those
local folks who have done such a good job for us in all of our districts. But rather than us
exposing this body to another two or three hour discussion, which this will boil down to,
and that’s why I asked for a side meeting as soon as we could arrange it, within a
reasonable time, to allow that particular dialogue to occur between staff and any of the
com members that want to attend, because there are some real concerns. And while we
have—we’re on track or a little behind on with the ordering of the carts and other things
necessary for us to continue with the contract proceedings without a disruption of service,
things have come to light that I wanted to air before any interested Commission members
and staff about the status of the current contracts before we move forward with them.
And that is why I put it off until Monday.
Mr. Handy: May I follow up?
Mr. Mayor: Sure can. And then I’m going to finish it up.
Mr. Handy: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. But if I had not had asked why you put it off
till Monday I would not have heard that you have a problem with the small haulers and
that’s the reason why. You could have said that at first and then I wouldn’t be here
asking questions.
Mr. Cheek: I apologize, Mr. Handy.
Mr. Handy: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Now that y’all have gotten that part of it out of the way, my
suggestion is going to be—and I know we’ve heard different discussions about what is to
come up and to try and finalize a plan that we’ll have in place for this. What I would
suggest, Mr. Johnson, is that we do—we’re still finishing up this meeting—and that
maybe use the time, whether it’s in the committee room, the Mayor Pro Tem’s office, my
99
office to the right, would be to try and collect some information before we leave this
evening that maybe you do not already have and whether it be from [unintelligible]
contractor, whether it be from small contractors, that that information be compiled so that
there [unintelligible] to the full Commission in terms of where there is agreement, where
there is disagreement. Because I think where there is agreement, that saves a lot of times
in terms of what happens in an overall discussion. Where there is disagreement that’s in
there, then I think that’s what we need to save for that particular meeting. And to try and
be able to give it the proper time to do this. And I think we all have to admit, regardless
of what time we come on board, the fact that this was a hybrid type of situation in the
beginning because there was a government that did not have a sanitation service or
pickup. Everything that was there was done by the different private haulers regardless of
size. And it was in trying to keep people from having to go out of business and I think
we all [unintelligible] in that concept and I know as a small business person I’d hate to
see that happen and I fought very hard to try and make this get done. And I think that it
can still be worked out. I think also putting it off till Monday allows the opportunity for
DBE to be actively involved in it, since we’re talking about small businesses that are
there, and to bring that vein to the table of it, but I think maybe before we leave out of
this room there can be something before you leave this floor that allows some of that to
be expressed to take note of it and to be able to come back on Monday to a point where
we can narrow that down, particularly [unintelligible] and to bring those things back into
the room [unintelligible] come back on Monday is our main point of discussion, because
I think obviously we don’t want to get backs up against the wall. But if there are some
things that are very hard-nosed that we’re not going to be able to get around and to agree,
then we need the time to be able to make a decision on what alternatives we are going to
do. And so that’s what I’d kind of like to see. That doesn’t necessarily, Andy, have to be
an amendment to your motion but I just was trying to give that as a little bit further
direction before they leave here and if we could move on to those other items and then
everybody can go back to respective businesses and then hopefully we can try and get
some of this stuff worked out on Monday. Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In light of that, to I guess I encourage
everybody to pull Mark aside and talk with him at some point during this meeting if you
have a couple of moments, but just to air certain concerns. One, these small haulers have
done an excellent job. They are experiencing the [unintelligible] end of its life
expectancy. They are—there are certain issues with cart fees, equipment purchases and
other things. I, for one, will not support any measure to bring any contractor in to replace
them because of the good job they have done. I think that there is ample opportunity for
there to be a business arrangement where all people profit, although larger corporations
may not see as much profit. I think that was something that was made quite clear at the
initial onset of this partnership. And a relationship I’m looking forward to continuing.
However, I am not one—and the reason I say this is I see particularly Mr. Brown, who
works my district who owns Metropolitan, making sure, on the truck himself, making
sure that the customers, citizens of this city, the needs are met. Enough concern has
come to me from our DBE person, from our solid waste manager, other staff members
and the small haulers, from me, who have pushed this probably harder than anybody else
to make sure we don’t get up against the wall, to say it’s time to step back and have a talk
100
amongst staff and plot Plan A and Plan B if we’re not able to come to some type of
amicable agreement between our small haulers and the prime, and that is why, Mr.
Mayor, I’d love the opportunity to sit down Monday. I would encourage everyone to talk
to our director of solid waste in the interim and the small haulers who live in Augusta,
who keep their profits in Augusta, and address those concerns. Because we voted several
years ago when we had the initial contract that we would like to keep as much of the
proceeds local, because there again, Mr. Mayor, the people that live here have the most
interest in the health and well-being of this city. That is why I have asked—and we’ve
tried to keep the Commission fully abreast of the situation as it pertains to solid waste
throughout the last two years. Again, I’ve been one of the ones that has probably shown
myself a couple of times because we’ve not done things according to what I thought was
right, but the bottom line is I for one am waiving the flag it’s time for us to stop talking
and meet as soon as possible. And I think all of you will be equally concerned if you
hear some of the commentary that’s coming forth from staff and from the community.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair is going to rule we’ve had adequate discussion on the
item. All in favor of the motion—[unintelligible].
Mr. Speaker: I need to add one more thing as an exhibit. I’ll give it to Ms.
Bonner. It’s the redefinition of the areas. I wanted to get three things in. This is number
three.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion will do so by the usual sign. Any
opposed, the same.
Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible] make sure he’s still available. He needs to stay here.
The Clerk: [unintelligible] 36, do that, and go to 37?
Mr. Mayor: We can hold it for him but we need to move ahead.
The Clerk:
37. Request for authorization for additional appropriations for a contract
attorney and contract paralegal for the Land Bank.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Speaker: 37 is an item that the city attorney put on the agenda. Originally I
had asked him if he would pull this—as the chairman of the Land Bank, that’s where I’m
coming from, standing before you right now, we have not had a chance to discuss this
with him. The issues that he brings out in here and the fact that he is asking for a $21,000
reduction in the fund balance from the land bank, that’s okay. We don’t have a problem
101
with that. Approximately $9,500, the way that I understand this, and again that’s one of
the reasons why we wanted to talk with him about this first, $9,500 is going towards
funding, paying approximately 100 title searches. We do need that. That’s not the most
critical thing that the land bank needs to have done right now, but we do need that to
occur. The most critical thing that we need to have done right now is to foreclose, to
being the process of foreclosing through the judicial interim process, foreclosing on
properties. We have prepared between 30 and 40 files for the attorney who the city
attorney has contracted with to begin this process. We have prepared those files and we
have roughly $10,000 set aside for him for the next two month. What we want to be
assured of is that at the end of those two months that we’re in a position where either
those cases have been presented in court or we had a court date for those cases. Then we
can proceed with buying in the properties. We’ve been working with the CHDOs
probably the last two or three land bank meetings. We have properties on that list that the
CHDOs are interested in buying. Once we can buy those properties in, have them in the
land bank, we can then negotiate with the CHDOs and the other private developers—
ANIC, as well—sell those properties and then they can begin the construction of
affordable housing. But we need to have a comfort level that we will at the end of these
two months be in a position where these properties are moving into the land bank. That
was the issue.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible]
Mr. Speaker: And that’s just for discussion. We wanted to get it out because we
had not had a chance to speak with the city attorney about the $21,000. The $10,000
which was originally brought to you to pay for a staff attorney or to contract with an
attorney to do this work, that has been discussed, but it has been increased $11,000. We
just wanted to say that.
Mr. Mayor: Well, let me just say this. As long as we been in waiting, do we need
to keep waiting or is this where y’all have an unclear—I say [unintelligible]?
Mr. Speaker: This is the position where again it’s for your information because
different meetings the comments, rightly so, are brought up that we need to start buying
property, we need to start doing something. [unintelligible] License and Inspection
Department goes, we’ve done all that we can do. We’ve got the cases ready for the
attorney to go through and to move with the process of taking it through the real process.
As far as the land bank goes, we have prepared a list of properties that we want to move.
So we have done, as far as I know, all that we can do. I don’t want to say that we’re
waiting on the city attorney or the attorneys but the ball is in their court and we just want
to make that somewhat clear, that that is where we are.
Mr. Mayor: The Commission has two ways it can go. It can go on and get one
motion on the floor [unintelligible] direct and get it moving or it can make another one to
let y’all work it out and bring it back up. I can’t make one any more. I know the one I’d
make if I could. But I saw your hand up first, Commissioner Williams.
102
Mr. Williams: I just want to ask a question and [unintelligible] land bank and
License and Inspection and all the CHDOs. You know, it was mentioned earlier about
getting enough property for the CHDOs to work with. And these properties being so
scattered, have some consideration been given to how we going effectively move in an
area and do something with?
Mr. Speaker: Yes. At the land bank meetings we have prepared lists of all the
properties that are in various stages of code enforcement process. And we’ve given those
to the CHDOs, the private [unintelligible], we’re working with them, we’re identifying
properties that they’re interested in, the ones that are on the present list. These are
properties that I think that are in there present development phases. We are working in
th
another area that is over off of 15 Street and MLK. We’ve identified properties there.
Doug and HED have identified properties that we are—will be bringing you another list
of demolitions where those will go to the demolition ordinance, then we’ll begin the
process of buying those in. So yes, to answer your question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I just wanted to get that clarified about—seem like y’all got
some stuff and the holdup now or the mix-up or the—with the attorney what we can
legally do, I guess. It got to come out of his office as to what y’all put together is okay,
not okay; is that what we’re waiting on, you say?
Mr. Speaker: Well, where we are, it’s working. But we’re moving an additional
$11,000 which is for a just cause. For the title searches. And another thing that’s
included in here is a raise for the person over in the staff attorney’s office who is doing a
great job with acting as almost a coordinator for the land bank. She’s providing a lot of
essential services for us right now so that’s included in this. Title searches are in this.
That needs to be done. But we need to be sure that we’re getting the push in the right
direction to get these properties to the point of getting them in court so that we can buy
them in.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Jim?
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, part of the issue with this is that we
[unintelligible] title examination [unintelligible]. Some of these files are a little bit older.
We may have to update the titles before we can see litigation in this matters. We’ve
spent probably the last two to three weeks trying to get everything organized to push
forward. Mr. Sherman has set about some assurances that we’ll have these cases filed
before year end. It’s certainly our intent to have those thing filed. We’ve been working
with it. We’ve been having conversations probably between daily or at least every other
day. What we’re trying to do is get funding for approval as we need title exams to be
done, that we can have that done at that time. The contract rate is fairly attractive.
Normally the title exam is $100 to $125 apiece. We’re looking at $95 apiece. There was
a backlog of approximately 100 titles and that’s where that number, from $9,500, came
from. I don’t think there is any dispute or disagreement between the two groups, that is
License and Inspection for the land bank and the law department, which is trying to make
sure there is adequate funding for the contract attorney to move forward. And in my
103
opinion we have spent a good bit of time getting organized and we have that part taken
care of and we should be moving forward with tangible progress in the near future.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mayor, you can have it back now.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
Mr. Mayor, the last thing I want to see is progress come to another
So I’m going to make a motion that we approve and authorize the
galloping halt.
administrator to oversee this process and that we move forward.
There is more than
adequate land for resale once we get it into the land bank to offset these expenditures.
It’s just a matter of getting them into the land bank and we were assured—and this comes
down and I think Steve has heard me before—this comes down to the Lyman-Dover is a
good example. We were assured by the attorney that that would be a priority. We’ve
made zero progress in the last couple of months, after being assured when we went on
part-time status that it would be followed up on. This land bank position is crucial. This
is the pivotal point for redevelopment. All the elements are in place. I just encourage
passage [unintelligible] administrator, in conjunction with the law department, and Rob’s
department, to make this happen as quickly as possible. I guess I need a second on that.
Mr. Smith: Second
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there any other discussion? Commissioner
Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My only comment, and I agree with
Commissioner Cheek, you know, in a case like this where we’re talking about 30 or 40
files that we’re going to try to get within the courtroom, we all have to understand, realize
that the wheels of justice turn slowly. And so what we need to make sure is that our
attorney that we put in, in place, is going to expedite this as quickly as possible. These
things are going to move. There will be some hang-ups within some of them but
certainly we want to see some action taken and some results as far as what we’re trying to
do. And in doing so it will free up this land that we can sell and bring some money back
in to cover these expenses. So I just support the cause and I think it’s something we need
to do. I want to know how long it’s going to take to let’s get this agreement settled with
this attorney that we’re trying to contact with.
Mr. Speaker: If I can respond to that? He is currently helping us now on good
faith.
Mr. Grantham: So really we don’t have any delays as far as moving forward, it’s
just a matter of coming down with a contract that everybody is going to agree on.
Mr. Speaker: That’s correct.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you.
104
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries.
The Clerk: Item 36 [unintelligible].
Mr. Mayor: Let me just say this, Ms. Bonner, before we do, and before we lose a
quorum of this meeting, because I know three of us are going to leave at some point in
the very near future, that’s going to be Commissioner Rearden, Commissioner Handy and
myself. Could we get a summary of where those items are coming from that are on
there? I think one item particularly that we all know, Mr. Russell, will obviously not be
resolved tonight. I think you’ve probably got a—I won’t say a premonition but a very
vivid [unintelligible] it won’t be on there to deal with and you may deal with the motion
to delete and either place it on for the option of dealing with a special called meeting to
deal with it, or to deal with it, you know, as it rolls over. But we need to, if we could,
hear what department and where those items are that are on there and if some of them are
not represented and not ready to be [unintelligible], not ready, then there is no need for us
going through that line of discussion to a point if they’re not ready. It’s y’all’s decision
to make on how to do them and [unintelligible] but that’s just a suggestion.
The Clerk: The remaining items are from our attorney regard request for
additional appropriations.
38. Request for authorization for additional appropriates for attorney’s fees for
Paul Hastings, Janofsky & Walker.
39. Request for authorization for additional appropriations for attorney’s fees
for the office of the County Attorney.
40. Request for authorization for additional appropriates for the Law
Department.
The Clerk: Also, item 55 dealing with the membership of a Commissioner to
the Land Bank Authority.
55. AMENDED RESOLUTION RESTATING THE AUTHORIZATION OF
THE AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY LAND BANK AUTHORITY;
PROVIDING FOR GOVERNANCE OF SUCH AUTHORITY, PROVIDING FOR
THE CREATION OF THE POSITION OF A NON-VOTING MEMBER OF THE
LAND BANK BOARD WHICH SHALL BE SELECTED BY THE AUGUSTA-
RICHMOND COUNTY COMMISSION FROM AMONG ITS MEMBERSHIP;
PROVIDING A TERM FOR SAID MEMBER; PROVIDING FOR RELATED
MATTERS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; TO REPEAL CONFLICTING
RESOLUTIONS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
The Clerk: And item 57 regarding submittal of our budget.
105
57. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 2-3-5 OF THE AUGUSTA-
RICHMOND COUNTY CODE REGARDING THE DATE FOR SUBMITTAL OF
BUDGET TO COMMISSION; TO DELETE SECTION 2-3-5 (b) IN ITS
ENTIRETY; TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE; TO REPEAL
CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
The Clerk: And also, the approval of our budget.
Mr. Cheek: Did we look at 46 already?
The Clerk: No, sir, we haven’t gotten to 46. You’re right.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: If I can, and I have really not had a change to discuss this
with our finance Chairman, but I would like to, in lieu of the fact of what we
approved the other day with the pay raises, I would like to defer item 57, if we
could, the budget, until our next official meeting, Commission meeting, and that we
have further discussion in regards to the budget to see where we can do some
trimming if possible and to come back with a recommendation based on our budget
for next year.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Let me say this, and I think Mr. Russell is going to more fully
address it. But the next Commission meeting happens to be in December, and if it’s not
settled then we are getting into a close date of where we pass that line of demarcation so
we may end up to a point—I think what I might would like to see, if you all would, to
amend it to give the option of dealing with a called meeting to do that. [unintelligible]
we can move ahead with it. Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, I think it would be more appropriate at the end of this
meeting—and correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. Attorney, but that we would recess again and
have a reconvened meeting instead of doing a special called meeting to deal with the
budget. I believe that’s the [unintelligible] we’ve used in the past. We could do that
th
prior to the December 5 meeting. Same accomplishment, just different terminology.
Mr. Mayor: Either one, but when you pick back up on the recess it’s still got to
be a date that’s set [unintelligible] so it’s six or one-half dozen the other but I’ll accept
whatever [unintelligible] you choose, but the point it I don’t think you’re going to get it
out of here tonight.
Mr. Russell: No, sir, I’ve conceded that.
Mr. Mayor: So it can be either way that’s in there at the end of this meeting, we
can do it now to a point that—the only reason I said that about a called one was giving
106
the option to still go back, cause even if we recess it [unintelligible] if we don’t have a
quorum to proceed. But there is right now a motion and a second on the floor that gives
an optional method to do. And unless y’all want to vote to wipe that out, I think we need
to go ahead on and we can carry it, cause I hate to see us not be here at the end of the
meeting and not have the votes [unintelligible] might get recessed automatically. All in
favor of that motion will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask this in reference to the items that are there for the
attorney, the attorney and Mr. Russell, in terms of those particular requests for funding.
Are they outside the realm of what the attorney has or did the raises that were there cover
that--
[End of tape 2; beginning of tape 3]
Mr. Mayor: --put back on if that didn’t come [unintelligible].
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor of
the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams votes Present.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: What does that take us down to now, Madame Clerk?
[unintelligible]
The Clerk: We have item 46 and item 36. And 46.
Mr. Mayor: We’re down to those two.
The Clerk: And we had one item regarding—Commissioner Colclough had
placed on regarding parking trailers next to Ridge Forest Subdivision.
59. Discuss the parking of tractor trailers next to the Ridge Forest Subdivision.
(Requested by Commissioner Richard Colclough)
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, that has been resolved. I’d like to delete.
Mr. Mayor: Entertain a motion to delete.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
107
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. All in favor of the motion will do so by the
usual sign.
Motion carries 8-0.
The Clerk:
36. Approve the acquisition of 1- F-250 pickup truck for $20,606.00 (lowest bid
on bid 05-135) and 1- F-350 pickup truck for $23,674.00 (lowest bid on bid 05-136)
for the Public Services Department – Maintenance Division.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, this item—even today I seen two employees riding
around in a brand new 4 x 4 truck, just riding. I just don’t understand how we keep
buying new equipment, new trucks. Just because we got the money, I guess. But this is
something I don’t understand. We hold an auction each year and sell equipment and
trucks and cars that other cities take and use it. Now, an F-350, I want to know what we
need an F-350 for. Now, y’all—if anybody don’t know what an F-350 is, that’s a dual
wheel truck for towing and for everything. Most of them [unintelligible] diesel. But why
in the world do we need to buy new trucks like this time after time? Ron, I didn’t know
you was here. I thought you was home resting tonight. Why are we spending this?
Mr. Crowden: The two trucks in question that we’re asking to be replace, the
250s, one of the 250s is being used to haul the Bobcat, and that’s a little heavier than a
250 should haul, along with the trailer. It’s worn out.
Mr. Williams: Do we have any other 350 trucks in our fleet?
Mr. Crowden: Public Works does not. In the whole inventory on 350s, we have
only fourteen. Most of those are with our Utilities Department. In Public Works, or in
Public Services they have one. It’s a 2000 model. And they do use it for hauling as well.
So they’re at a disadvantage and they’re using—they really do need the 350 on that
Bobcat.
Mr. Williams: I’m going to disagree with you, Ron. I got an F-250 and I never
thought I’d own a Ford but they are very good towing vehicles. I got an F-250 that
[unintelligible] and I tow a John Deere tractor with a bush hog and I also tow a race car
[unintelligible] with this F-250 and I found out it beats a Chevrolet all day long. I hate to
108
say that but I got to be honest. I got to be truthful. It will pull a house down. An F-205.
You talking about an F-350, you can pull two houses, and I just don’t understand why we
buying this type of equipment to put in our fleet. I can’t support it. You got enough
votes I guess to get it. But we have got to start spending the money smarter. It just don’t
make sense. I guarantee you you can take anybody’s test, you can call Ford, you can talk
to Fairway Ford, any of these people will tell you that F-250 going to pull the same
amount as the F-350. It just ain’t as much truck as far as the price range. But—in fact,
the price ain’t too much different. You got $20,606 for one, then you got $23,679 for the
other. Is that the right price there?
Mr. Crowden: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: So it can’t be much different then. You talking about towing. If
that’s the case, you can—
Mr. Crowden: One’s a 250 and one’s a 350.
Mr. Williams: I understand. But the 350 is only $3,000 more than what the 250
is.
Mr. Crowden: Correct.
Mr. Williams: So I mean if they need something to pull the Bobcat, and the
Bobcat is not a big piece of equipment. If you pulling a front end loader you might have
to do something else. But it’s just money, why not spend it? Just go ahead and blow it.
Just put it all out there. Y’all vote on it. I vote no, Ms. Bonner.
Mr. Mayor: One vote is already in. All in favor of the motion will do so by the
usual sign. All opposed, the same.
Mr. Rearden and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion carries 6-2.
The Clerk: Item 38 and 39, the Attorney concurs that those can be referred
back to Finance.
38. Request for authorization for additional appropriations for attorney's fees
for Paul Hastings, Janofsky & Walker.
39. Request for authorization for additional appropriations for attorney's fees
for the office of the County Attorney.
Mr. Handy: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
109
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Any discussion? If not, all in favor of the
motion will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 8-0.
The Clerk:
46. Discussion of and support for DDA and Main Street to expend $3,500 for
developing a plan to utilize Phase IV sales tax money for streetscapes, sidewalks and
th
gateway at 13 Street (Downtown A and B) and for those funds to be reimbursed to
DDA by the project when the project is let. (Requested by Commissioner Cheek)
Mr. Grantham: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. [unintelligible]
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir. What this is, is DDA will expend the funds but they’re
asking that the project—what we’re able to do, there’s roughly $3.4 million in Downtown
A and B from Phase IV. As everyone knows, spend down on SPLOST accounts is an
issue. We will not have $15 million to redo it [unintelligible] first proposal. What this
will allow us to do is to completely rehab sidewalks, lights and everything four to blocks
both sides of Broad Street in the highest traffic areas and create a gateway with perhaps a
th
fountain at 13 Street which would enhance that entrance in from North Augusta.
They’re asking that after the initial study is done that if we decide to proceed with the
project and spend those funds down, that the $3,500 be reimbursed out of the Downtown
A and B account to DDA to be utilized on other projects, which is legal within one cent
sales tax expenditures. So that’s all they’re asking and thank you for the motion and I
urge passage.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 7-1.
The Clerk: Item 55 and 57, recommendation from the Attorney to be
th
deferred to the December 5 meeting.
55. AMENDED RESOLUTION RESTATING THE AUTHORIZATION OF
THE AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY LAND BANK AUTHORITY;
PROVIDING FOR GOVERNANCE OF SUCH AUTHORITY, PROVIDING FOR
THE CREATION OF THE POSITION OF A NON-VOTING MEMBER OF THE
LAND BANK BOARD WHICH SHALL BE SELECTED BY THE AUGUSTA-
RICHMOND COUNTY COMMISSION FROM AMONG ITS MEMBERSHIP;
PROVIDING A TERM FOR SAID MEMBER; PROVIDING FOR RELATED
110
MATTERS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; TO REPEAL CONFLICTING
RESOLUTIONS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
57. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 2-3-5 OF THE AUGUSTA-
RICHMOND COUNTY CODE REGARDING THE DATE FOR SUBMITTAL OF
BUDGET TO COMMISSION; TO DELETE SECTION 2-3-5 (b) IN ITS
ENTIRETY; TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE; TO REPEAL
CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Mr. Handy: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Cheek: 55?
The Clerk: 55 and 57.
Mr. Mayor: Is that a motion and second?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, 55 is simply delivering on what was expressed by the
Commission in that the land bank was somewhat autonomous from the Commission and
this puts a member of this Commission on as a non-voting member to act as a
representative of the Commission on the land bank, and I’d urge reconsideration of 55
and that we go ahead and move forward with this, and this will put some eyes and ears
from the Commission on there. It’s exactly what we asked for and further delaying it
when we could get it out of the way is not necessary.
55. AMENDED RESOLUTION RESTATING THE AUTHORIZATION OF
THE AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY LAND BANK AUTHORITY;
PROVIDING FOR GOVERNANCE OF SUCH AUTHORITY, PROVIDING FOR
THE CREATION OF THE POSITION OF A NON-VOTING MEMBER OF THE
LAND BANK BOARD WHICH SHALL BE SELECTED BY THE AUGUSTA-
RICHMOND COUNTY COMMISSION FROM AMONG ITS MEMBERSHIP;
PROVIDING A TERM FOR SAID MEMBER; PROVIDING FOR RELATED
MATTERS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; TO REPEAL CONFLICTING
RESOLUTIONS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Mr. Mayor: Want to make a substitute motion?
Mr. Cheek: Substitute motion to pass 55 and—
The Clerk: To defer 57—
111
Mr. Cheek: --and defer 57 to the appropriate next meeting.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second on the substitute. All in favor of the substitute,
which is to be voted on first, will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed the same.
Motion carries 8-0.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, we have a request from Mr. Grantham to add and approve
thth
the re-scheduling of our December 20 meeting to December 19.
60. Motion to add and approve rescheduling the December 20, 2005 Commission
meeting to December 19, 2005.
Mr. Handy: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I can speak to it, if you’d like.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second.
Mr. Grantham: Or if we’re going to vote on it.
Mr. Mayor: You can if you like, but I don’t think you’re going to have a problem
with that one.
Mr. Grantham: Good.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: That wraps up the regular?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: What I need to know from Mr. Russell, just for the record, at this
point before making a suggestion, with all that we’ve been through and talked about in
reference to HED, and I don’t think any of us are really happy campers in terms of where
this is going per se. But where are we on drop dead dates and time as far as being in a
danger zone of whatever it is that we’re going to vote on? And I think that needs to be
said to be said in open record of this Commission right now.
112
Mr. Russell: It’s my understanding, sir, that we are as close to being in a danger
zone and we need to pass something tonight.
Mr. Mayor: That’s where we are, we’ve got a couple of choices. We can do a
reconsideration on what’s been done, we can allow some time for this to go into, the next
meeting—which may be a special called one to deal with the budget, but we are tinkering
with something of where we vote on what we may not fully like or we run the risk of the
unknown and that could be also very, very dangerous. And I don’t necessarily like to be
jammed in those kind of quarters but that’s where we are. That will be the decision of
this Commission to move it some way.
Mr. Cheek: Motion to reconsider.
Mr. Colclough: I second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to reconsider. Motion and a second. All in favor of the
motion to reconsider will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 8-0.
16. Reconsider use of funds as approved by the Administrative Services
Committee on October 24, 2005 and ratified by the Augusta Commission November
1, 2005.
Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve staff’s recommendation on the issue.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Colclough: Wait a minute now. We’re moving too fast.
Mr. Mayor: That’s the proper way to move. Vote for or against, either way. We
need to either move or not move, but it’s the democratic process. There is a motion and a
second to approve. Is there any discussion on that?
Mr. Williams: I’d like to make a substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: Sure.
Mr. Williams: Motion to approve that we approve the initial list we had before
the list was changed, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Handy: And I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second.
113
Mr. Williams: We may not like it, like you say, but that was first, that was right
[unintelligible] process and I don’t think we ought to go into changing and then go back
and vote for what we changed. If we going to vote for anything, the right thing to do is
vote for what was there.
Mr. Mayor: We can have that during the discussion period if you allow me to get
on the floor, sir. That’s why it’s being reconsidered, where you can have that democratic
option. You’ve got a substitute motion in terms of approving the original list. Is there
any discussion on the substitute motion, which will be voted on first? Commissioner
Rearden and then Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Rearden: Just one question. If we vote on the original list that we were
th
presented on October 24, I believe there are projects listed there that don’t qualify for
this type of funding or will exceed the limit, then we could have where we could have to
return monies to HUD for overspending that limit, and we cannot put ourselves in that
position, either. So I must vote no on the substitute.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, the right thing we need to do, and I’m holing my nose the
whole time, [unintelligible] during this process is to protect those city resources and not
lose those funds. If there is adequate concern from staff, albeit vary from day to day, we
still need to do all we can as a body to protect those funds and put forth programs that
qualify under HUD criteria where they’re changed from [unintelligible] to today. We
need to protect those funds. I can’t in good conscience see us doing something that
would put us in a position where we would jeopardize those monies. It’s going to hurt us
now and it’s going to hurt us later if we don’t pass this on the recommendation of staff.
Again, I’m holding my nose but I’m going to support it.
Mr. Mayor: Coming on up the line. Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I agree with what my colleagues have said but at the
same time those projects that was proposed, some of those did not meet it but there was
other projects that was proposed as well that did meet it. And folks feeding you
information is like the computer now, it’s only as good as the person that fed it. So the
stuff [unintelligible] necessarily the stuff that wasn’t going to match. Now, we make
stuff fit what we want it to fit at, now. I’m not going to sit here, I ain’t going to play no
games. I’m going to be straight with you like I always have been. We had an original
list that did meet the criteria and the deadline. We went back—not we, somebody went
back and had a discussion and changed it. Come back with a different list. Then they
gave it to us and wanted us to support it. No, sir. I don’t care where we go with this, but
I’m not going to support the original motion. I’m going to support the substitute motion.
But that was the right thing, that was the right list. And ain’t no sense in playing around
with—that’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I got you. Commissioner Handy?
114
Mr. Handy: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And believe it or not, Commissioner
Williams and I are agreeing today.
Mr. Williams: Write it down.
Mr. Handy: But I asked the question about the list being changed. It was already
changed before it came back to us. That’s no problem with that. I also heard today in
Paul DeCamp’s statement he made that all of the information that was presented by Care
Management had not been to Atlanta so they don’t know what’s in that package. He said
that on this floor today, that everything has not been submitted to Atlanta. Now, if
everything has not been presented to Atlanta how do we know whether or not it’s going
to pass? And then we get in this close jam where we have to make a decision, which is
wrong. We could make a wrong decision. If we would have known about Care
Management not eligible, there was others who wanted that money to put projects
together. We took them off the list because Care Management was up there and that’s
where we wanted to go with that first. So why didn’t we go back to the other people
rather than not add somebody else that we’ve never talked about? That’s all I have to
say.
Mr. Mayor: Any other Commissioners? Further discussion on substitute? All in
favor of the substitute will do so by the usual sign.
The Clerk: The substitute motion was to approve the original list, and the original
motion was receive, approve staff’s recommendation.
Vote on substitute motion:
Ms. Beard, Mr. Rearden, Mr. Smith, Mr. Grantham and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion fails 2-5-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us now to the original motion.
Vote on original motion:
Mr. Williams votes No.
Mr. Handy abstains.
Motion caries 6-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: I think it’s a very serious indication that probably in the last few
months that’s the first one that we’ve voted on and a lot of money, it boiled down to six
votes making a decision. There’s a bigger issue that’s involved in that, is that on serious
issues that we have fully discussed, that we’ve got adequate information, properly on
time, in place, regardless of what’s been there. We’ve been able to deal with a minimum
of eight votes off this Commission and 95% of the ten. Something is going to have to
give over in that category to a point, and it needs to start next week in terms of direction
[unintelligible] to a point regardless of what the feds say, we need to be in a position to
115
be able to move, whether it’s alternatively, alternative programs, whatever they are, so
that they’re in place without question. Because if they’re there sitting that long and
they’ve got questions, then it shouldn’t be there anyway. And that’s my only comment
on that. I think that takes us to an area that we shouldn’t be in. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: A point of clarification, Mr. Mayor. And I agree with what you
just said. I’m going to suggest, and if I need to put it on the committee, however, I think
we ought to have a subcommittee put together to look at that department, to see about
some things over in there. We [unintelligible] full audit. I mean I’m talking about a
complete audit about what money was and what it should be and what it wasn’t being in
that department. Never heard this before. Not one time. And I told Mr. DeCamp, this
ain’t just on his watch, because since I been here we’ve had the same dialog at the end of
the year about who wasn’t doing what, what money is there. Now, if Commissioners or
staff or somebody got a pertinent agenda, then they don’t need to bring it here. It ought
to be done in the proper and the right way. So I think we need a subcommittee to be
formed to look at the direction and the process for that department. Cause it’s too much
money for it to get here at the last minute and then jam it like we just don’t have to
wonder. And we voted. I didn’t like the vote but it passed. That’s fine. That ain’t the
first time we done that. But I think it ought to be time out for special interest
[unintelligible] doing things with big money like that in this government that we been
doing over the past years. If I need to put it in another way, I’ll do it. But I think there
got to be something done to get a head or get a tail or something on this thing we can start
it to working like it’s supposed to work.
Mr. Mayor: I couldn’t agree with you more and [unintelligible] committee and
allow it to move before the full Commission, can make a decision on it, cause we’re
down to seven folk at this point and I think we’re going to beat that one to death to a
point tonight with it. The Chair will entertain we adjourn.
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Non-debatable.
The Clerk: [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: No, we took care of the budget item when we voted for that one
[unintelligible] option to go to a called meeting or the other day. We voted on that in
between that.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena Bonner
Clerk of Commission
116
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 15 and continued on November 17, 2005.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
117