HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 20, 2005 Augusta-Richmond County Com
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
September 20, 2005
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:22 p.m., Tuesday,
September 20, 2005, the Honorable Willie Mays, III, presiding.
Present: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Grantham, Colclough, Handy, Williams,
Beard, Cheek, Sims, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
The invocation was given by the Rev. J. C. Trowell.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
The Clerk: Reverend Trowell, on behalf of the Mayor and the members of the
Augusta Commission, we’d like to extend our thanks for your being with us today and
petitioning heaven on our behalf. In honor of that, you are the Chaplain of the Day
[unintelligible].
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Mayor: Like a jet pilot, ladies and gentlemen, we’re going to try to make up
that time in the air. We want to make sure, Ms. Bonner, after we get through, if we
could, to—we’re going to hold—let Mr. [unintelligible] catch his breath a little bit before
his presentation. Go through those first two and then if we can get our consent agenda set
and we’ll deal with—we’ve got some people here for zoning and some other places so
we’re going to try and get our guests that are here today out of the way first on their
things and then we’ll move back into the regular business.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
Commissioner Tommy Boyles
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, it’s been a long time since
I’ve addressed the Commission since this side of the podium. So I just came today for
two reasons, and you see I’m traveling in some pretty good company today. She was
here with me that day in 2002 when we took office and it snowed outside, and I don’t
think it’s snowed since. But we had to go home in the snow and ice that day. Some of
you remember that in January of 2002. But I’m here for two reasons. One is to present a
th
letter of resignation from the 7 Commission District seat and to also say thank you to
some people who work very closely with me and we all work together. I would like to
thank of course each of the members of the Commission. I’d like to thank those that
served right before you changed here, when Bill Kuhlke and Ulmer Bridges, when they
were here, and of course a man who taught me a lot about working with diverse
populations, the late Lee Beard, a person I really thought the world of and still miss. And
all the members who came, Ms. Sims who came, Ms. Beard who came, Mr. Grantham
1
who came, Mr. Smith who came after me, and of course Ms. Hankerson, Rev.
Hankerson, we all came on, we came at the same time, and then later Freddie Handy
joined the Commission. And when you think back with a population of 203,000 people
and there are only ten seats up there, well eleven counting the Mayor, but ten seats, that’s
a pretty high honor. It’s a big honor to have served the people with only ten out of
203,000. And there should be respect among and for the Commission. But to name a
few folks, and I’m not going to exceed my time limit, Mr. Mayor: Ms. Lena Bonner, our
Clerk, who I say publicly and privately over and over to everybody, she’s the finest Clerk
in any government and I know in the state of Georgia. And probably nationwide.
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Boyles: Her assistants, Nancy and Betty, who kept calling us to let us know
we had meetings scheduled. Of course our Administrator, who we kind of maybe worked
with the rules a little bit to get him in place, and what a tremendous job Fred Russell,
you’ve done for us. Sarah and Alexandria and I think the voice of city government,
Martha King, because she only gets complaints. She doesn’t get many compliments. But
Steve Shepard, and of course our 2,700 employees who are out there working every day
and doing a great job for this city. In the media end of it, Sylvia Cooper, who we always
were able to talk and work together. Jessica [unintelligible] from the Focus, Stacey
Eidson from the Metropolitan Spirit. My good friend George Eskola, and I don’t see him
here but we kind of decided that we were kind of historians because we’ve been around
so long coming down. Of course the late, great Greg Patton. Of course my friends at
Channel 26, Channel 12, and of course you never see behind the camera, Axel back here
from Comcast. If he didn’t do his job you wouldn’t have anything to laugh at on
Saturday. And the committees that I worked on. Project Access—Mr. Mays, you’re
going to have to find a replacement for. And how much money did that Project Access
save this city over the last four years? The Convention and Visitors Bureau, the
Construction Advisory Board, the Savannah River Research and Development
Initiative—we’re going to have to have replacements for that. And of course all the
members of the Finance Committee, who as Finance Chairman I was able to chair that
and we were able to in the high points of my four years here, that we were able to get
control of our finances this past year by a 6.9% cut in the budget. And that’s going to
give us financial stability from now on. There were so low points but we’re not going to
talk about those. As you know, there are changes that we need to make in this
government and this Commission can do that and I urge you to do that. There are some
things that you can change without the Legislative Delegation being involved. We need
to address education and work with that board. We need to talk about economic
development and jobs should be a priority to keep our children. My child left this city
because the job was not here when she graduated from Georgia. We’ve got to preserve
and improve our neighborhoods and make them safe again. But now I’d just simply like
to give this resignation letter to Ms. Bonner and ask that—I think a copy has to be
forwarded to Governor Perdue. If you would forward that for me because you have his
address and I don’t. And this email device, I’d like to just make sure I turn in. It was a
lifesaver. And I think right here is my county gasoline card that I never used. So you
have it all back. Very sincerely, I’ve enjoyed working with each and every department
2
th
head, every member, and I know there are some people here from the 7 District that
have some neighborhood issues and I hope that you’ll support the neighborhoods, as
you’ve always done, as you listen to their calls. So thank you very much and I hope to be
seeing you somewhere soon around the city. Thank you very much.
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner, will you ask your better 2/3 to come back to the
podium for just a moment?
Mr. Boyles: Maybe 3/4.
Mr. Mayor: I was being nice to you. One of the things that—you will get your
formal plaque from the city that we do with Commissioners, and I said jokingly a few
minutes ago, I said [unintelligible] may have to get me one ready in five or six weeks.
But one of the things that we’ve talked about is that terms for elected officials have dates
of beginning, dates of expiration. Friendships go on for life. And when people compete,
and it should be just like it is in school when you’re with student government that when
people compete, they’re able to shake hands about it, they’re able to be friends, and the
last thing that we want to do, and knowing the friendship particularly that I share with
both you and Kathy, that gets back about thirty years, that we won’t let a little thing like a
job stand in the way of friendship. I wanted you to have something from the Office of
the Mayor and just an appreciation for what you’ve done for this city over the years, not
only as Commissioner representing District 7, but [unintelligible] the longest-serving
chairperson that you had in your department, there in Recreation, and we never had a
harsh word with each other. [unintelligible] I look forward to the continued friendship
and we’ll be on that campaign trail [unintelligible] positive about it for this city, both of
us want what’s best for this community. I thank you and I value that friendship and we’ll
always have it.
Mr. Boyles: [unintelligible]
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if we could get the Employee of the Month and then
we’ll get ready—Commissioners, if you could think of some things you may pull from
regular, to add or to take off, to get those numbers ready, and then we’re going to move
on into zoning after this is done on this award.
The Clerk:
AUGUST EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD:
Mr. Donnie W. Chavous, Jr.
Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field
3
The Clerk: Would you please come forward, Mr. Boshears, along with other
supervisory personnel, family members? Please join the Mayor here. [reading] Dear
Mayor Mays, the Employee Recognition Committee has selected Donnie W. Chavous,
Jr., as the August 2005 Employee of the Month for the City of Augusta. Mr. Chavous
has been an employee with the City of Augusta for four years as an aircraft service
specialist working at Bush Field. Mr. Chavous was nominated by fellow co-worker Mr.
Kevin Woolsley. Mr. Woolsey nominated Bo Chavous for an in-flight emergency
incident that occurred on July 3, 2005. A twin-engine Piper Apache aircraft experienced
an in-flight emergency and upon landing the nose gear collapsed. The damaged aircraft
was blocking the runway for a second inbound aircraft that needed this runway to land or
be diverted. Mr. Chavous pulled the tail of the aircraft down, allowing another employee
to manually release the nose gear and the removed the aircraft by using an
[unintelligible]. Because of this quick thinking, teamwork, and knowledge of airport
equipment, the damaged aircraft was cleared of the runway within twenty minutes. The
Committee felt that based upon Mr. Woolsey’s recommendation and Mr. Chavous’
dedicated and loyal service to the City of Augusta he should be awarded Employee of the
Month. We would appreciate you joining us in awarding Mr. Donnie “Bo” Chavous, Jr.
Employee of the Month for the Month of August. Thank you. [ends reading]
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Mayor: I’m glad you [unintelligible] real, real old in [unintelligible]. Thank
you so much.
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Boshears: I just want to say we’re proud of all of our employees at the
airport. Mr. Chavous [unintelligible] we appreciate [unintelligible] recognizing him.
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Mayor: I remember when he had one strand of hair.
[Laughter]
The Clerk: Our consent agenda—call our attention to our consent agenda,
which consists of items 1 through 35A. Items 1 through 35A.
For the benefit of any
objectors to our planning petitions, once the petitions are read, if there are any objectors
would you please signify your objections by raising your hand?
PLANNING:
3. Z-05-84 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve for a reduced area as shown on plat submitted
with petition with the following conditions 1) the mining operation shall be limited
to a term of not more than 5 years, 2) only the petitioner, family members or
employees of the family may haul from the site, no outside companies may haul
4
from the site; a petition by W. Guy Quinn, on behalf of Wyman B. Simmons,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to Zone A
(Agriculture) with a Special Exception to reactivate and expand an existing
dirt/sand mine per Section 7-2 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 4060 Duncan Drive and
containing approximately 105 acres. (Tax Map 181 Parcel 4) DISTRICT 8
4. Z-05-86 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Tee Tollison, on behalf of Richmond
Development Partners, requesting a Special Exception to establish a sales trailer in
The Enclaves at Raes Creek subdivision per Section 8-2(e) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at
1021 Amli Way and contains approximately 53 acres. (Tax Map 40 Parcels 44, 45,
46.1, 46.2 & 46.3) DISTRICT 3
5. Z-05-87 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by William Knight requesting a Special
Exception to establish a private school per Section 26-1 (b) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at
2143 Bungalow Road and contains .30 acres. (Tax Map 86-3 Parcel 108) DISTRICT
2
6. Z-05-88 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Mandi-Marie Endicott, on behalf of
Nello A. Thomas, III, requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Day Care
Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County affecting property located at 1843 Engle Road and contains .27
acres. (Tax Map 170 Parcel 4.03) DISTRICT 8
7. Z-05-89 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Fred M. Kennedy, on behalf of
Lester L. Laughinghouse, requesting a change of zoning from Zone HI (Heavy
Industry) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property that is part of 4041
Mike Padgett Highway and contains 1.5 acres. (Part of Tax Map 199 Parcel 1)
DISTRICT 8
8. Z-05-90 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) the only use of the
property shall be a vehicle care and accessory additions or any uses allowed in an
Agriculture Zone, 2) the building constructed for this business shall not be visible
from Belair Road, 3) the hours of operations shall be limited to 9:00 A.M. thru 5:00
P.M., Monday thru Friday only, and 4) the zoning shall revert to Agriculture Zone
if this business should cease to operate; a petition by Richard B. Lord requesting a
change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business)
affecting property located at 4004 Belair Road and contains 1.93 acres. (Tax Map 38
Parcel 35) DISTRICT 3
9. Z-05-92 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Bill Hock, on behalf of I-520
Warehouse Properties LLC, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone HI (Heavy Industry) affecting property located 517 feet, more
or less, southeast of Forward Augusta Drive and also being 980 feet, more or less,
5
south of Tobacco Road and contains approximately 2.06 acres. (Tax Map 157-3 Part
of Parcel 1) DISTRICT 6
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions? Mr. Mayor, the
Planning Commission has asked that item 10 on the consent agenda be transferred to our
regular agenda.
CHANGE IN THE AGENDA:
Move Item 10 from the consent agenda to the regular agenda as a companion item
to Item 38 and waive the second reading. (Requested by Planning & Zoning
Commission)
The Clerk: It’s the companion item to item 38.
Mr. Mayor: So noted.
The Clerk: Under our Public Services portion of the agenda, for the alcohol
petitions; if there are any objectors would you please signify your objections by raising
your hands?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
11. Motion to approve a request by Yong Hong for a Sunday Sales license to be
used in connection with Pro Billiards located at 2609 Peach Orchard Road. District
2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 12, 2005)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to that alcohol petition?
16. Motion to approve a request by Nikolaos Chionakis for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Zorba’s Pizza &
Grill, Inc. located at 1719 Gordon Hwy. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee September 12, 2005)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to that alcohol petition? There are no
objectors, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: That concludes all those you’ve got on there?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Since there were no hands raised, just in terms of checking
the audience, usually when we’ve got a lot of people it’s usually zoning or alcohol, one of
the two. So do we have any objectors that have come for particular zoning or alcohol?
Once again? Okay, none so noted.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
6
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: In talking to Mr. Russell and Rob Sherman, 40 and 41, we need to
send it back to committee. I think that’s what they wanted to do. Companion item that
goes with that they need to do. Mr. Russell may want to add to it, but I think 40 and 41
need to be sent back.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. What we can do, if you’ll for just a moment. We’re going to
go through consent first. That’s on regular. Let’s get through consent, and moving up or
down. And the Chair will entertain a motion on the consent agenda.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second to approve the items listed under consent. Do
any Commissioners wish to pull any that are there on those items, 1 through 35A?
Ms. Sims: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am?
Ms. Sims: Number 25, please.
Mr. Mayor: 25?
Ms. Sims: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anyone else need to pull anything that’s on consent?
Were you saying something, Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Sherman has some certificates that were required
to be produced in reference to the items, the massage licenses, and he’s prepared to
present them, to make them part of the record at this time.
Mr. Mayor: He can present them, but I’m just saying if we’ve got no objectors
and nobody is pulling I’m going to let the train roll. If anybody is not pulling. I’ve
signaled that twice now. If y’all are going to pull, pull. If not, we’re going to roll.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
7
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, you’ve got the floor.
Mr. Hankerson: Those items that we’re request to show licenses; what are those
item numbers?
The Clerk: Item 12, 13, 14. 12, 13, and 14.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Are those the ones you have, Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman: Yes. We do have the certificates.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Hankerson: Don’t pull.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Everything you need that’s in question on the licenses can be
handled at this table. You’ve got those ready?
Mr. Hankerson: I saw them before the meeting.
Mr. Mayor: All right. That takes care of those on pulling those there. Did you
have your hand up? Okay.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PLANNING:
1. FINAL PLAT – HUNTERS RIDGE SUBDIVISION – S-724 – A petition by
Southern Partners Inc., on behalf of Frontier Developers of Augusta, requesting
final plat approval for Hunters Ridge. This residential subdivision is located on
McDade Farm Road across from Bridle Path Drive and contains 12 lots.
2. FINAL PLAT – CAMBRIDGE, SECTION 12, PHASE I – S-716-I
– A petition by Southern Partners Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Co. Inc., requesting
final plat approval for Cambridge, Section 12, Phase I. This residential subdivision
is located on Essex Place adjacent to Cambridge, Section 9 and contains 13 lots.
3. Z-05-84 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve for a reduced area as shown on plat submitted
with petition with the following conditions 1) the mining operation shall be limited
to a term of not more than 5 years, 2) only the petitioner, family members or
employees of the family may haul from the site, no outside companies may haul
from the site; a petition by W. Guy Quinn, on behalf of Wyman B. Simmons,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to Zone A
(Agriculture) with a Special Exception to reactivate and expand an existing
dirt/sand mine per Section 7-2 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
8
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 4060 Duncan Drive and
containing approximately 105 acres. (Tax Map 181 Parcel 4) DISTRICT 8
4. Z-05-86 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Tee Tollison, on behalf of Richmond
Development Partners, requesting a Special Exception to establish a sales trailer in
The Enclaves at Raes Creek subdivision per Section 8-2(e) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at
1021 Amli Way and contains approximately 53 acres. (Tax Map 40 Parcels 44, 45,
46.1, 46.2 & 46.3) DISTRICT 3
5. Z-05-87 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by William Knight requesting a Special
Exception to establish a private school per Section 26-1 (b) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at
2143 Bungalow Road and contains .30 acres. (Tax Map 86-3 Parcel 108) DISTRICT
2
6. Z-05-88 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Mandi-Marie Endicott, on behalf of
Nello A. Thomas, III, requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Day Care
Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County affecting property located at 1843 Engle Road and contains .27
acres. (Tax Map 170 Parcel 4.03) DISTRICT 8
7. Z-05-89 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Fred M. Kennedy, on behalf of
Lester L Laughinghouse, requesting a change of zoning from Zone HI (Heavy
Industry) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property that is part of 4041
Mike Padgett Highway and contains 1.5 acres. (Part of Tax Map 199 Parcel 1)
DISTRICT 8
8. Z-05-90 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) the only use of the
property shall be a vehicle care and accessory additions or any uses allowed in an
Agriculture Zone, 2) the building constructed for this business shall not be visible
from Belair Road, 3) the hours of operations shall be limited to 9:00 A.M. thru 5:00
P.M., Monday thru Friday only, and 4) the zoning shall revert to Agriculture Zone
if this business should cease to operate; a petition by Richard B. Lord requesting a
change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business)
affecting property located at 4004 Belair Road and contains 1.93 acres. (Tax Map 38
Parcel 35) DISTRICT 3
9. Z-05-92 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Bill Hock, on behalf of I-520
Warehouse Properties LLC, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone HI (Heavy Industry) affecting property located 517 feet, more
or less, southeast of Forward Augusta Drive and also being 980 feet, more or less,
south of Tobacco Road and contains approximately 2.06 acres. (Tax Map 157-3 Part
of Parcel 1) DISTRICT 6
10. Moved to regular agenda.
9
PUBLIC SERVICES:
11. Motion to approve a request by Yong Hong for a Sunday Sales license to be
used in connection with Pro Billiards located at 2609 Peach Orchard Road. District
2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 12, 2005)
12. Motion to approve a request subject to the presentation of professional
certificate by Martha A. Clements for a Therapeutic Massage License to be used in
connection with Hand Over Stress located at 104 Warren Road. District 7. Super
District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 12, 2005)
13. Motion to approve a request subject to the presentation of professional
certificate by Jennifer L. Croom for a Therapeutic Massage License to be used in
connection with Hand Over Stress located at 104 Warren Road. District 7. Super
District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 12, 2005)
14. Motion to approve a request subject to the presentation of professional
certificate by Charlene L. Baker for a Therapeutic Massage License to be used in
connection with Hand Over Stress located at 104 Warren Road. District 7. Super
District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 12, 2005)
15. Motion to approve a request by Jennifer N. Stewart for a Therapeutic
Massage License to be used in connection with Hand Over Stress located at 104
Warren Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee September 12, 2005)
16. Motion to approve a request by Nikolaos Chionakis for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Zorba’s Pizza & Grill, Inc. located at 1719 Gordon Hwy. District 5. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee September 12, 2005)
17. Motion to approve change order to the Runway 8-26 Rehabilitation Project.
(Approved by Public Services Committee September 12,2005)
18. Motion to approve a request by John Regan III for a Therapeutic Massage
License to be used in connection with D J and Co. located at 139 Davis Road.
District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee September
12, 2005)
ADMINISTRATRIVE SERVICES:
19. Motion to authorize the Utilities Department to hire a Safety & Training
Coordinator at a salary of $28,868.45 to be funded from the Utilities Department
Administration Budget. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
September 12, 2005)
20. Motion to approve the reporting relationship of the Finance Director in the
Housing & Economic Development Department to the ARC Finance Department as
recommended by the Internal Audit report dated. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee September 12, 2005
FINANCE:
21. Motion to approve refunds on 11 accounts from the Board of Tax Assessors.
(Approved by Finance Committee September 12, 2005)
22. Motion to approve a budget amendment for the Edward J. Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant Program to reflect increased revenue in the amount of $144,230
10
which will be utilized to continue funding the Mobile Data Terminal (MDT)
program. (Approved by Finance Committee September 12, 2005)
23. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Sewer Camera Truck for the
Utilities Department – Construction Division from Cues, Inc. of Orlando, Florida
for $104,850.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 05-113). (Approved by Finance Committee
September 12, 2005)
24. Motion to approve the acquisition of Three (3) Agricultural Tractors for the
Public Services Department – Maintenance Division from Jenkins Tractor
Company of Augusta, Georgia for $26,845.00 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 05-
074A). (Approved by Finance Committee September 12, 2005)
25. Deleted from the consent agenda.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
26. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Property #073-2-018-00-0
MP YAB1.90/DOT #279451C (New Savannah Road), McCormick Subdivision,
Florence Division in Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia, which is owned by CSX
Transportation, Inc. for 1,087 sq. feet for a permanent easement and 789 sq. ft. of
temporary easement. AUD Project: Main Interceptor Upgrade. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committees September 12, 2005)
27. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Property #145-4- 026-00-0
Mike Padgett Hwy., which is owned by the Estate of Lillie Greiner for 8,181 sq. feet
for a permanent easement and 5,455 sq. ft. of temporary easement. AUD Project:
Hwy. 56 24” Water Main. (Approved by Engineering Services Committees
September 12, 2005)
28. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Property #145-0-017-04-0
1825 Dixon Airline Road, which is owned by the M. D. Keilholtz, Jr. for 5,684 sq.
feet for a permanent easement and 2,540 sq. ft. of temporary easement. AUD
Project: Hwy. 56 24” Water Main. (Approved by Engineering Services Committees
September 12, 2005)
29. Motion to authorize the Utilities Department to hire a Safety & Training
Coordinator at a salary of $28,868.45 to be funded from the Utilities Department
Administration Budget. (Approved by Engineering Services Committees September
12, 2005)
30. Motion to approve an extension of the lease agreement between Augusta and
MAU for space within the Hatcher Building located at 501 Greene Street for a
period of 36 months. Rates for the various departments included are as listed on
“Attachment A”. Lease terms are as outlined in “Attachment 2” and are the same as
the current lease. (Approved by Engineering Services Committees September 12,
2005)
31. Motion to approve Capital Budget Change Number Five (CPB# 323-04-
296823309) for the Wrightsboro Road Project transferring $47,125 from project
right of way to project engineering as requested by the Engineering Department.
Also, approve Supplemental Agreement Number Four (4) with Post, Buckley, Schuh
& Jernigan, Inc. (PBS & J) in the amount of $47,125 to provide additional
engineering services for the Wrightsboro Road Project. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committees September 12, 2005)
11
32. Motion to approve an application for a TE Grant in the amount of $42,000
from the Georgia Department of Transportation for beautification at several
gateway locations. (Approved by Engineering Services Committees September 12,
2005)
33. Motion to approve Change Order #1 for Eagle Utilities in the amount of
$32,480.00 on the Horsepen Trunk Sewer Project, AUD #50175. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committees September 12,
2005)
34. Motion to approve the recommendations of staff’s recommendation to
continue the twice a week service at a cost of $276.00 (items 1-9) for the award of
bids for the solid waste collections contract. (Approved by Administrative Services
and Engineering Services Committees September 12, 2005)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
35. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held September 6, 2005 and Special Called Meeting held August 29, 2005.
ATTORNEY:
35A. Motion to approve Letter of Intent relative to the Village Plaza
Redevelopment Project.
Mr. Mayor: There is a motion and a second that’s on the floor to approve the
consent agenda, with item number 25 being pulled. All in favor of the motion will do so
by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, let it be known I vote no on Sunday sales.
Mr. Colclough votes No.
Motion carries 8-1. [Item 11]
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-9, 12-24, 26-35A]
Mr. Mayor: We’ll handle the one that’s been pulled. Madame Clerk, 25. And
then we’ll go over immediately to the zoning one that’s there in District 7.
The Clerk:
25. Motion to approve a request from the Lucy Craft Laney Museum of Black
History for funding in the amount of $50,000 for the maintenance of the museum
and its programs during the 2005-2006 fiscal year, subject to the availability of
reprogrammable funds from CDBG recapture funds from the Transitional Center.
(Approved by Finance Committee September 12, 2005)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Sims?
12
Ms. Sims: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I am in no way opposed to the funds
being given to the Lucy Craft Laney Museum as Ms. Betts is probably one of the finest
ladies I’ve ever met and I would certainly not want to deprive her of funds. However, I
just need clarification. Because this is a private entity and we in the past recall sometime
last year that the Science Center made a plea to us because they were out of funds and
were going to have to close, and indeed let some of their employees go. So when they
asked, rather begged, I remember that we said no and the reason that we said no was
because they were not a part of our government, that they were private. So I’m just
wondering now. Are we deciding from henceforth to give funding to private entities? I
know that the Augusta Museum of History came to us, which is one of our buildings,
saying that they had a problem with our air conditioning and some of the artifacts were in
jeopardy. And I don’t see this anywhere on the agenda. So I was concerned that we are
not taking care of our own buildings. And while I want to help everybody, I think that
we have an obligation. We’re elected to take care of the City’s business, which the
Augusta Museum of History is one of them. So I just have a question.
Mr. Mayor: Let me try to answer part of it and I’ll let the Administrator deal with
any further technicalities that you might have in there. Let me say this. In terms of
CDBG monies, there are different non-profits and so-called private groups that
historically we have always given to. That’s a matter of record and it’s been done. It can
be done. I think one of the differences is you have to look at where the pot of money is
coming from. This comes on the basis that the museum, because of its location, can be
done in that manner because it’s in a low-to-moderate income area primarily of where
that’s been. We’ve done that in other areas of the city as well, as long as they qualify in
terms of being able to do that. The reason why the museum’s money, the Augusta
Museum of History, which I’ve always supported and in fact [unintelligible] voted to put
the first money in there to deal with it [unintelligible] deal with it. The reason why it’s
not there is because we are still trying to answer a question that has not been determined
because we started off with a cost of $800,000. The last numbers we got last week were
$1.2 million and it had jumped another 50%. And we’re trying to work that one out.
This one is down at $50,000, which is in a range that we have eligible money to be able
to take care of it. I agree with you, we’re going to have to deal with fixing our own
building. We are just having to look at a funding source to get it. The one that I am
going to suggest to move with that one is the possibility of going back into the category
of where we deal with historical, cultural, museums, in that category. That was why, and
I didn’t tell y’all everything I was thinking about but it was why I wanted to make sure
there was a category in the new sales tax to be able to deal with historical and cultural so
that we would not be boxed in, and if we had certain emergencies we could be able to do
those brick and mortar things under the new sales tax program. But I’ll let Mr. Russell
answer it but I think that is the reason why you have this museum on for that particular
pot of money, because it can qualify thoroughly for where it is and of being dead in the
center of where that eligibility would rank. That’s why it’s there [unintelligible]. Yes,
ma’am?
13
Ms. Sims: May I ask you one more? I have one more building that I want to talk
about and that is Station #7 on Central Avenue. It’s pretty historic and it’s sitting and it’s
decaying so I’d like some attention be given to that fire station. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am. You and I both want it on there. And I think I can
remember during the time when I was eligible to vote making a suggestion on a pot of
money of where we can get it from. I can no longer do that but I can still voice my
concern in helping with it because I don’t it to become an eyesore in there and that we
deal with the usage of it and that we provide the funding in there to do it. And again, it’s
one of our buildings and I think we can get that one back up to being able to work with
this. One of the reasons I wanted to see this particular museum not face that peril right
now in terms of its operations. Because if the classifications of money, sales tax, if they
were to get it, would not be able to fund because it would be ineligible to use that source
of money to deal with the needs that they have. I was just there this morning and one of
the designations that they’ve got, which is very, very limited in terms of places
throughout the state to get it, was to be there to see the unveiling of that historical marker,
of which they had to compete for in order to get, and it’s so very few of them as we try to
rebuild that historical corridor and to work on doing that. I was, I was—I got a little full
from the standpoint that I went 25 miles down the road for another unveiling and I didn’t
see any big cameras over there dealing with that unveiling this morning right in the
middle of our city in terms of the historic parts of it. Whether that’s [unintelligible]
won’t see that that’s been done, but I’m thankful to the State and the people who work
closely with the museum in terms of getting that designation because when people come
they’ve got to have—it might not be a destination point technically but I think with the
historical nature of that corridor and of being one of two people from this community,
one of only four African Americans whose picture hangs in the Georgia State Capitol,
bordered by R.A. Dent Boulevard and right down the street the Lucy Craft Laney, I think
we should take advantage of, promote our history, and we have eligible funds to be able
to take care of these items. That’s what they are for and I hope the Commission will
support it. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Sims, I called Mr. Russell yesterday,
I think it was, Fred, to get somebody up on Central Avenue with the fire department to
cut some grass and do some things around there. So you’re not the only one that’s
concerned and I appreciate your comments. But I just want to go back a minute to the
Augusta Museum of History and the Laney, the Lucy Craft Laney Museum of Black
History. I mean history is history. This money is coming from federal dollars and they
meet the guidelines to enhance that. But they have never gotten very much over the
years. We got a situation now where we’re trying to promote the museum and help them
because people come to town and they want to visit the museum. But people, all races
and colors come to town and they looking for a variety. They looking for an aspect of
every part of this government. And I’m proud of what Ms. Betts and her staff has done.
You said about being private. It may be a private group that meet in that location but I
think that’s a public facility that we have been supporting and not to the level that we
should be supporting them. I think there is some room for some improvement, very
much. But I do think that the funds that they are asking for compared to the funds that
14
the other museum that we own asking for, is very small compared to what we’re doing
and what we trying to do. And we’re still trying to do that. We been making brick
without straw. I think you know about that story. We been asked to do a lot with a little
bit and we still doing it. We ain’t fell down by the wayside yet. We get criticized.
Sylvia Cooper write us about. But we still doing what we supposed to do. So I’m going
to support that, Mr. Mays. I know Mr. Grantham had his hand up. He may want to
But I’m going to make a motion that we go ahead and approve this, along
comment
with the other stuff that we just approved in the consent agenda a little while ago.
Ms. Beard: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My only concern, and I’m not opposed
to any of the museums when we have the funds to provide for them and their facilities or
even in the programs. But what I’m concerned about is that we asked all of our
departments, whether it was Recreation, Public Works, Fire Department or whatever, to
cut their budget by 6.9% last year. In doing so, I think that’s possibly what some of this
reduction was at the first part of the year. And now we’re able to find the funds through
another source of funding and which I am not opposed, because I was the one that made
the motion last week in our Finance meeting that subject to finding the dollars that I
thought it should be brought to the Commission to vote on. So my concern is how many
more departments are going to come ask us to increase their budget by 6.9% for the
remainder of this year.
Mr. Mayor: That one I can’t answer but it won’t be the Mayor’s Office because
we’ve cut ours and it’s been cut I think lower than it’s been cut in the last twenty years.
So all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. I’m sorry. Andy?
Mr. Cheek: Since it was brought up, when are we going to get the air
conditioning in the Augusta Museum fixed?
Mr. Mayor: Well, I don’t know whether you sat in on that meeting or not last
week because you had a simultaneous meeting going. But when I hear a number, and I
don’t know, but I do monitor committees—what’s bothered me was the fact that it’s in a
unique class by itself. Everybody was searching and it was sent back to try and find a
competitive number, but it came back 50% higher. And what we’re trying to do not is
just find some way to say get the bottom line for the best number, whatever it’s going to
take to get it cool, to protect the artifacts and be comfortable when people come in there.
And then I think once we get a concrete number we can move on it. And I’m
[unintelligible] I want to vote for it. But—
Mr. Cheek: And Mr. Mayor, I think that the sentiment of the board—my concern
is here again you can call today and get somebody to come by and give you an estimate
on your air conditioning in your house probably in 24 hours. This is indeed a major crisis
or need for the museum. I doubt that this should take weeks and months and I for one
15
would like to see it turned around and I guess [unintelligible] say this, too. Goes on
record and I’ve been on record many years as supporting the Laney Museum and its
contributions, but also I think what Commissioner Sims is trying to say, we have other
facilities, this is an opportunity to highlight those needs and get those addressed, as well.
Mr. Mayor: Well, as a non-voting member I’m going to say this. As a non-
voting member, and I don’t have a problem about that. I read the job description before I
took the oath. I understand it real well. But I sat in there in that meeting and fought for
the same thing that you are talking about and we were not getting good answers. When
you come back and you go from $800,000 to $1.2 million, everybody was just frustrated
to a point and we said don’t go out and get one company to come back, get several
companies to come back with it, and then if it stays in those numbers then that’s what we
have to do. But I think it would have been very, very foolhardy last week to just play hop
scotch with the numbers and you jump a half a million dollars at a time. Now, if you
wanted us to bring that to you this week, then we could have done that. And I think the
Administrator will attest to what we are talking about in there. That once we get handle
on doing it, and it needs to be done very soon, I agree with you. In fact, so much so that I
think when you get some numbers that you can work with, if it’s in between Commission
meetings, I would initiate the City Attorney to solicit six signatures so that you can drop
by, sign them, and then we can move on with getting it done. But I think you also need
to be reasonable from the standpoint that you want to make sure that when people go out
and they take two or three weeks to bring you back something, that it don’t come back
with one company that’s 50% higher than what you had before. That’s not good
business. And that’s what we were stuck with. All in favor of the motion will do so by
the usual sign.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Have we heard from our Administrator on this?
Mr. Mayor: On the one we’re voting on? Already called the question on this
vote, now. This got in, I allowed that to come on in about the other. We going to go on
and take a vote. The Administrator was the one who put it on here in terms of finding
this funding source. But if you want to hear from him, the Chair will also allow that.
Mr. Smith: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, can you address Mr. Smith’s question?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Smith, share with me your specific question.
Mr. Smith: We want to know your opinion, your recommendation for this
expenditure of $50,000 on private property.
16
Mr. Russell: We’ve looked at this very seriously the last couple of weeks. As
you know for the past few months we’ve been looking—
Mr. Mayor: The Administrator has got the floor.
Mr. Russell: We’ve been looking for funding for this museum as they requested
several months ago. We’ve looked at this. I have no problem with this. It’s an
appropriate funding source. The need is there and I have no problem funding the request.
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] private property [unintelligible].
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. The Chair
rules we’ve had enough discussion on it. I just want to see some green lights and let’s
move on to something else.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need some clarification.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair has already ruled. The discussion is over.
Mr. Williams: I need some clarification, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible] another time, Mr. Commissioner.
Mr. Williams: I [unintelligible].
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, the next item will be the one that’s on zoning for
District 7. Move to that, please.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
36. Z-05-66 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Johnson Laschober & Associates, on
behalf of Robert D. Neal Sr., requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1
(Professional) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) affecting property located at 3722 Walton Way Extension and containing
1.57 acres. (Tax Map 23-2 Parcel 3 and parts of Tax Map 23-2 Parcels 2 & 6)
DISTRICT 7
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, who is representing Planning & Zoning? Are y’all
[unintelligible], George?
Mr. Patty: This is the triangle, about an acre-and-a-half between Walton Way
Extension, Skinner Mill Road and Robert C. Daniel Parkway. There are actually three
17
tracts in there. This is the center of the property. It’s a couple of hundred feet back from
Walton Way Extension. The property is currently zoned P-1 and the petitioner wanted to
zone it B-1. We recommend that it be turned down. The traffic generation, congestion
and an already-dangerous area is the main reason. There were several objectors at our
meeting with a petition with out 150 signatures on it, plus or minus. I tried to add them
up before I came over here. There are a bunch of sheets. There are about 150 signatures.
Mr. Mayor: State your name and address for the record, please.
Mr. Neal: My name is Robert Neal. I live at [unintelligible] Bradford Lane,
Evans, Georgia. I request that this petition be withdrawn.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a spokesperson for the objectors? Would you state your
name and address for the record, please?
Ms. Bradbeck: My name is Helen Bradbeck and I live at 95 Bristlecone Court in
Conifer. And just to the fact that he wants to take it off now, this is the time for me to do
that because I feel that if this happens, then within less than a year or more he will come
back and try to have the same thing changed. And I really would like to speak to the
point of why I do not want this to happen. And my point is that I’m a committee of one.
I went to a meeting, I listened to him, I watched what he was going to put up, and when I
did I told him I didn’t care for it, I said this is not a good thing for Skinner Mill and
Robert C. Daniel Parkway. First of all, I have a group of pictures here, the map that I got,
and if you don’t mind giving each one of those. This is a very, very hazardous
intersection. And what he was planning to do was to put a strip mall on this particular
piece of property which would then—always before it’s been Professionally—and he
wants to change it to a business. And we don’t need any more cars and traffic in that
area. We have just now—and we’re waiting for—the Social Security building to get
opened, and in that particular little triangle that you’re looking at that, that little triangle
is going to have 300 more people passing by there every day. And we haven’t got a
chance of coming down Skinner Mill without having an accident. And so what I’m
asking for is I’m asking, pleading with you not to allow this to be changed. Because the
first thing that I can see in the difference is this: the Professional is just strictly for the
8:00 to 5:00 or 9:00 to 5:00 people. It will come and it will go. And it won’t be there on
the weekends and it won’t be there in the evening. But if you change this to a business
and he puts this strip mall up, we will have once more a corner of really hazardous
intersection. And there doesn’t seem to be any let-up because we are directly across from
the Augusta Exchange and we are filled with stores. I don’t see why we need one more
store in that particular triangle. I think the triangle needs to be Professional. Let them
have lawyers, let them have doctors, let them have insurance companies, but I don’t think
we need one more store in that area, and that is what I am objecting to. And also, I just
want to say as a committee of one, I want to thank all of the people who came down here
today and they came down the last time we went to Zoning, and I want to thank George
Patty, also, because he came up with a very good idea of how it increased the number of
people. He came up with this idea that this is what is going to happen to that little
triangle. And I want that area to be safe, because on that Skinner Mill Road—and that’s
18
a funny name, I don’t know how it got to be that—but I think that little road has two or
three apartment houses. In those apartment houses are single mothers with children.
Those children get on buses every single day, and when they get on those buses—and one
in particular, I stopped, they had 33 children counting to get on the bus and to get off. On
Skinner Mill we have an accident waiting to happen. We have cars flying back and forth.
And another reason is the traffic on Skinner Mill has increased because that’s the only
way you can go off of Walton Way and go to Washington Road without going through a
bunch of red lights. There’s just one and that’s just recently been put there. So I feel that
with all the people that have come here with me today, I don’t want to have to come
down again. And God forbid, I do not want to come down here and tell you about some
terrible accident that has happened on Skinner Mill Road. With this new group of people
that are going to be in the area, we are going to have our hands full as it is. So please,
please don’t let him pass by this particular time and say well, next time I’ll get it in a year
or so. I really don’t want that to happen. I probably won’t be living that long or even ten
years from now but I still am going to come down and ask your help because this is very
important to me and to all the people that live in our neighborhood. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney? Let me go on and get the whole deal, Don. If you
would just give those to the Clerk for me. What I’m going to also do is ask the persons
that are here that are opposed to the zoning, if you would just by the show of hands that
may be here in opposition to it. I might have been the persons who are not here
concerning that to raise their hands. The Attorney counts well. He know how to send a
good bill so he can get the numbers. At this time, also, because the petitioner did not use
his time but made his statement I’m going to ask him does he have anything in rebuttal or
anything other than the request for withdrawal without prejudice.
Mr. Neal: Thank you very much. I do have just—are you talking to me?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Neal: I do have just a few moments and I’ll try not to take too much time. I
think that even though I disagree with the homeowners I certainly appreciate their right to
do what they’re doing. I’ve dealt honorably with them, I’m met with them several times.
I’ve made every attempt. I offered to pay for a traffic light there. You’ll notice what
they’re talking about is a traffic situation that is bad now. I think anybody that has been
to the Target center will agree that the traffic is difficult over there. There is a million-
and-a-half square feet of real estate of retail over there. This property, which I am
withdrawing, represents less than one percent. So I think that to say that this would
radically contribute to the harm or the safety of the children is not true. Now, again, I’m
not arguing to approve this. I am requesting withdrawal. A withdrawal of it. But let me
tell you what I request a withdrawal and why I think it would be reasonable. As you may
know, this is bordered on three sides by B-1 or B-2 property. I am not asking for
something next to their rear entrance of their gated community to put a convenience
store. This is on three sides bordered by B-1 or B-2 property. So it’s not an unreasonable
request. Mr. Patty said it was not an unreasonable request. Now, he did not recommend
approval. He did say that he changed his mind two or three times, going back and forth
19
on it. It is not a slam dunk. It is not asking to put a salvage yard next to Conifer Place.
At this point in time the Planning Commission has agreed that it’s not the right time. The
State is putting an interstate exit and changing the traffic on this property, around this
property. Part of my property was taken. I had an office building planned for this. Part
of the property was taken which I can no longer build that office building which I
invested $100,000 in plans and specifications in. But the traffic is changing there. The
Evans Target center is going to be open. That may change the traffic there. Now, I’ve
always said the traffic on Skinner Mill is not good. I wish they would put a light there. I
offered to help fund the light. But whether there is high traffic or not is a separate issue
from this zoning request, which I think is reasonable. Now, it may not be agreed to right
now, but I don’t know that it deserves the punishment of a denial by this group when
there are changes in the neighborhood, there are state changes in the traffic, there are
changes in the shopping pattern coming from the Evans Target center that may radically
change this. The traffic—you may put a traffic light, you may four lane Skinner Mill
Road. There are just so many things that can happen and that are happening now that I
think it would be reasonable to letting me withdraw this petition right now.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair at this time is going to recognize—and particularly since
District 7, unless we select someone, is without a representative at this time other than the
Super District Commissioner. I’m going to recognize Commissioner Grantham at this
time for the purpose of discussion and to make a motion as such, and then if any other
Commissioners wish to be heard.
Mr. Grantham:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I appreciate very much the
petitioner’s involvement as far as trying to increase business in our area. However, we’re
in the eleventh hour of this issue and I find with the people who have been objecting to
this all along and have attended the Planning & Zoning meeting and then have come
down here today, to allow a withdrawal would be out of question on my behalf.
I’m making a motion that we deny based on the request of the Planning
Therefore,
and Zoning Committee.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Question for the Attorney, Mr. Mayor. Does this constitute basically
the taking of land as far as limiting their ability to develop it, and are we going to get in a
situation where we are going to end up buying this property?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the record indicates that
the reason for denying this is an increase in traffic. That is an objective factor, Mr.
Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: We lost that court case with Judge Overstreet with the same grounds
at the end of Richmond Hill Road. That’s why I ask.
20
Mr. Shepard: Well, I think the record is better in this case in that we have noted
the traffic increase. Mr. Patty indicates that there is a significant difference between what
is zoned now and the traffic generated there and what was requested. Therefore, based
on that factor you could vote to deny.
Mr. Mayor: Any other discussion?
Mr. Shepard: I need to perfect the count, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We don’t mind sharing that side, Bob, with you publicly and
appreciate your concern in asking that question, Mr. Cheek, but what I wanted to find out
now, and I thought my memory was correct, we were not in the direct condemnation
business of that particular [unintelligible] property on that state project, and the state did
that, so the recourse action would not be with this government. The Chair is going to rule
there has been adequate discussion. All in favor of the motion—
Mr. Shepard: The count.
Mr. Mayor: The count? Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: I ask those who object, please raise their hands. Thirty- two.
Mr. Mayor: Thirty-two is for the record.
[32 objectors noted]
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign, the motion is
for denial.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk:
37. Z-05-91 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by D. F. Moore, on behalf of Savannah
Road Site LLC, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family
Residential) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone HI (Heavy Industry) with a
Special Exception for an auto salvage yard per Section 24-2 (16) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 2012 Old Savannah Road and contains 3.16 acres. (Tax Map 72-
4 Parcel 287) DISTRICT 2
Mr. Patty: This is a property that had been used as a junkyard for some time but it
had been cleaned up by the applicant, who bought it a while ago, a couple of years ago.
And there are no cars or material left on the property. So after two years it lost its non-
21
conforming rights to be used in that manner. And the applicant wanted to reestablish the
right to use it as a junkyard by seeking Heaving Industrial zoning classification. We had
objectors and it was turned down. We feel that the future of that area is not heavy
industry and turned it down for that reason.
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner present, Mr. Patty? Okay, does the petitioner wish
to address?
Mr. Moore: I really just want to have that zoning changed to Heavy Industry so
that we can possibly get that property sold. There is a salvage yard on each side of it and
bordered on the back by the railroad. Just want to be able to sell the property.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors present for item number 37?
[4 objectors noted]
Mr. Mayor: Is there a petition to be presented to the Clerk? And if there is a
spokesperson for the objectors, that person can address the Commission. Yes, ma’am, if
you’ve got a petition with any signed names it can be presented to the Clerk.
Ms. Clark: I just have the agenda that was presented in the meeting and it was
voted unanimously to deny it. We didn’t want another junkyard in our area.
Mr. Mayor: If you would, Ms. Clark, just state your name and address for the
record, please, and the position representing today.
Ms. Clark: My name is Belle S. Clark. I’m vice president of Turpin Hill
Neighborhood Association. To the Mayor, Willie Mays, to Rev. Marion Williams and
Mr. Handy, our Commissioner, and all Commissioners, we, the members of Turpin Hill
Neighborhood is a chartered organization. We are here again. We were here in October
of 2002 to confront you with the same problem, the zoning of wrecked cars at 2012
Savannah Road. We voted unanimously in our meeting not to let this be so, and asking
you please to vote with us. Our neighbors have enough problems, first of all, in that area
with grown and weeds on that property. And our neighborhood is beginning to become a
sore eye from other rodents, snakes, and yes, even possums showing up in our area
because of those wrecked cars on Savannah Road. We do not need any more. We have
homes on Savannah Road, a day care center two blocks away, Mr. David DuPree’s home
is two blocks away from that area, and he’s sick and he cannot be here, but he said please
ask you all to vote no. Also, the Carrie J. Mays Center is three blocks from that area
where children and senior citizens walk and enjoy the Recreation Department. We feel a
junkyard would create more of the same animals that I just told you about, and only God
knows what else may occur because of wrecked cars. We pursued with the health issues,
also, and concerns with mosquitoes growing in parked cars. Children have to walk to
school. We have a school about four blocks away, the Levi White Area School, and we
ask that you please vote us, vote no. Because this will be an eyesore. Savannah Road
was recently, over about four years ago, repaved and looked real nice, and now it’s not
22
looking that way. We greatly, as Turpin Hill Neighborhood Association, appreciate you
saying no to this. Respectfully submitted, Turpin Hill Neighborhood Association, Rev.
Larry Fryer, in his absence as the president; yours truly, vice president; Mr. John Kelly,
treasurer; Ms. Margaret Jackson, secretary.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Clark. Commissioner?
Mr. Williams:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I talked with the property owner and
explained to him that if the neighborhood was not in support that I could not be in
support as well. They came to Planning & Zoning. Planning & Zoning denied it. There
is a situation on both sides this piece of property where there is already continuous use of
used vehicles. And this particular piece of property, if it’s zoned, it’s going to end up in
I’m going to make a motion that we deny this as Planning and
the same status. So
Zoning have already denied it and support the Turpin Hill Neighborhood
Association, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Handy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? If not, all in
favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Got one more zoning, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, and that’s the companion item. Number 10 on our
consent agenda, as well.
10. ZA-R-172 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to Section 14 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County which would
increase the minimum lot area and lot width in the R-MH (Manufactured-home
Residential) Zone.
38. Z-05-85 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by the Augusta- Richmond County
Planning Commission requesting approval of rezoning of certain properties that are
not agricultural properties from the agricultural zoning classification to a
residential zoning classification. Those areas which are currently occupied by 40%
or more manufactured homes are proposed to be rezoned to Zone R-M
(Manufactured Home Residential). The areas that have less than 40%
manufactured homes are proposed to be rezoned to Zone R-1 (One-family
Residential). The affected area is described as follows: Beginning at the intersection
of the centerline of Deans Bridge Road and the centerline of Butler Creek; thence,
in a southeasterly and then an easterly direction along the centerline of Butler
Creek to its intersection with the centerline of Mike Padgett Hwy.; thence, in a
23
southerly direction along the centerline of Mike Padgett Hwy. to its intersection
with the centerline of Old Waynesboro Rd.; thence, in a southwesterly direction
along the centerline of Old Waynesboro Rd. to its intersection with Spirit Creek;
thence, in a westerly and then northwesterly direction along the centerline of Spirit
Creek to its intersection with the centerline of Deans Bridge Rd.; thence in a
northeasterly direction along the centerline of Deans Bridge Rd. to the point of
beginning. (DISTRICTS 4, 6 & 8)
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the
usual sign.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, could I follow up with a comment, please?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: I asked—this is part of what I asked Mr. Patty to do several years ago
and it’s a very involved and lengthy process and they’ve been very diligent in making it
happen. We had thousands of homes zoned Agricultural in high-density neighborhoods.
I just want to charge Mr. Patty and staff to go back out and look for other opportunities to
correct the problems that we have with appropriate zoning and I trust that they’ll come
forward again with some more changes that would be zoning in an appropriate manner
for the way the properties are used. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: Could I have a point of personal privilege, please?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Commissioner.
Mr. Williams: I’d like to ask the Clerk if she would put on the agenda for our
next Commission meeting the private property that we have addressed and participated in
with funds from this government to be discussed. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion—it’s on the board, read out, Madame
Clerk.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner?
24
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
39. Motion to approve the City of Augusta audit contract for auditing the
financial statements and single audit report. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Marion
Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do we have Mr. Godown in here? We may end up
with some discussion time in here.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: We can go over into 42, 43 for a moment there. I’ll hold mine until
last. Do we have any other zoning matters, anything of that nature? I’m trying to hold—
zoning? We did 1-35A, that took care of all the lower numbers that’s in there. There was
no objection. Already been passed. Yes, ma’am?
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, the Planning Commission asked, and we need to
reconsider item 10, and that’s for a waiver of the second reading on that particular
ordinance.
10. ZA-R-172 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to Section 14 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County which would
increase the minimum lot area and lot width in the R-MH (Manufactured-home
Residential) Zone.
Mr. Handy: I move for approval.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. I learned how to count a long time ago. All in
favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, what’s that now? Number 10?
Mr. Mayor: Number 10.
Mr. Cheek: It’s the one we just passed.
The Clerk: Reconsider and approve waiving a second reading.
Mr. Mayor: Companion to that.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I ain’t got no problem. Y’all move too fast.
25
Mr. Mayor: Told you, jet pilot. We make it up in the air. All in favor of that
motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: With the permission of the group, if we could refer Items 40
and 41 back to the Finance Committee. There is a companion item that will be
coming up on Friday and it would be appropriate to discuss all those items at the
same time.
FINANCE:
40. Request an increase for the CDBG Code Enforcement Demolition fund for
the fiscal year 2005. (No recommendation from Finance Committee September 12,
2005)
41. Request an increase for the CDBG Code Enforcement fund for the fiscal year
2005. (No recommendation from Finance Committee September 12, 2005)
Mr. Williams: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. All in favor of the motion will do so by the
usual sign.
Mr. Grantham out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk? Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to get to 42 after we finish. We moved away from the
presentation because we were working [unintelligible] workshop and I said I’d like Mr.
Gingerich catch his breath for a minute, but we need to go back to it and then we’ll go
into the nomination procedure on 42 and 43.
The Clerk:
PRESENTATION:
Mr. Phil Gingerich
Re: Proposed Augusta RaceWay Project
Mr. Mayor: You might need to pull that microphone up a little bit there, Phil.
26
Mr. Gingerich: Okay. Can you hear me?
Mr. Mayor: Let me say this before he begins. In the workshop that was held
prior to this meeting in terms of some of the discussion in reference—which was an open
meeting—to lay out and to be able to ask questions in there, and what I think we’re going
to do at this time is to be able to at least give a synopsis of what was done in that
particular workshop and to allow Commissioners that may not have been in there to ask
some initial questions in reference to it.
Mr. Gingerich: Thank you, Mayor, Commissioners. Last year motor sports
overall grew 47% in attendance. Drag racing over the last ten years has had a minimum
growth of 30%. And attendance overall for all motor sports last year grew 178%. Motor
sports is the fastest-growing sporting event in the country. Above baseball, basketball
and any of your major sports. What we’re proposing is to bring a first class facility to the
city of Augusta and it will greatly enhance all the businesses and the community in
residuals and money spent within your community. It will also create jobs and the cost
for the project will be around $6 million to $7 million to create a first class racing facility
that can be used for other things, as well, such as concerts, track rentals for companies
that want to hold corporate meetings there, and this type of thing. International Hot Rod
Association, who I work for, was founded in 1960. We’ve been around 45 years. We
currently sanction 107 tracks in the country and Canada and Mexico, and so we do
various studies to place twelve strategic national events in the country. You, upon
completion of this facility, this venue, would get one of those twelve national events.
Now, what does that mean to you all? Well, through studies that will bring your
community in the form of motel, fuel, food, taxes, sales tax, all the residuals—that will
represent $30 million a year to your community in residuals. We have smaller events that
we will also bring to your community and in total what that represents is $50 million a
year including the $30 million for the national event. So with that, it appears on paper
and through this feasibility study that it shows a positive cash flow for the City of
Augusta and for the lessee that would lease it from the City. Also, the City would reap
$1—the plan now is $1 per ticket sold which will represent another $100,000 a year in
ticket sales. There are many other things that enter into this. We would ask the lessee,
the track lessee to go out and sell sponsorships, go out and sell signage to the community.
All of our national events are televised on the Speed channel, so the community would be
highly visible, as you are with the Augusta National, the greatest golf tournament there is
in the world, so this would bring another venue to your city that would stand right beside
that. All in all, through the study and through the figures, this is definitely a win-win
situation for the City and for the lessee involved in this project. Do you have any
questions?
Mr. Mayor: Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, I think even though we are
in the infancy stage of what we’re talking about and obviously there has got to be more
discussion in there, as well as discussion within the Industrial Development Authority
family, and particularly with the property that we’re talking about there, which is a little
bit over 1,700 acres, I think. One of the things you mentioned, Phil, in the briefing that
27
we were talking about, right at 250, and probably if you’re talking about buffering in
there to say a maximum out of 300 acres per se to handle all of that. But if are questions
at this time and this stage of Mr. Gingerich to ask now. If not, then the Chair will
entertain a motion to receive as information today. Commissioner Williams and then
Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Gingerich, I just need to get a little
bit more information that you may have stated before but to restate again. The twelve
events—you said that if we build a state-of-the-art facility for $8 million you said the
financial impact total that will be recouped or come back in the city in your estimate is
how much?
Mr. Gingerich: Total $50 million.
Mr. Williams: And that’s per year?
Mr. Gingerich: Per year.
Mr. Williams: You also stated that out of twelve national events that we would be
guaranteed—when I say guaranteed, is that an assurance that we would get one major
event a year that would be covered by ESPN?
Mr. Gingerich: Speed Channel. Speed Channel. You would get that one national
event out of the twelve.
Mr. Williams: I guess the other question is who are your major sponsors that
would help sponsor events like this and sponsor other events around the country?
Mr. Gingerich: Our title sponsor of IHRA is the Hooters restaurant chain. We
have another three years running on that contract. Then we have many, many
manufacturers that are involved in the racing industry that are associate sponsors.
Mr. Williams: How fast, and I assume a quarter mile—
Mr. Gingerich: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: How fast will the cars, the spectators will be able to witness cars
running up to what speed in the quarter mile?
Mr. Gingerich: The fastest class is a [unintelligible] dragster class. These are
dragsters that will accelerate from a standing start in four seconds, four-and-a-half
seconds, at a speed currently this past weekend, the speed record was set at 337 miles-an-
hour in a quarter mile. It’s awesome. And noisy.
28
Mr. Williams: And far as family orientated sport, can you elaborate just a little
bit on what that would do for the family or the economy as far as a family gathering
place?
Mr. Gingerich: This sport not only with our organization, but with our sister
organization, is very, very family orientated and we encourage that. The way we
encourage it is we have a class that we call junior dragsters and these are kids that are
eight years old to eighteen years old that can compete in this class. It gets the kids
involved, it gets the grandparents involved, it gets the mothers and father involved, it’s
like Little League baseball almost. And the other one, the big factor is getting the street
racers off the street. And this is always something that happens in these type of venues
cause at the current time we would place a street race 38 weeks out of the year, weather
permitting. And this will really, really help that situation.
Mr. Williams: Will we be in direct competition with any other track in this
region, in this area, if we built this facility? Say for instance somebody came in next
door or across the street and built something?
Mr. Gingerich: No, the closest type facility you’ve got here would be in Atlanta,
at Commerce, NHRA. They have a national event there. That is the closest.
Mr. Williams: Okay. The Mayor and I been talking about this for quite some
time. Phil, you and I talked over the phone several times and I know this is not your first
trip to Augusta. We hope that you enjoy yourself while you’re here, hope you have had a
pleasant trip in. Some of the Commissioners may have some other questions. But the
money that is going to be recouped or brought in to this area, now we already own, I
think the Mayor said we own the 1,700 acres of land already so there is no expense to do
that. We’ve got some money in our sales tax to do some infrastructure work. But the
investment for what we talking about building, and you’ve been down and looked at the
property and you think it’s suitable for what we looking to do?
Mr. Gingerich: Oh, absolutely. More than adequate. 250 to 300 acres is more
space than we normally get.
Mr. Williams: How much equipment you talking about bringing in and how y’all
park them?
Mr. Gingerich: Well, when we come in for a national event or a pro-am event, we
bring our own people in and they actually do the parking. The rigs are huge. The semis
or 18-wheelers, they’re four-door Dooleys pulling 50’ enclosed trailers with living
quarters in them. So it takes about ten acres just to park that many rigs.
Mr. Williams: How many rigs is that?
Mr. Gingerich: Up to 800.
29
Mr. Williams: 800. Mr. Mayor, I don’t have anything else. I just wanted to get
Phil to share something that I been trying to share with some of the other Commissioners
for quite some time and what kind of dollar it would bring to Augusta with this type of
facility and being known for this continuously, as long as this city decide to do it.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek and then Commissioner Smith?
Mr. Cheek:
Mr. Mayor, thank you. We’ve heard this discussion for a while
now. One only has to look as far as just across the river at Jackson and see how
successful that little drag strip is and the revenue it brings both to Jackson and to the
owner of the track to know that it’s a winner. One of the things—and Mr. Mayor, I don’t
want to become too hasty with anything, but I do think that rather than receiving it as
information, because it has been circulating among us for several months now, that we
offer (1) a resolution of support for the concept, and (2) instruct staff to looking us seeing
some actual numbers and information on contracts and funding sources; for instance,
revenue anticipation bonds or other bonding that would allow us to finance this project on
future income rather than on the General Fund or other funding source. But we’ve talked
about this and my concern is that we not do what has been done before, which is sit back
and wait and then someone else snaps up this opportunity, someone across the river,
someone a county over, that we move forward with finding out exactly the whos, whats,
whens and wheres and getting that on paper for us to make a decision at some point in the
. So I offer that in the form of a motion, that would be a Resolution of Support
future
for the concept, one, and two, to instruct staff to investigate and come back with a
report on funding and contractual language that this Commission could look at.
Mr. Williams: I second that, Mr. Cheek. I thought maybe somebody else may
have but you knew you can depend on me for that one.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. With those vehicles running 300 miles-an-
hour, what about the noise aspect of it? Have you got barriers there or what, what can
people expect?
Mr. Gingerich: The only people that would be affected is the houses on—I forget
what road is that—
Mr. Smith: Highway 56?
Mr. Gingerich: No. Horseshoe Road. That would be the closest residents that
would be affected by that. And these cars only come once a year.
Mr. Smith: Are there barriers put up to suppress that noise or what?
Mr. Gingerich: There could be. It’s not required. All that we require is—well,
we require a guard wall down the long edge of the race track, which quiets some of it but
30
not all of it. The only other thing that we require is like a chain link fence around the
property to keep out deer and animals, things like that. But there could be a wall
constructed.
Mr. Smith: See, one race track has continually had noise problems for years. It’s
been back and forth between Columbia County and the race track. And I don’t know if
they’re still operating or not. But I would suggest that if this does take place that we
consider that aspect.
Mr. Gingerich: I have looked at your noise ordinance as it currently is written and
basically there is no decibel limit in there. The only thing that’s in there is that racing
cease and desist at 11:00 p.m. at night. I had suggested in a previous meeting that what
many communities do in this situation is if the Commission, the Commissioners pass an
ordinance to exempt all automotive racing, that that is very effective.
Mr. Mayor: There is a motion and a second. Any further discussion? And let me
say this to Commissioner Cheek in terms of getting this on and moving. And whether it
was in the resolution or [unintelligible] information, I want to assure you that the
Administrator has pretty much been moving along really in terms of both conversation
with Mr. Gingerich, but also in terms of what we got to do in having the talks with the
Industrial Development Authority. Because the property situation is first and foremost in
that manner and that that be negotiated and those lands [unintelligible] swapped in terms
of what we’re going to do. Either one of them, you know, will suffice. [unintelligible]
on the floor. All in favor of that motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I hate to see staff put in a lot of hours with us not being
sure and this is a way to show staff that their hours are being well spent.
Mr. Hankerson votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: I just want to make one clarification. We been talking about
economic growth and doing something that is going to bring money into Augusta. This
would be one of the—not the largest, but probably the second largest that this city of
Augusta have witnessed and I just think it’s a win-win situation for everybody. I support
it 100%. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS:
31
42. Appoint Interim District 7 Commissioner. (Requested by Commissioners
Barbara Sims and Don Grantham)
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mayor: Silence gives consent. You want me to name somebody?
[Laughter]
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Don. You’ve got the floor.
Mr. Grantham:
Inasmuch as we had a very good Commissioner serving that
District that was elected and now he’s moved on and we appreciate his involvement
today, I feel like it’s necessary for this Commission to replace someone in that seat and
that we move forward in doing so. And as far as the recommendation I would have, I
didn’t see anyone else step forward, but Ms. Sims and I talked about it and we’ve
It would be my
discussed this with several of the people that have shown interest.
pleasure tonominate Mr. Roy Rearden.
Ms. Sims: I’d like to second it.
Mr. Mayor: Any other nominations? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, had some calls and discussed with
some people. I pledged my support to one and told him if that didn’t go, I’d go with the
next one. I went on down the line. I’d like to see us fill the seat because we need that
other person in there. I think Mr. Boyles did a good job and [unintelligible], but Mr.
Wayne Hawkins asked me to nominate him and I’m going to do that. I don’t know if
th
he’s here or not but I’m going to nominate Wayne Hawkins for the 7 District seat.
Mr. Mayor:
Two nominations that are on the floor, Mr. Rearden and Mr.
Hawkins. Does anybody else have a nomination? I don’t want to be like I was before
and miss somebody [unintelligible]. We’ve got two that’s on the floor there. Mr.
Do I hear a motion that the nominations be closed?
Rearden and Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Grantham: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. All in favor of the nominations being closed
will do so by the usual sign. Then we’ll go back and vote on the nominees in the order in
which they were so stated.
Motion carries 9-0.
32
Mr. Mayor: We can go back to the nominations. We’ll go with Mr. Rearden first.
All in favor of the nomination of Mr. Rearden?
(Vote for Mr. Rearden)
Mr. Williams votes No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 7-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Rearden has been selected to fill that portion of the term vacated
by Mr. Tommy Boyles.
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Mayor: It’s going to take us a few moments before we can get the swearing
in.
The Clerk: He’s here.
Mr. Mayor: The Judge is here. He is here. Go ahead. Pull that microphone in.
I’m like Commissioner Smith now. I can’t hear you at all.
Judge Overstreet: I’m going to get you to repeat after me, if you would. Please
raise your right hand. I—
Mr. Rearden: I—
Judge Overstreet: Roy Rearden—
Mr. Rearden: Roy Rearden—
Judge Overstreet: Do swear or affirm—
Mr. Rearden: Do swear or affirm—
Judge Overstreet: That I will truly discharge—
Mr. Rearden: That I will truly discharge—
Judge Overstreet: The duties of Commissioner of Richmond County—
Mr. Rearden: The duties of Commissioner or Richmond County—
Judge Overstreet: In all matters—
Mr. Rearden: In all matters—
33
Judge Overstreet: Which require my official action—
Mr. Rearden: Which require my official action—
Judge Overstreet: To the best of my knowledge and skill—
Mr. Rearden: To the best of my knowledge and skill—
Judge Overstreet: And I will so act—
Mr. Rearden: And I will so act—
Judge Overstreet: As in my judgment—
Mr. Rearden: As in my judgment—
Judge Overstreet: Will be most conductive—
Mr. Rearden: Will be most conductive—
Judge Overstreet: To the welfare—
Mr. Rearden: To the welfare—
Judge Overstreet: And best interests—
Mr. Rearden: And best interests—
Judge Overstreet: Of the entire county.
Mr. Rearden: Of the entire county.
Judge Overstreet: I do further solemnly swear—
Mr. Rearden: I do further solemnly swear—
Judge Overstreet: That I am not the holder—
Mr. Rearden: That I am not the holder—
Judge Overstreet: Of any unaccounted for public money—
Mr. Rearden: Of any unaccounted for public money—
Judge Overstreet: Due this state—
34
Mr. Rearden: Due this state—
Judge Overstreet: Or any political subdivision—
Mr. Rearden: Or any political subdivision—
Judge Overstreet: Or authority thereof—
Mr. Rearden: Or authority thereof—
Judge Overstreet: That I am not the holder—
Mr. Rearden: That I am not the holder—
Judge Overstreet: Of any office of trust—
Mr. Rearden: Of any office of trust—
Judge Overstreet: Under the government of the United States—
Mr. Rearden: Under the government of the United States—
Judge Overstreet: Any other state—
Mr. Rearden: Any other state—
Judge Overstreet: Or any foreign state—
Mr. Rearden: Or any foreign state—
Judge Overstreet: Which I am prohibited from holding—
Mr. Rearden: Which I am prohibited from holding—
Judge Overstreet: By the laws of the State of Georgia—
Mr. Rearden: By the laws of the State of Georgia—
Judge Overstreet: And that I am otherwise qualified—
Mr. Rearden: And that I am otherwise qualified—
Judge Overstreet: To hold said office—
Mr. Rearden: To hold said office—
35
Judge Overstreet: According to the Constitution of the United States—
Mr. Rearden: According to the Constitution of the United States—
Judge Overstreet: And the laws of Georgia—
Mr. Rearden: And the laws of Georgia—
Judge Overstreet: And that I will support the Constitution of the United States—
Mr. Rearden: And that I will support the Constitution of the United States—
Judge Overstreet: And this great State of Georgia.
Mr. Rearden: And this great State of Georgia.
Judge Overstreet: I do further solemnly swear—
Mr. Rearden: I do further solemnly swear—
Judge Overstreet: As a citizen of Augusta, Georgia—
Mr. Rearden: As a citizen of Augusta, Georgia—
Judge Overstreet: And being an employee of Augusta, Georgia—
Mr. Rearden: And being an employee of Augusta, Georgia—
Judge Overstreet: And the recipient of public funds for services rendered—
Mr. Rearden: And the recipient of public funds for services rendered—
Judge Overstreet: As such employee—
Mr. Rearden: As such employee—
Judge Overstreet: Do hereby solemnly swear and affirm—
Mr. Rearden: Do hereby solemnly swear and affirm—
Judge Overstreet: That Ill support the Constitution of the United States—
Mr. Rearden: That I will support the Constitution of the United States—
Judge Overstreet: And the great State of Georgia.
36
Mr. Rearden: And the great State of Georgia.
Judge Overstreet: So help me God.
Mr. Rearden: So help me God.
[A round of applause is given.]
Mr. Mayor: Since the Clerk and the Attorney are going to be tied up for just a
few minutes to try and get signed in and to give our new Commissioner a chance to catch
his breath, the Chair is going to declare a ten minute recess and we’ll come back
promptly.
[RECESS]
Mr. Mayor: Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene. We’re back in full force
with all ten Commissioner. Welcome aboard, Commissioner Rearden.
Mr. Rearden: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: If we need—the Chair is prepared [unintelligible] back on the road in
both cases of 48 and 49. If you all are ready I was going to do 49. If you’ve got to wait
on an arrival, Mr. Shepard, then I can hold up and get into 48 [unintelligible] element that
the City needs to discuss on this, but I want to try and move with everybody’s business,
and the ones I have on there actually I can moved them to the end. But we’ve got, we’ve
got business people here on both 39, 48 and 49.
Mr. Shepard: The order we want to do them?
Mr. Mayor: Well, I was going to go on and get to 49 with the longest distance of
those folk having to go. But if we’re not ready to move on 49, then we need to go to 39,
then 48, and then 49, in that order.
Mr. Shepard: I would ask that the Kilpatrick Stockton firm be available for 49.
Do you wish us to connect anybody by telephone?
Mr. Mayor: If we so need it but I don’t want to move this body from this body. I
think we need to be ready to do whatever we need, if we call in, but if not, we can do
that—
Mr. Shepard: I think we can make the technological adjustment we need to make.
We’ll use my speakerphone if necessary, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Are they being asked questions [unintelligible]? I though that was
the purpose of committee and the discussion, to ask questions? Which I’m not going to
stifle anybody’s right to ask questions. Y’all know how I am about that. That’s the right
37
of every Commissioner to do that. But what I’m saying is I just thought we were coming
in with whatever pros or cons ready to be talked about up or down, and talk about them,
and then we make motions to either do something, do nothing, or do something later. But
that’s just kind of how [unintelligible] if you and Jerry maybe want to discuss that, we
move to 39 to go ahead and get into that, then why don’t we do it that way and then
[unintelligible] do that for a minute or two there? And then we can go ahead and go to
39, Ms. Bonner.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
39. Motion to approve the City of Augusta audit contract for auditing the
financial statements and single audit report. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Marion
Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This was on our committee meeting and
we, the committee [unintelligible] pulling it off. After looking at it, the Finance Director,
Mr. Persaud, had got a quote or got a recommendation for a firm to do this, which was
going to save I think in excess of some $10,000 to do it. And I wanted to make a motion
that we go ahead and approve this, with the firm that Mr. Persaud and the committee—I
don’t think he was the only one—I think they had a committee selection process, as well,
to come up with a firm to do this. So I want to make a motion that we allow Mr. Persaud
to pursue going through the process he went through with the selection with the
committee and making the recommendation of going with the firm to save this
government some $10,000. Now, we just go through talking about monies saved and
monies earned. We need to save. No knock on the previous auditors who been doing the
work. I think they did a great job. Got no problem with that. But our Director has come
up with a way to save this government some money and I think we need to follow that
process, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Ms. Beard: I second to move it forward.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. It’s on the floor. Discussion on the motion?
Commissioner Colclough, Commissioner Grantham?
Mr. Colclough: Yes. Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Speak in that order.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, is Mr. Persaud in the Chamber?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
38
Mr. Colclough: Could we just get a little dialogue from Mr. Persaud? Could you
explain what Mr. Williams is saying, that a firm that you contacted could save us
$10,000?
Mr. Persaud: If I may, Commissioner Colclough, at the end of December 31,
2004 audit the existing contract for auditing services expired. It was brought to the
Administrator’s attention and we issued an RFP. I wrote the RFP and provided it to the
Procurement Director. From that point on, the Procurement Director issued the RFP,
received response, provided it to our committee. The actual selection of the committee
was done by the Procurement Director, not by me or my department. The selection
process was done consistent with the criteria [unintelligible]. Three firms actually
responded to the RFP. Based on the [unintelligible] criteria, the focus [unintelligible]
based on the quality of the personnel assigned to the auditors, the [unintelligible]
assigned to the audit and field work and actually being location of the audit, and the
ability to complete the audit in a timely basis based on a [unintelligible]. [unintelligible]
starting point in October and ending point in April each year. The committee and the
members are listed in the agenda item [unintelligible]. [unintelligible] technical criteria.
Those funds were [unintelligible], practical presentation, [unintelligible] work. Two
firms responded, were selected. The Committee selected one firm. And that’s the
recommendation before you. During all these deliberations and discussions the issue was
[unintelligible]. I researched the matter and there is an attachment to the report which
shows some regulations required for auditor rotation. This government has in excess of
$400 million worth of debt. We are subject to SEC scrutiny, the Securities and Exchange
Commission in terms of [unintelligible] disclosures. It is my interpretation that we are
under these criteria and come under the scrutiny of these criteria. That’s all I have.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham, and then Commissioner Cheek and then
Commissioner Handy?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. David, while you’re up there I’ve got
just a couple of questions for you and then I am going to make a comment. One is, based
on what you are saying with the attachments to our information, in the attachment you
said that we should change our external auditors. Within the information that I read that
Cherry, Bekaert & Holland has done this, that they change the auditors that actually
perform the work and the duties within the government and they have been rotating them
out about every two or three years so that you don’t have the same auditors every year
doing the audit, even though you have the same firm. And I think that requirement says
auditors and not necessarily firm to be changed. Along the same lines I feel like that
we’ve had good experience with the Cherry, Bekaert & Holland auditors and they have
done the type of work that’s been required. I know that we had to slap their hands a
couple of times to get in here and do it on time and make sure it was performed properly
and they did just that. I think everyone felt good about what they did in this last audit.
The other thing is that I’m going to make a substitute motion that we continue engaging
39
the services of Cherry, Bekaert & Holland and that we review and ask them to work with
us and not exceed last year’s charges as far as the audit is concerned. I put that in the
form of a motion.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Persaud: [unintelligible]
Mr. Grantham: That will be fine.
Mr. Persaud: On the partner rotation, I’m not aware of that. Mr. Russell, the
Administrator has been very involved in the selection process and he can address that
issue. The recommendation that has been presented for you was from committee, not
directly from me. I just want to make that clear.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek, then Commissioner Handy, then
Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Cheek: [unintelligible] and knowing the technical merits I really just don’t
know enough about the other two firms to compare. I guess my concerns are the track
records of the other two. We have a known entity here with Cherry, Bekaert & Holland
and their work. Have these other agencies performed in other cities, have they received
satisfactory marks for the performance in those other cities?
Mr. Persaud: The RFP specifically requires documentation of prior relationship
and audit in government. And all the firms in the [unintelligible] have documented that
they have done audits in state and local government [unintelligible] state agencies, yes.
Mr. Cheek: Have any of those agencies been terminated from service due to lack
of performance or any other reason?
Mr. Persaud: Not that I’m aware of.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Handy?
Mr. Handy: Thank you. Also, David, in your ranking who did you said did the
firm ranking for the scoring? That was a committee or [unintelligible].
Mr. Persaud: Once the RPF was written, I wrote the RFP and transmitted to the
Procurement Director. That ceased my process for [unintelligible] in this selection
process. The Procurement Director is here and she can address that issue. A committee
was selected and I think the customary procedure is for members of different areas of the
government to participate in the selection process. And Geri Sams is here and can
respond to the selection of the committee.
40
Mr. Handy: Okay. Ms. Sams, my question is the scoring, from a 242 to a 356,
how did you arrive at that?
Ms. Sams: [unintelligible] selection committee. The persons on that selection
committee were Tammie Strange, who is a CPA and the Finance Director for the airport;
Mr. Robert Leverett, who is the Deputy Administrator; David Persaud, who is your
Finance Director; and Jessie Carlton, who is the Assistant Finance Director and CPA.
They each scored based on the same criteria, and after the Procurement Department
calculated the rankings they are listed in the recommendation today in the agenda, and
the person that received the highest rating was 356 points and that was the one that the
committee is recommending to you today.
Mr. Handy: In looking at my package of information, this particular item that you
have on here saying that the auditor have to be rotated, that was faxed in from the
company that got the job, so how could the company that applying for the job send us the
information telling us something that we don’t have already, that we don’t know about?
Ms. Sams: Well, the standpoint of the Procurement Director for the City of
Augusta is that the law as written by the State of Georgia recommends that we as a
municipality look at our contracting processes and they express that when we award
contracts to any company, regardless of what it is, that it does not exceed a ten year
process. And this company has been here for a while. And when you are looking at
being prudent as a municipality are you really wanting to continue to award contracts to
the same companies continuously? Or do you want to invite someone else in on a
competitive process and see if what we’re doing is in fact what we are paying for? So
from a Procurement perspective the five years is something that came from the State of
Georgia, and the Attorney had asked earlier that he check to see the validity of that
ruling.
Mr. Handy: That wasn’t what I’m asking. I appreciate that information. I’m
talking about the paper in this backup saying that we should change. It came from the
company that you all recommending.
Ms. Sams: I’m not aware—
Mr. Handy: [unintelligible] information to tell us what laws there is and we
doesn’t have that information. That’s what I’m asking.
Ms. Sams: Mr. Persaud would answer that. I’m not aware that it came from that
company.
Mr. Persaud: The issue of auditor rotation was discussed lengthily in the actual
presentation from the two audit companies. It was not made part of the original
presentation because it was a clean and honest process. In discussion with
[unintelligible], I brought that this issue was addressed. I [unintelligible] I am
41
responsible for providing that information. I think it’s information that you need to have,
need to know. It’s a federal law. This is my knowledge of auditing and accounting and
compliance. We are subject to the SEC criteria for ongoing disclosures.
Mr. Handy: Still, the question I’m asking, if we are scrutinized by the
government and all, why did we have to get this law from the company who want the job
versus not have this information already in your office or in a file? That’s what I’m
asking.
Mr. Persaud: My response is that it was discussed at a presentation. It was not
provided initially. I think it was necessary for me as the Finance Director in terms of fair
disclosure to bring this information to this body. I volunteered to bring it.
Mr. Handy: Still not going to get the right answer but that’s all I have, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t care if a German shepherd brought
it. I’m glad we got it. That’s the point. Now, we sit here and we talk about bidding out
and evergreen contracts and there is no knock on this firm. I said that before. I think
they did a good job. Don said something earlier that we slapped them on the hand and
they got some audits and stuff in in time. But it’s time to make a change. We got the
best pricing. The Finance Director, the committee have done their job, and we going to
sit here now act like they hadn’t done it or they done done something wrong? I’m not
going to be a part of doing anything wrong. I’m not going to sit here and agree to give it
back to any firm, this one or any other firm. Now, we been on the internal auditor and
the external auditor and the external auditor got an evergreen contract as well. Are we
going to sit here and take the taxpayers’ money and act like it don’t belong to anybody, it
just free money? We going to save $10,000. You going to ask the City of Augusta to go
up on the garbage $70-something, $60-something for the garbage, you going to ask them
to pass a sales tax, but we not going to be good stewards of the money that they put us
over? Now, if the Finance Director have brought it us, the committee had made a
selection process, they are in the guidelines, they have done everything they are supposed
to do, why are we even debating this? Why are we even talking about this? Now, some
of us on this panel can’t even vote, as far as getting a vote for this thing now. If y’all
want to put all the cards on the table, if you want to know how it got here, and that’s
good. But I think the Attorney ought to be the one to say what the law says, Mr. Handy.
Not the Purchasing Department, neither the Finance Director. But the law is there. Now,
if it’s false, if somebody made it up, if it’s not true then we need to look at that. But if
it’s true we need to deal with it. Now, how you going to make a motion to go back and
give it to a firm who have not won the bid, who have done work for eight or nine years
for this government and then we going to sit her and act like we don’t know what’s going
on. Now, y’all vote your conscience, Mr. and Mrs. on this podium, but I’m not going to
sit here and be a part of that and that’s for sure. Now, some of us can’t vote and I’m
42
going to see who votes on the issue. Because some of us are not at liberty to vote on this
particular one now. We’ll put that out there, too, if you want to.
Mr. Mayor: That clears the discussion to my right. Any questions back to my left
on this issue? Okay. There is a substitute motion that’s out there.
Mr. Cheek: Quick question.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: I’m reading a reasoned approach here and it says on January 28, 2003
the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted a rule to effectuate the statutory
requirements of the audit partner rotation found in Section 203 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act. Was this legislation implemented in 2003?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Cheek, this refers to the adoption date. And I—
Mr. Cheek: So if that’s the adoption date then in 2003 the clock would have
started on its adoption, thus we would be in the second year, which is 2005. My math is
pretty close in this respect. So this does not preclude Cherry, Bekaert from working an
additional year. It doesn’t put us outside the law in that regard is my reading here.
Mr. Shepard: I can speak to that. The prohibition is to the particular partner
involvement, not necessarily the firm. I see that they are—they can rotate a partner here
and not be afoul of that.
Mr. Cheek: Right. And so we’re in good standing, it looks like, from a legal
perspective from the rotation of the audit firms as long as they rotate the audit partners?
Mr. Shepard: We would not be rotating a firm here if the substitute motion
passes. We would be—
Mr. Cheek: Right.
Mr. Shepard: They would have to rotate their partners.
Mr. Cheek: Right. And I think that’s a matter of practice for them in the past as
far as my understanding.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. What happened to the bid process? Why
in the hell did we even go out for bids? What did we bid for if that’s not the process, if
that wasn’t what we supposed to do? If we going [unintelligible] we wasted Fred’s time,
we wasted the committee’s time. We wasted the director’s time. And the savings, the
$10,000, I guess that’s nothing to be brought into this thing. [unintelligible] forget that.
43
The point is we went out for bid, we had a selection process, they done their work and
they brought back a better firm, a savings. And that’s what we ought to be about. Not
about whether you like somebody or don’t like them. Whether they’re good or not good.
If they had of been in the top, I believe the committee would have still had them at the
top. But evidently they wasn’t. Mr. Mayor, I don’ see any way we can do anything but
do what is right up here and that’s to vote on what the Finance Director have brought to
us.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Colclough, go ahead.
Mr. Colclough: I wanted to ask the Attorney a question.
Mr. Shepard: One minute.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair is going to [unintelligible] personal privilege
[unintelligible] to his ruling on the vote and of whether or not that can be done. I think
it’s better to be safe than sorry. Anybody need any one of the motions reread? I’m kind
of like the DJ on radio. I got to fill this air time for a second or two. I’m going to get
both of them [unintelligible].
The Clerk: The substitute motion was to award the audit contract to Cherry,
Bekaert & Holland with the stipulation that they not exceed last year dollar amount and
that we review it periodically to make sure. And our original motion was to award the
contract as recommended by the staff recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Shepard, what is the legal ramifications for following the
substitute motion rather than the original motion. In terms of the other two companies, I
know that Elliott [unintelligible] bottom. If we award the contract to Cherry, what is the
legal ramification [unintelligible]?
Mr. Shepard: There appears to be a dispute as to the applicability of this
Sarbanes-Oxley law. The Purchasing Agent, Procurement Department viewed that as a
disqualifying event.
Mr. Colclough: As a disqualifying event?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. That’s why they [unintelligible]. My interpretation would
be that it’s not a disqualifying event and in order to have them, have everyone on notice
of the rule, of the same rule, how we interpret the Sarbanes-Oxley matter. It would be
my recommendation to send it back to Procurement with a clear understanding that we
have an interpretation from my office on the Sarbanes-Oxley law that [unintelligible].
44
Not firm disqualifying but persons disqualifying. That way, I believe you would
eliminate a possible lawsuit from the other bidder.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you.
Mr. Shepard: So that would be a more appropriate motion.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Hold on, hold on just a minute. And then you’ll have the floor. Let
me, let me just say this. If that’s where we’re going with legal, I think everybody needs
to, need to consider that, but I’m going to say this like I have said sometime before. This
didn’t just—I’m going to say this as the presiding officer without a vote unless there is a
5-5 tie. But this didn’t pop up here today now. Y’all have discussed this in committee.
It’s out here on this agenda. Now, I think if there is a question about where the law is, and
I’ve said to y’all don’t give me no surprises, I won’t give y’all any, but now this has
rested long enough to have been a determination that it’s another twist in this deal about
whether or not the law is interpreted a certain way. Before it gets to this body to even
discuss, there should be a clarification as to whether or not in the process the law has
been followed period. Now, I’m telling y’all, I’ve always said when that monkey jumps
on my back I get him off. Don’t really care whose back or behind it lands on. But now,
I’m a little peeved to a point that if we are going to get out here today and talk about
we’re going to interpret the law but then we are going to take it off and then we are going
to do the law a different way—this went through a committee. If there was a problem
with what was on there at the committee as it relates to the law, then that should have
been stifled at the committee process. It either was wrong then, not just wrong today.
And we’re getting to deal with a ruling. So now the Chair is going to be very open about
what y’all want to do. If you’re getting that out here today that that’s going to be the
case, then if there’s a doubt then it needs to be dealt with I think to a point of tabling,
postponing and dealing with this, quite frankly, at another date. Because if it’s going to
have to wait on interpretation to be dealt with, because now that question has been raised,
and whether or not you want to move away from it or not, you’ve got two different firms
here on a deal where you’re raising and dealing with the law. And that’s not a good
position to be moving in for this body. That’s where I am on that. I just—this should
have been issued quite frankly prior to the discussion of this matter. Commissioner
Williams, you have the floor, and then Chairman Hankerson.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. People are not blind and I think
everybody up here especially knows what the law states and what we should and
shouldn’t do. But Mr. Colclough asked a question to the Attorney what was the legal
ramification? He goes back to something else. I want to know if we vote this thing with
the other motion that Mr. Grantham made, what liability, what would that do for this
government? What position that put us in? That question wasn’t answered. The other
part of going back and looking at it, cause with all the money we pay you, Steve, and we
talk about this all the time, that ought to been looked at. I mean I don’t care how many
other things you got to look at, that should have been looked at. It should have been
45
done. Long story. I want to know what the ramifications for legal side of this thing if the
motion, the sub motion passes, where does that put this government?
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Williams, I did not recommend that you vote for the
substitute motion.
Mr. Williams: I understand. But we’re not voting. I want to know for myself
where that puts us if it does pass. I need to know that. That’s all I want to know.
Mr. Mayor: As the presiding officer and the one that has got to sign off on it, I’m
going to intervene for just a second because if it’s going to be discussed today, I’m not
going to allow our position to be discussed at all, quite frankly. Because if it’s going to
ask about one and it’s not going to be discussed in an open floor situation with two firms,
if that’s going to be the case of it. That’s why I’m mad about it. Because if it’s going to
be legal, then it’s going to be discussed in legal, and to a point I’m miffed to a point that
I’m not going to allow to go today in the time frame of it. This has been sitting, waiting
to a point if we going to debate about the law, it’s not going to get done today. I’m not
going to declare, we’re not going to go into legal and even discuss it. No place to even
deal with it. It should have been dealt with. And if there’s questions being to arise right
now, then we cannot discuss a legal position period, with about either one of the firms out
here. If we’re talking about what position this City is going to have to take one way or
the other. And I think that has put us in a precarious position, I think it’s put to a point of
where you’ve got two firms in terms of wasting their time to be here and to be at the end
of this agenda to even talk about it.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can. I understand where you coming from but we
had a process in this government to go through. We went through that selection process.
And the law comes into play in that. Now, I been around enough attorneys. I’m not one
but I been around enough attorneys to know that’s a legal situation within itself. We had
to do some things legal. And if we done those things legally I just need to know. And if
we have not done it legally, I need to know that as well. One way or the other. But if we
done the process through the system like it should be done and there is a bid process and
there are some things that had to be done legally, and if they was or was not done, I just
like to know.
Mr. Mayor: What I’m still saying is the Attorney himself has raised the specter
about the law and needing an interpretation of where we are. That in itself has put this
City right now in a position that cannot be answered at this moment. And I don’t think
that’s good. I think, personally speaking, I think the time has passed enough to have
dealt with it. But now that it is raised, it is out here in this body, then I’m thinking that
you who are going to have to end up voting on it had better think very carefully in terms
of what way you want to go or whether you want to go to vote at all, because I think both
motions on the floor, based on the raising of the law issue, has put us in a position that
either/or it may have to be answered again. And that is not a good position to put us in
either way at this point. I think either motion questions whether or not you’re at a point,
because as the Attorney has raised it himself, that’s going to be the person who is going
46
to have to end up defending going on the offense or defense on behalf of this City. And
that’s the only thing I’m saying. I just don’t think it’s in line to deal with this point.
Commissioner Hankerson? And I think we need to wrap up or get some motion to table
or some motion to just get this totally out of here today.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, this is not anything new as far as the
point system, as far as what position the Commission takes. We’ve did this before. It
came before us once similar to this. How well I remember about the pension funds. The
numbers, the score were different. So we have to have faith in our Purchasing
Department, that they made recommendations for us to accept. We have the opportunity
to accept them or reject them. I do have the faith in them that they would not present us
something that is illegal. I think that my opinion, that we know it well and it’s just a
decision of the Commission and I’d like to call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: That is obviously the privilege of this Commission to vote any way it
wants to. But I still say as the presiding officer, y’all have a choice to do whatever you
want to do, but when, whether I like it or not, when an issue is raised from the Attorney
as to whether or not there is something unclear in the law and you’ve got a situation to
vote between two firms and he’s raising it there, then I think it’s worthwhile to at least
say you ought to think about it. But what I’m going to do right now, y’all’s heart and
minds are clear, then you’ve got two motions out here. You’ve got a substitute and
you’ve got the first one, the original motion. And there being no further discussion, then
the substitute motion will be voted on first. All in favor of that motion will do so by the
usual sign.
(Vote on the substitute motion)
Mr. Hankerson, Ms. Beard and Mr. Williams vote No.
Mr. Cheek abstains.
Motion fails 5-4-1.
Mr. Mayor: We return to the original motion.
The Clerk: To award the contract based on staff recommendation.
(Vote on the original motion)
Ms. Sims, Mr. Rearden, Mr. Handy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Grantham and Mr. Colclough vote
No.
Mr. Cheek abstains.
Motion fails 3-6-1.
Mr. Cheek: Can the record reflect I abstained based on personal reasons?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
47
Mr. Williams: Madame Clerk, I think we also need to know that some of us who
voted yes should be abstention on that as well for personal reasons, I guess. Now, I don’t
want to get into calling folks out but—
Mr. Mayor: That’s not going to happen.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I got no problem with that. But there’s some votes that was
cast, Mr. Mayor, that shouldn’t have been cast. And I’m not going to sit here and act like
I don’t know that now.
Mr. Mayor: Well, then that’s a personal matter to deal with and that’s one that
they have to deal with in terms of—
Mr. Williams: When it comes to this government, Mr. Mayor, when it comes to
this government, Mr. Mayor—
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Commissioner—
Mr. Williams: I understand that.
Mr. Mayor: And they will have to deal with that if that being the truth. But it’s
not a case in here today to fight out an ethics deal. I’m already ticked enough to a point
that I think we’ve had enough discussion which shouldn’t have got into play in reference
to where the law is. In the first place. And what I’m going to suggest when it goes back
on, and I want all ten of y’all to hear this, this is going to get into a point that it’s not
going to be the first or the last time it’s going to happen, then I think what the Attorney
needs to do, the Attorney needs to get a ruling then based on that law, if it’s federal or
state, get one from the Attorney General, bring it back to us, because I’m not going to sit
here and preside over meetings to a point of where there is a question as to whether or not
every time Procurement’s got one way and then we get a ruling on the deal with the law.
State and get a ruling from somebody else. Get one that rules clear where it is, because
Procurement Department has a certain set of laws it’s got to operate on. And if it’s there,
then we need to do that. And then if you are going to get one, get it from the Attorney
General, put it out there and then that’s in there. But I just don’t want to keep sitting here
to where we look embarrassing before 100,000 folks to get up into something that’s been
discussed for the last month one way or the other. And that’s not taking side with any
firm [unintelligible] but it just should not be. This should not have happened today at all.
I’m not pleased with it at all. And I don’t want to get back to where we’ve got an inside
ruling on what the law says. Get it from somebody else and the City will pay for that just
like we pay for everything being done. Procurement needs to get a clear understanding,
the Attorney needs to get one, we are one team that’s out here that works to a point that
we’re not going to get in here and debate law when we get out here. Law needs to be
decided when stuff goes on this doggone agenda. No other time. Not out in here. Fight
the law in a court case and this is not a court of law.
48
Mr. Hankerson: Mayor Mays, my impression that I hear what the Attorney is
saying, but the point system wasn’t based on this ruling. So why is that a big factor? The
point system, they did not include this act in their point system. They have 356 points
based on the other criteria that each firm met. It wasn’t this act. So I don’t see why
that’s a [unintelligible] to even wait on the attorney issue. I mean they’re here. Did you
hear me [unintelligible]?
Mr. Mayor: Hear me very well, Mr. Chairman. I realize exactly what you’re
saying. But what has happened is when you raise an issue about a law and to whether it
is followed and you raise it in a public meeting in reference to where you have two firms,
that making a difference about where the points are, when the people who is representing
you legally brings that into the fray in an open meeting, then I think it’s a matter of public
trust. You got to address it. And I agree with you, it was not in there. But what I’m
saying is that is something if it was going to be raised, that should have been raised in
another arena, should have been raised on another day, should have been in there raised
when you all were talking about this in committee over a period of two to three hours in
tying up in there. This shouldn’t have come out here today like this. It’s raggedy as hell
and shouldn’t have been here. And that’s why I said if you can’t get the law straight then
get somebody who can interpret it for you. That’s why I raised that. You’re absolutely
correct about the point system, though. But it was raised to a point to where it leaves us
open to a point that either person can go file a suit. Then we’ve got to pay the Attorney
then to defend it based on what’s been opened up out here today. That shouldn’t have
been done and I still stand by what I just said. Madame Clerk, will you move on to the
next item?
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS:
43. Appoint Co-Chairman-Commissioner Betty Beard and Commissioner Don
Grantham as Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively of the Finance Committee.
(Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Marion Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to go ahead and appoint
Commissioner Betty Beard as Chairman and Commissioner Don Grantham as Vice-
Chairman of Finance so we can continue to hold our Finance meetings and continue to
try to do the business of the people of the city of Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Ms. Beard: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor?
49
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, due to the fact that my business has been involved
with the hurricane and a lot of work we’ve been doing, I’m going to decline the
appointment. I appreciate the Mayor Pro Tem considering me as vice-chairman of the
Finance Committee. I’d like to stay on the Finance Committee to assist in every way I
can, but I would decline that appointment.
Mr. Mayor: We have a declining person in there. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, do you
wish to go ahead on it and make the motion to amend that to deal with the Chairman
today and then you all—my suggestion is you all can construct that committee with the
other three members in place that are there and keep and deal with the Chairperson that
you’ve appointed?
Mr. Williams: I so move that we just go ahead and appoint the Chairman,
then, Mr. Mayor and then we’ll try to construct something when we get a meeting,
get together on it.
At least we’ll have a Chairman to continue.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed,
the same.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Hankerson: I’ve got a question I need to ask you. I’ve been confronted with
this for the last four years. What’s the difference in a co-chairman and a vice-chairman?
I remember I was appointed as a co-chairman but I was always called a vice-chairman.
It’s kind of a little different. And if it was co-chairman, then if the chairman, one
chairman leaves then you’ve already got a chairman. I was just asking for information
because—
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: All in how you word it.
[Laughter]
The Clerk:
44. Discuss the appointment of a SPLOST Oversight Committee. (Requested by
Interim Mayor Willie Mays, III)
45. Discuss the creation of a Public Information Packet regarding the accounting
of sales tax projects. (Requested by Interim Mayor Willie Mays, III)
50
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to try and be very brief with mine. It’s something that I
had asked the Commissioners to think about. I don’t know whether or not they will be in
place to do that today. What I would hope is that it would not take two weeks to come
back and do it. Much talk has been concerning the amount of sales tax money,
particularly that has been both spent, not spent, the accounting for it, and of trying to
separate what may be perceived from actual fact. I think that the general public has a full
right to know. I think those numbers can be expressed in a form in which they can be
totally laid out. But what I was attempting to do today with our oversight committee
would deal with those monies not only that are there from the previous SPLOST projects
but to get ready in hopeful anticipation that this particular SPLOST would pass, as well,
and to give us a very serious committee that would be concerned with it. I had thought
about and obviously the only thing—when you sit in this position you can suggest some
things but you can’t make motions and you can’t do them. But I thought about the fact
that with us having the Tax Assessors board, of working with six people, and I’d even
thought about tempting y’all with the fact of an odd one, and I said Willie, you better
leave that alone. I’m not going to ask you for a non-voting person that I might appoint.
But what I do think you seriously need to do is to look at from Districts 9 and 10,
involving just as we have on the Tax Assessor’s situation, of looking at three people and I
don’t mind saying [unintelligible] I can say this in a humorous way. That it would make
five people in those Super Districts talk to each other and that five folk would have to
come up with three names. Everybody has got a name. You may not think about a
matter this serious as we need to and that’s why I was wondering if you wouldn’t mind
dealing with the appointment of a six member board, three from each Super District, folk
could caucus, deal with it, two at a time, almost said three at a time, but if you on a
committee that deals with it then that eliminates that. But I think it gives you an
opportunity coming down the [unintelligible] with SPLOST to be able to have some type
of dialogue with each other in an informal way and to be able to come back with a
suggestion of those names. We do not necessarily have to have them today per se
because I’m just in my thinking, I don’t believe [unintelligible] caucusing. And I told
you when I pulled it off the last time that I wanted you all to think about it. Now, if
there’s some thinking and you all are ready from those Districts, you can go ahead and do
it. If not, I would think that hopefully [unintelligible] names would be at least submitted
to the Clerk’s office, coming from 9 and 10, and that we go ahead and so those persons
could be notified. Obviously you’ve got to talk to somebody if they’re going to be on the
board. But to be able to get this in place seriously within the next two weeks, because I
think it’s very important that this board be appointed. It’s been [unintelligible] all of us
have been to different forums, been to different neighborhood associations. People are
concerned about accountability but past and present. And I think this gives us the
opportunity to show that Commissioners are serious about it and that Commissioners are
working together in order to do it. That would be my suggestion. It can be altered. I
hope not drastically but I think we ought to give it a shot in terms of trying to get that
done. Commissioner Sims?
Ms. Sims: Mr. Mayor, finally, I feel like after eighteen months of harping, and
I’m sure that Mr. Russell has been one of the people that tries to hide from me, that I
have been harping and harping over a desire to have an oversight to find out about our
51
SPLOST funds. I’m amazed that in ten years’ time nobody else had asked what has
happened to the funds and what projects are not finished. So I guess the previous
SPLOST package last November, when it was like $480 million, with lots of desserts and
goodies, and the people said to us no, we’re not having that, and we want to know what’s
happened to the money that was not spent and the projects that were not finished. I am
delighted that the continuing demand for the information to the public has come out and
that Mr. Mayor, that you have picked up on this and going to work. And I would love to
be a member of that. I know that’s not for me to ask for, but I’m asking anyway because
that’s been a project that I been very interested in. Don’t worry, Mr. Russell, you’re not
going to get many more gray hairs. But I thank you and I appreciate your letting me
speak to this because this is maybe a pet project.
Mr. Mayor: You can’t leave before your desired time, now. Talking about just
citizens now, but I know, I appreciate your support. We’ve had many private
conversations about this and I know exactly where you’re coming from because 44
basically has something a little bit to do with 45, as well. Commissioner Cheek and then
Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I know you’ve asked on more than one occasion for a
listing of the projects from the different phases dealing with Public Works. The Director
of Engineering who served as Director of Public Works prepared roughly four to five
pages, which is as concise an executive summary as you can get. Where we’re at with
that is that out of the Phases II through IV there may be this year about $2 million
uncommitted. We’ll complete projects in the coming year which should yield us about
$2.5 million of money in recapture. The remainder of the projects are committed projects
in various stages of work. It is a myth that these monies are just sitting there and there is
nothing being done. But I would be happy to bring forward to the Commission that
information. It will take about an hour to go through the list, to review the information,
to assist this committee. I think it’s a wonderful idea. And you’re right, the people need
to see that these things are committed, they’re not just sitting there. But I offer that
whenever. We’ve had a couple of work sessions on this and the information has been
available, but it’s down to political decision time when it comes to projects. Some of
them we can transfer the funds to other projects, some of them are not necessary, which
would yield around another $6 million or $8 million depending on the political will of
this body to transfer that money. That is the status of the Public Works projects and
again the project information is about four to five pages which will require an hour for
this committee or this body to hear and we stand ready to deliver that information.
Mr. Mayor: Before Commissioner Hankerson goes, let me say thank you because
that committee has conducted a lot of workshops in terms of trying to being informative,
not just to the committee but to the entire Commission. What I would like to say, though,
is that I think that’s an excellent way internally, but what I’d like to do when we do get to
45, and I might as well go on and get that out of the way now. You are correct in terms
of the information that’s on board. I’ve also had the opportunity to look through that,
particularly these latest Friday, but what I want to do is break that down so that the
average John and Jane Doe can understand that in layman’s terms, to be able to use
52
media to work with it, and in addition to that, have asked Mr. Russell and Engineering to
work with IT on putting together the video disc so that neighborhood associations—a
complete public information packet, which will be available to media and to the
neighborhood associations. So if their [unintelligible] wants to take it with Ms. Stewart’s
group or if we’re on the south side, it will be there so that the disc can be put in, the
information can be there, it’s self-explanatory, it will break it down, so that it doesn’t
have to tie up four to five departmental people at a meeting in order to do that. It will
talk for itself. That is what I have asked them to come up with and to try and work this
out over the next week to ten days with that same information, Mr. Chairman, that you
already have in place. But to fine tune it, and y’all now how manually-orientated I am,
but technology, for those who know how to deal with it, they have the expertise of
putting it together and of being able to do this. And I think before two weeks are up, if
we can approve going forward with this and the Administrator is guiding that ship very
well to do it. We talk every day about it and I think if we can get something really
moved on 44 and 45. That would get the information packets ready to get out on what’s
there and also help—cause we can’t, we know we can’t promote sales tax out of any
governmental monies, but I think if you channel the information that has been there
already, that people are asking for, it would at least give it a fair accounting and be able
to deal with a certain level of enthusiasm of what you do, and that is legal and we can do
that. So that’s where I am on 45. I didn’t want to jump out of turn in chairing the
meeting and y’all call me out of order. But Mr. Chairman, I’m through with my 44 and
45.
Mr. Hankerson: Right. I think they’re good, Mr. Mayor, but what I would like to
see before we appoint somebody to the committee, approve the committee, is that we
have something in writing on the duties, the responsibilities, the authority and the tenure
of this committee. I’d like to know their responsibilities, what their authority going to be,
because we have some committees we’ve had—you know why I’m asking that. They
need to know the authority, what their duties, what their responsibilities. Let us know
that, too, so I’ll know what kind of person I’m going to put on the committee.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we can start with them being both honest and intelligent, but I
think this is the key first that the Commissioners will have to talk to each other. I think
we can set the guidelines as we move and before we give a charge. You’re absolutely
correct, though. They shouldn’t just be out there to a point of maybe saying
[unintelligible]. I know where you’re coming from, Bobby, on that particularly. But it’s
not a delegation of responsibility or power that’s there, but what it will allow you all to
do in those groups of five is discuss where you’re doing that, what you’re going to do.
And y’all can pick your own runner. We picked a runner last week when we did sales
tax. Andy lost. Andy got a young wife, he lost weight the other week, moving from one
end of the hall to the other one. We got some criticism about it cause we started late and
we didn’t violate the First Amendment in doing what we did. But what we were able to
do, when we started an hour and 35 minutes late, but we had a fourteen minute meeting
and we finished. And it was voted unanimously. The key is that we get results on it.
And I think, Mr. Chairman, you’re right in bringing that observation to that. I think we
can move [unintelligible]. I just kind of wanted to get it off the ground today. Y’all can
53
assume your own time. I can stick my head in on both groups to a point of how we’re
coming, because it may not be where all five meet together, but I think—it definitely
won’t be all ten, Sylvia. [unintelligible] but seriously, I think this gets us jump-started off
of it, gets it off square one, for goodness’ sake, and let’s go ahead on and do it instead of
continue to talk about doing it. And that’s what I want to see us do with both 44 and 45.
Staff can handle 45. As Andy said, there’s enough information there. It just needs to be
broken down in such a way that people can really understand it, it’s got clarity in the
lines, whether it’s on disk or whether it’s in print, folk can be able to deal with it. Even
an old man like me, I’ll be able to halfway manage it. Is there a motion?
The Clerk: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain hopefully—I think you may have—
Ms. Sims: I’d like to make a motion to approve. Do we just do 44 and 45?
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will accept that.
Ms. Sims: 44 and 45.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair refuses to allow it to die. Is there a second?
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: That’s on 44 and 45?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk:
46. Discuss Master Plan for City of Augusta Cleanup. (Requested by Interim
Mayor Willie Mays, III)
Mr. Mayor: Again, Commissioners, I need some direction and I think that we’ve
had in a lot of discussion, particularly, particularly inside the inner city, in reference to
clean-up. Staff and professional people obviously have to do the work, but what I think
needs to be done is there needs to be a stronger sense of direction. I think there needs to
be some specific priorities and basically in terms of an [unintelligible] plan as to how to
get this cleaned up. Mr. Russell and I have discussed much of it, but I think what we
54
have to do first is that we need to make some cemeteries a priority because folk who are
there, not being funny about it, they are not able to speak for themselves. Many of the
oldest citizens of this community lie there, their remains in those cemeteries. Those
gateways and entrances to our city and those medians, those are the things that I think
need to fall in secondly. But what I’m looking for, and this is not a criticism, it’s just
something that I think we need to place a greater emphasis in doing. Now we know the
limits. Warden Leverett knows it better than anybody else in terms of how far inmate
crews can work from each other. I had an observation recently where one area was
cleaned very well but it was still like dressing up in a tuxedo, putting on muddy shoes.
There was some manicuring that needed to be still greatly done behind guard rails on one
particular median way. We need to be able to send people in that will be able to do both
at the same time. We also need to be able to allow them to be creative in what they’re
doing and to be able to work through an area. If we’ve got 6 to 7 crews out in some of
these areas, we need to be able if we have to, then we need to put 40 to 50 people in a 10
to 12 block area, let the community see that they are working and be able to move them
on so that they massively clean at one time. They do not need to be where they are in the
cemetery and by the time you get say one part of Magnolia or Cedar Grove clean, the
other half of it has grown up just as much. They need to be in there where we can
mobilize those crews. Everybody that we’ve got that cuts. I also think we need to give
you all the opportunity to inventory what’s there in equipment on an immediate basis.
We can spend millions of dollars, hundred of thousands of dollars, we ought to be able to
see whether or not we got a shortage on some lawn mowers. If news folk can go out and
interview the folk who work for us, then we ought to be able to within, and the folk who
are in charge of those areas, to go out and inspect. If we need them, then we need to buy
them. And it’s no better time to a point with all the rain we’ve had to deal with an
emergency basis that if that’s the kind of equipment we’ve got to have, then we need to
do it. But what I’d like to see us do is to be able within the next two weeks, obviously
this will come back through Engineering Services, but I’d like to see us be on board with
what we are going to do within that two week period, not a plan on paper to come back
with it and say this is how we’re going to do it. Allow staff to do it, and the worst thing
we can do as policy makers is to get in the middle of it and try and get it done. But
enough folk are on board to be able to do it. There’s no reason that in some way we can
have as much staffing, and if we got to fill those gaps we have to do it, but we should not
look worse than we’ve done in the 60s, the 70s, the 80s and the 90s. We have to do a
better job with it than we do and I think that we’ve got folk on board staff-wise, we just
need to give them the freedom enough to be creative and to be able to mobilize them so
that we can be able to see them and be able to move into these areas massively and to get
some work done in them. That’s—I know this can only deal with an information
standpoint today of moving it but I wanted to address it out here so that by the time it gets
through committee and be able to come back here in that following week, we need to be
able to say these are the results of what we’ve done and that we need to be moving on
with this. And I yield to Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: I just wanted to volunteer if you needed someone to serve on a
committee to develop the Master Plan. I’d love to serve.
55
Mr. Mayor: You just got drafted. Reinstatement of that draft. Any others?
Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: This is very good, Mr. Mayor. One of my questions, and I ask
the question because you said you didn’t want it come back on paper, you wanted it to
come back in action. How is that going to—is that going to interfere with the plan that
we already have for the inmate crews to each District? I heard you said get staff
involved. Staff is not involved in the inmate crews. Is that—with this plan, are they
going to—
Mr. Mayor: What I’m looking at, Mr. Chairman, and envisioning is when I say
staff is that everybody that we pay that’s involved with making a decision, from the
Administrator to the Assistant Administrator through Trees & Landscapes, through
Recreation, anybody that pushes and cuts something, all the way over to inmate labor, I
think that what I’m looking at is the fact—I don’t want it to disrupt in Districts but we’ve
got so much stuff out there right now is that when you work these small crews to a point
of not having a serious impact in doing it. If you moving some from 1, in District 1, for
instance. And you’ve got for two to three days maybe some people who are out of
District 2’s cutting force. Or District 4’s cutting force. To move them in and to work
them and to get them done. The old secret of how the cemeteries got cleaned up, even
when the city was running short on finances, was because they put the folk on the back of
the truck and they put all of them at Cedar Grove or they put all of them at Magnolia and
they put all of them in Westview. And you collectively put the folk together and you
moved them with a plan to do it. I don’t intend, cause I don’ t know how to do what they
do well. I’m just saying they need to find a different way of doing the business that
they’re doing. And I don’t think that will disrupt in terms of normal cutting. It may
change a pattern for a day or two but if we continue to put these small crews to clean up
small patches, that’s the result that we are going to get, is just in small patches. And they
also need to coordinate it—like I say, they did a wonderful job on Laney-Walker. They
cut it, they cut it as bald as Michael Jordan’s head. But when you got inside the guard
railing, the grass was still seven feet tall. The same type of folk who do the opposite
work need to be there when that crew is doing that. So if the equipment is not there to
cut behind the guard rail, then you’ve still got folk who feel like they’re second class
citizens because they say even though you did it for progress, they say they came and half
cut my area. I want them when they go into an area to cut it right the first time. And all
the little things that we may need is in there. We get criticized [unintelligible] leave half
the stuff that’s on the ground when a crew goes to pick up something. If they need a
broom and a dust pan, a bigger one to do it with, then they need to have that when they
go out. It shouldn’t look like they were mad with somebody when they cleaned it up. I
know we got to do some things for the folk who work for us, but at the same time they
need to be able—and I think there needs to be a meeting on how to do that. And I’m not
going to be to a point [unintelligible] I’m just making a suggestion. Not going to try and
tell them how to do it. And obviously we don’t need to pull those District crews out,
leave them out a long time. But they need to be in place so that we can massively move
some of this stuff that’s out there. Cedar Grove, best example what I’m talking about
about coordination. You clean the inside of the cemetery and you ride down East
Boundary and the grass on the outside of the fence of the cemetery is still four feet high.
56
That’s crazy. You ought to at least be able to see the good works you’ve done. So if you
are going to clean the cemetery, then clean outside the cemetery where you can look in it
and see that it’s clean. Those are the kind of little things that I think the Director needs to
change and the focus of doing it. Give them the freedom to clean it up and do it right and
have a plan on how you’re going to do it. You’re right, something got to be done on
paper with it, but I think it needs to be one that doesn’t stay on paper. It needs to be a one
plan that is a working plan and that it moves. That would be an answer I’d give you on
how we would deal with the Districts out there. I don’t think they ought to be abandoned
but I think in some places we need to move with massive force, that obviously 40 folk
ought to be able to clean more than four folk can in one area. If you’ve got to move
them, then move them. And that means they don’t have to stay there in [unintelligible]. I
don’t know what the rules are, Mr. Leverett, but I want y’all to even look at the point on
daylight saving time and the hours that folk work. It’s hot enough at 12:00, 1:00 o’clock
in the day. Maybe some folk ought to start earlier, that we move out at daybreak, to a
point, when it’s light. Let them work while it’s cool. Find the creative ways to make it
work. That’s all I’m asking. And I just want the Commission to at least be on board in
terms of supporting the administration of our staff to be able to come up with a way that’s
clean and different than the ways we are cleaning now. And if y’all are pleased with the
way we’re cleaning now then y’all ought to vote 10-0 to turn it down. But if you think
there needs to be a different way to do it, then we need to support them and vote 10-0 to
start and change it. That’s all I’m asking. And will accept a motion to do so.
Mr. Colclough: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Hankerson: I mean I asked the question cause I was just concerned. I don’t
want them to take all the inmate crews out in the District. I know I got a lot of problems
out there with the overgrown and a lot of them state issues.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible] state issues.
Mr. Hankerson: But I don’t want to send them all to the cemetery.
Mr. Mayor: The only thing I’m saying is they’ve given a priority and I think if
you’re reasonable about it, what you’ll see, Mr. Chairman, is that the same people you
lose on a Wednesday, you’ll get all of them back on a Thursday because you’ll run the
benefit of the people that are out of your area, they’ll come back to you but they’ll come
back three and four times in terms of what you lost. But I think we have an obligation
not only to cemeteries, but let’s not forget, we’ve still got perpetual care monies that the
government has collected that are supposed to be in trust that’s being questioned by
citizens who own property in all three of those cemeteries. So there is a responsibility if
nothing else to those that have paid into that fund and perpetual still means perpetual
regardless of how little those monies are. So they have to come first because they paid
for it, and by law those that should be cleaned have to be cleaned.
Mr. Hankerson: Do you need a second?
57
Mr. Mayor: Still need a second.
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. All in favor of the motion will do so by the
usual sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 9-0.
47. Discuss the funding source for Capital Project(s) for the Augusta Public
Transit Department. (Requested by the Interim Mayor Willie Mays, III)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to let them off the hook on 47.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell has been working on this and the reason I put it on there
is the fact that this is one that I had asked and promised and as you all know, I probably
got the most vocal member on the Public Transportation Advisory Committee, Mr. Willie
Jones. Mr. Willie Jones has lost his sight but he’s not lost his vision about public transit.
And he comes many times to remind us of it. One of the things that we took off sales tax
was the fact that the Public Transit money, which would have been about 90%
reimbursable is not there. And [unintelligible] because our Administrator was going to
work on another source to be able to do that and to get it out there and I just wanted to
make sure that we stay focused on that because it is reimbursable money and I was just
bringing that to the table today in order to do that and I just want to make sure that he
knows that we’re concerned about it. I hope all of us are concerned about it, because if
we’ve got a chance to get 90% of our money back, then that ought to be one of our
priorities. And I just bringing that there. Don’t even have to deal with a motion on it.
But I just was trying to get it out there so that it stays fresh and we don’t forget out it.
Cause Mr. Jones will not let me forget about it and I put him there and he wants to know
if he’s going to stay there, Mr. Handy, so I told him to call you. And he will, too. He’ll
catch the bus and come to your house. Yes, he will. But I’m through that out, Madame
Clerk. I just wanted to bring that out for the record.
The Clerk: 48?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk:
58
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
48. Authorize execution of a professional services agreement with CH2MHill to
provide staff augmentation support to the newly formed Engineering Department
with support from Jordan Jones & Goulding and William Russell Johnson upon
receipt and approval of executed documents by Procurement and the City Attorney
and identify and approve a funding source.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Chairman of that committee first, then
Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Cheek:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. What I want to recommend, we’ve talked
about this, several of us have talked about, is—I have had this trouble me since
committee meetings concerning a three year agree or some not-to-exceed amount in the
order of $2+ million, that we contract with CH2MHill to plug the holes in our
Engineering Department for the remainder of the year. I understand that we’ve
developed a funding source to cover that significantly less than the $2+ million, and that
we mandate staff—and this is the thing that’s troubled me since then—we’ve been
working on filling these positions for three years. This board has on more than one
occasion stepped up and said anything you need to help fill these position, come to us,
and we will help you. And we have done nothing but had to ask every time it hasn’t been
filled. I have high confidence that CH2MHill will do a fine job for us and if we should
need to extend that contract due to the deficiencies in staff and their ability to fill the
positions, then we’ll address that at that time, but this will get us through the end of the
year, bring some very competent engineers to bear on a lot of the weaknesses or the
empty spots within our ranks and encourage staff to move with all due diligence to fill
these positions. I know right now, for instance, in the local economy we just let 800
people go, including many qualified engineers, from Savannah River in close to salary
ranges that we’re looking at. We’re looking at several more going and that’s just at
I’m going to make that in the form of a recommendation, I’d
Savannah River. So
like to ask—Fred’s headed out the door, I think he’s got a funding source for us—
but ask him for that information and then put that in the form of a motion, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there discussion? Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I got a couple of questions for the
Administrator, I guess would probably be the one to answer this. Commissioner Cheek
made a good point. People need jobs. Savannah River Site just laid off a bunch of
people. What are we doing with this? I guess the committee was meeting, simultaneous
committee meetings going on at the same time, one in one room, one in the next. And I
wanted to address this but I wasn’t able to because of the other meeting. But what are we
doing? Are we—with CH and JJG and Johnson and whoever else there is, are they going
to be taking engineers from their department, working in this government? I mean tell
me exactly what supposed to be proposed.
59
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Commission. And let me apologize. Ms. Smith obviously
has more detailed knowledge of this than I do but she’s had a death in the family and
can’t be with us today, so I’m going to go ahead and give you the answers [unintelligible]
knowledge I have of what was going on. I’ve been involved with the discussion all
along. What they will be doing is supplementing the work process of our engineers here,
will be assigning X number of engineers to our office to fill in the gaps that we have and
continue to move forward. In addition to that, they will be assisting and doing some of
the recruiting ideas and doing some of the screening of applicants and bringing forth
some of the things that need to be done so we can put those people on board that we have
available. It seems at this point to me where we’ve hit the loggerhead is that Ms. Smith is
still attempting to do three, four—I mean she can’t do the engineering work, she can’t
screen the applicants, she can’t do the other things necessary to maintain the day-to-day
operations at the level that we need them maintained with the current staff that we have.
And that’s pretty much what we’re attempting to do, is give her some extra bodies, some
extra eyes and ears. We’ll be able to continue the work on a day-to-day basis, that will be
able to release some of the pressures on some of her current staff that are working very,
very long hours and doing a great job, but we’re running them into the ground.
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible], Mr. Russell. [unintelligible] I’ve got a problem
and been having it a long time so don’t y’all [unintelligible] but my problem is some
$388,000 is what we going to pay for the assistance we going to get for how long? How
long is that?
Mr. Russell: The $388,000 is for a year’s worth of service. What we’re
recommending is we do this, look at it after 90 days, which gets us into the first year.
We’ve identified the funding sources through Engineering. Now, for the first three
months of that, then we’d review that, bring you back a report.
Mr. Williams: Too much information.
Mr. Russell: We’re going to make it work.
Mr. Williams: If you do this contract, can you come in 90 days and stop it and
say well, you know, we don’t think we’re going to need you right now? If you approve
this contract, I mean what are you approving? Are we doing on a 90 day trial period, are
we doing, are we approving this contract? And if we approving this contract I can’t see
us stopping it in 90 days from my trying to understand it that they was going—they go
the expertise to help us hire the quality of people or person that we would need to come
into this government to do engineering work. Well, they are doing work already in
Utilities and been doing work before. With what we already paying them don’t they have
some person even in Utilities that can assist us in getting those quality people versus
spending the [unintelligible] Andy talked about really, you know [unintelligible] I think
the flag went up on that. We can hire a lot of people with $388,000 but the
[unintelligible] million we could have hired and gave raises to a bunch of folks. But that
got turned around. The other question is was this bidded out? Or did we get a group to
60
come in to see what we can get for this or we just decide to go with another firm who is
already doing business with this government and use them versus seeing what we can get
for the $388,000?
Mr. Russell: Last question first.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Russell: In discussion with the Purchasing Department—this is a
professional service and we did not need to bit this out. We do have a track record with
CH2MHill—
Mr. Williams: Do not need to or do not have to?
Mr. Russell: Do not have to.
Mr. Williams: Okay. All right.
Mr. Russell: You’ve been hanging around with lawyers way too much. But—
now I’ve lost it. We did not have to bid this out, we decided not to based on the need to
go ahead and fill the positions. We have a track record with CH2MHill and the other
firms involved and we’ve reviewed their presentation and we feel that it’s appropriate
and that the dollar amount we’re talking about now is an appropriate amount of money.
To use people that are currently assigned to Utilities would take away from what they’re
doing in Utilities and it’s like apples and oranges in my mind at this particular point in
time. The first question—
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible] first question? Can I just needed a simple yes or no
answer on those. I don’t need all this explanation, Fred. You make me lose my train of
thought, you get to rattling on. But go ahead and get the first question cause I got one for
the Attorney and then I’m going to be through.
Mr. Russell: I hate to tell you this but I forgot the first question.
Mr. Williams: I understand.
Mr. Russell: I’m sorry.
Mr. Williams: Let me ask the Attorney. Can we do this, Steve, can we, can this
process work and 90 days we come back and how can we get out of this contract if we
got—if you’re talking about a four year span, $388,746—how in 90 days can we come
back and break it or resolve it or change it? Is that language in here that we can do that?
Mr. Shepard: You would write in a termination for convenience clause, Mr.
Williams.
61
Mr. Williams: But it’s not written in here, though?
Mr. Shepard: Well, you haven’t given full instructions to the office yet of
whether you even want this or not. This is here before the body in concept. And I am
hearing what you say, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: And let me tell you. I’ve got no problem with getting some
assistance now. I do have a problem, and Andy mentioned about all the people laid off
and all of the people that’s looking for employment and how they looking. And we got
money and people out there looking but we ain’t hired nobody. Whether that be the
Director’s fault, whether it be Human Resources’ fault, or whether it be this
Commission’s fault. I got a serious problem out there when you’ve gotten money to hire
folks and we haven’t hired them. Now, I said this earlier and I’m going to state it again.
We going to spend this kind of money but we’re going to ask people to go up on their
garbage fee. We are going to ask people to vote on the sales tax. But we taking this kind
of money and paying out for 90 days or for four years when we could be giving
employees of the Augusta-Richmond County for a long time. So I guess I got my
answer. Silence is golden but—
Mr. Russell: The answer to your question is if we’re given permission to go
ahead and do the agreement with them we will have a 90 day termination clause in the
agreement that says after 90 days if we have accomplish what we want to accomplish we
would stop the contract at that point. I would also have it such that we could stop it at
any time after that point. So we won’t have it set in for the full year.
Mr. Williams: That legal side of that, Mr. Shepard, I might need your help on
that. Do we have to give 90 days’ advance notice to—at the end of 90 days?
Mr. Shepard: That would make it 90 plus 90, or 180.
Mr. Williams: That what y’all been teaching me. I just need to know if that
going to be—I mean [unintelligible] end of the week and say we don’t need you no more,
we done had you for 90 days?
Mr. Shepard: That wouldn’t be very reasonable.
Mr. Williams: I understand. So my question is do we have to give 90 in advance
to end it in 90? Cause if we going to do that, we need to do that now and say in January
we are going to end this contract. I ain’t the only one that heard that.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Williams, I’ve just been talking to the representative here and I
think it’s appropriate that we do give them some notice and I think as a point that you
brought that up. They agree to a 30-day notice. What we’ll do is do 60 days to an
evaluation. At that point determine whether or not and do a 30 day notice from then on
out every month.
62
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: And then Commissioner Sims.
Mr. Cheek: We have the ability to get someone in here that has a full staff. They
have on-board traffic engineers, pre-construction engineers. The engineers this company
brings boggles the mind. They’re an international company. We have a good working
relationship with them. We have precedent in that we’ve used them before in his
capacity in this government in my term as a Commissioner, which means in the last four
years. And they’ve provided us assistance. This is an opportunity, and surely for all of
us, seeing that money going to our own employees in the form of being able to hire and
keep employees on staff, which is something we have not been able to do in three years,
would be the optimal condition for us. But we have the ability to bring these people in
and help us hopefully provide guidance and instruction and assistance in many areas to
keep this government moving and correct the problems that we haven’t corrected in three
years. I just urge passage. I’d love to see the money stay in here and not go out to an
outside firm to do the business but the bottom line is that we haven’t, for whatever
reason, been able to do the business in house and this is where we are left. In order to
keep the projects, the plans, and all the work moving through that needs to move through,
this is the solution and it is a short-term fix in the hopes that we’ll get this corrected by
the first of the year.
Mr. Mayor: Jimmy, I hate to do this to you, but Betty and Barbara look better
than you. I’d missed them over there. But go ahead, Ms. Sims, and then we are going
end up with Commissioner Smith and we’re going to go ahead and take a vote on this
item.
Ms. Sims: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess first I want to make a statement that I
am very sorry that within our own engineering firm we’ve not been able to hire and
we’ve not been able to promote from within. And that is one of the things that bothers
me. It troubles me greatly, that there have been people that have been employed by this,
by us that have not been promoted. They’ve been qualified to be promoted but they’ve
not been promoted and they’ve been dismissed or they’ve left because they knew there
was no chance of promotion. So having said that, I want to know if any of the people
that are now employed by this government will be used if we, if we go with the firm
between now and January? Can any of our employees that have the possibility to go up
and to become something greater than they are now, can they possibly be employed by
that particular company? Then my next question is what happens at the end of our time
to the employees that are hired or brought here by that firm? Do they go back with the
firm or do they stay here? And where does that put us? In what kind of position are we
going to be left in? It just worries me that we have people that have worked so hard and
have wanted to be promoted and have done everything they are supposed to do and
they’ve not been.
63
Mr. Russell: I can’t speak to whether or not CH2MHill or the other firms would
hire any of our employees. I would hope that our people here would be given the
opportunity to be promoted as necessary and as they deserve, and my job is to make sure
that happens. And I pledge to you that I’ll do that. As far as their people staying at the
end, let me tell you that if they bring us a qualified person that I can recruit and get to
stay at the salaries that we can pay and the benefits that we can have, I’ll put them on
notice and I’ll steal them in a heartbeat.
Ms. Sims: That’s my question. Can we do that?
Mr. Russell: That’s what we’re doing there.
Ms. Sims: I just mainly, my main thing is I want to take care of the people that
we have here that are working for us, and I want to give them the opportunity to advance.
Mr. Russell: Yes, ma’am, I understand.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, agree that we need help in our
Engineering Department. And you know, back, early on in the year, we split that
department up and reduced the responsibilities of our director by 2/3 and kept the same
salary. No salary reduction. To spend another $100,000 a month is something that I
really think we need to think about. I know we need the work. There is so much that has
been started that has not been finished all over Richmond County, and especially in
District 8. The only place that we can expand our city and dirt roads—it’s just about
impossible to get anything done with that. But I’m going to support the motion but if
something don’t come from it this time, we’re going after this situation full blown.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if I can. That $100,000 is approximate total for the
three months. It’s only about $32,000 a month and I’m sorry if I misstated that.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed
the same.
Mr. Rearden and Mr. Williams vote No.
Mr. Handy votes Present.
Mr. Grantham out.
Motion carries 6-2-1.
Mr. Handy: I have a question before I vote, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: This one passed out there.
Mr. Handy: I still have a question I need to know.
64
Mr. Mayor: Can you ask it and get a one word answer? Go ahead, Freddie.
Mr. Handy: This is only for one month at a time and for three months? That’s all
I want to know.
The Clerk: To the end of the year.
Mr. Russell: With the option to continue.
The Clerk: With the option to continue.
Mr. Russell: On a month-to-month basis.
Mr. Handy: Okay. I was just looking at—everybody want to rush now but when
they talk they take their own time. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
The Clerk: Are you going to vote, Mr. Handy?
Mr. Handy: I’m present.
The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Handy votes present.
Mr. Handy: Nobody wants to listen.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I left the discussion on for the last forty minutes. I mean I
didn’t stop nobody from [unintelligible]. Madame Clerk, move to the next.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
49. Discuss/approve 2004 Water and Sewerage Bond Rate Swap. (Requested by
Commissioner Richard Colclough)
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Shepard: I’ll make our special counsel available. Mr. Woods, he’s doing
that. And I can get our swap advisor. So if there are any questions that you have of those
entities we can address those. The Chair expressed a preference to doing it in here so we
can do it by cell phone, I think is probably the best medium. I’m going to get our swap
advisor on the phone so we don’t have to stop for any reason. It will be just about a
minute technical set-up, please.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
65
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible]
Mr. Shepard: The law requires us to have a swap advisor. If you remember the
special statute that they passed.
Mr. Williams: I thought it was [unintelligible].
Ms. Beard: He has to work with the [unintelligible].
Mr. Williams: All right.
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible]
Mr. Shepard: We’ll have it ready in just a minute.
Mr. Mayor: [unintelligible]
Mr. Shepard: [into phone] This is Steve Shepard. We’re in a meeting and we’re
going to be proceeding through my memorandum which has been circulated around on
the interest rate swap. I’d like for you to just be available should there be any questions
from the members of the Commission. We’re going to go through my agenda item on
this matter.
Mr. Speaker: [on phone] Sure.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I have had a role of
putting this together with the assistance of the swap advisor. We’ve been in touch with
the broker who brought us the proposal, Gardner Michael. They’re here today in person.
Jerry Woods, of course, is representing Kilpatrick Stockton. I’ve tried to put it in a
decision memorandum form so that you have the alternatives that you have. Basically,
we could retain these benefits in the Utilities Department, we could bring them out of the
Utilities Department through the use of the [unintelligible] and [unintelligible] payments.
It is in this are that we draw some criticism from bond counsel and others. And of course
if you feel like this is something we should not do then the third alternative, of course, is
not to enter this transaction at all. And just to try to summarize this memorandum—and
I’ll say this much. I had the memorandum passed—the numbers passed by Mr. Carlton,
then we sent it over to Mr. Persaud, we sent it to Steve Little, and to Max Hicks here in
house. We’ve attempted to have a thorough discussion of what we are about to
undertake, if you decide to undertake the rate swap. And basically we first did an
estimate with Mr. Persaud of what the assets of the AUD system would be if they were in
a context that they would be subject to taxation. Basically, we figured that the Utilities
Department would pay about $816,000 in taxes. We have then determined what
payments it currently makes in lieu of taxes, and that is about $823,790. The two figures
obviously are fairly close. I don’t know that the system’s assets are all fully accounted
66
for because I can well remember that the system’s assets have recently been improved by
the Max Hicks Water Treatment Plant and other facilities. The other line item that we
use legitimately to transfer benefits from the AUD system is the franchise fee. And I
calculated and here again had the accountants go behind me. Based on their quotes we’re
paying a franchise fee of $721,000 for the water and $502,000 franchise fee for the
sewerage. This is about 2.4% of annual revenues and I just compared that to one other of
our franchise holders. Four percent is what we charge Georgia Power. So bottom line is
I am not real optimistic that we could put more money in through the payment in lieu of
taxes but it does appear that the franchise fee is a little lower than some others that we
charge. Now, where the criticism comes in here is that if we increase the transfers, rating
agencies may deem those charges to be larger and that there would be an adverse
consequence on our ratings. And that could affect how we issue future bonds. That’s a
decision that’s outside of my hands. It’s outside of our hands. If we do it, we have that
risk and I think you should be aware of that. It would be a policy decision as to how
much we take out of the system, how much we leave in. Then the second major
alternative here again is that we leave the benefit of this rate swap inside the Augusta
Utilities Department. You would not have any increase in the [unintelligible] and
[unintelligible] payments. Here again, these are examined by the rating agencies.
There’s no legal maximum. There is just a rule of reason that we would have to justify
the expenses should we increase them. If we increase—here again, we need to do, we
need to comply with the swap law which just passed. You’ll remember I brought that to
your attention in early July. We have taken the first step to hire Image, and now they are
prepared upon your direction to develop an interest rate management plan. They have
not done so. They are awaiting the decision of this Commission today. And I also point
out why we have special counsel. Well, special counsel is necessary as they are, they
have the expertise that we do not have locally. I first called our bond counsel from
previous bond work. They were not interested on doing it on a contingency fee, as has
Image has been interested in doing it. I also then contacted Kilpatrick Stockton and
learned that the hometown firm who has a branch in the little town of Atlanta also had a
significant role in the writing of this new law. Therefore, I thought that Mr. Woods and
his partner would be very well positioned to advise us to get this interest rate
management plan written properly. And I am recommending that that happen. The
gentleman, Earle Taylor, is on the phone. He has been actively involved in derivative
work. This is something that just doesn’t come to local counsel that often. It doesn’t
really come. So you have, you have the opportunity to work with the author of this law,
you have the opportunity to hire him, you have your swap counsel, and the
recommendation that I have is subject to your alternatives, of course. If you do either
Alternative 1 or Alternative 2, what you have to do today is here again authorize Image to
prepare the interest rate management agreement. We would hire special counsel. They
have placed an engagement letter in the file which I brought to you at the break. And we
would have Deutsche Bank, who will be the counter party which The Gardner Michael
firm has brought to us, have them prepare the documents that they feel necessary. These
will all be reviewed by special counsel and by my office. And then we need the board
here to pass what we call an authorizing resolution. Here again, we have looked at this. I
asked for one other illustration, so you could understand the formula. I did put a color
chart at the end of my presentation which indicates how this transaction would have
67
played out had we started it in hypothetical manner back in 1985, just to give you some
sort of sense of how these things work over time. I want to stress that what we did was
not an indication that we will have this kind of performance in the future. I think
anybody in the securities business will tell you that past results are no indicator of future
results. And so historically the index known as BMA, which is shown in blue in this
performance chart that Image prepared, falls below the index that we have under which
we receive monies. So the differences have been calculated hypothetically for each year
in the hypothetical example so that the annual impact is shown. And it would have been
a very—in hindsight it would have been a very favorable twenty years to have worked
with, because I see only one set where—one set of numbers where we would have had to
pay the counterparty. I cannot say that will happen in the future but what the interest rate
advisors, the Image firm has stressed to me, is that this condition exists in the market. It
has not materially deteriorated since we first started talking about it, but it won’t exist
forever. And so this concept was brought to us by Gardner Michael and I thought it
appropriate that their creativity be rewarded with serious approach to this, which would
include hiring the necessary professionals and then basically doing your will, keeping it
inside the AUD, bringing some of if within limits, outside, I think you can’t just have a
blank check drawdown off of Utilities. I well remember that Utilities is supposed to
stand on its own and was not supposed to subsidize the general government. It does
through these payments pay the general government and I think we could defend those
payments if they are within the rules of reason, the yard sticks that we have set out in my
memorandum, and like I said that’s been passed by our other professionals. I would urge
the body to take action. If you have questions, I’ve got all of these people assembled and
they can hear you based on this cell phone technology that we have today. So my role as
being the broker of information here has brought this to this point. I think you have to
determine that we can do this. I think there are probably folks here that want to make
sure that their position has been well known. I think I’ve tried to give you both the pros
and the cons, ladies and gentlemen. You are entering an area where the market could
move against you in the future. There is risk in anything you do. But with the Image
memorandum, we can control this thing. I’m told that the basic and most conservative
way to approach this is in the year-by-year payout. And that would be my
recommendation if you do it, that you do it with that kind of payout, not a big movement
in the beginning because if you later have interest rate movement or a problem with the
swap, then you’d have a lot to repay. I’d ask that you add anything that you feel is of
record, needs to be of record while these Commissioners make this decision, and then
Earle Taylor, I’d ask you to comment as well. Mike? Mike?
Mr. Speaker: [on the phone] Steve did a fine job of laying out the swap. As far
as information, Steve, I think it’s important to stress that you and I have talked about the
[unintelligible] on the swap. Looking back over twenty years, had the swap been put in
place in 1985 it would have been a very good experience for the city. Going forward,
based on [unintelligible], we would expect that it would be a very good experience for the
city. Again, using historical data to look forward, which isn’t a perfect science. But
there are risks and those risks were discussed on the last phone call going through the
memo that was prepared by Image on August 22, that everyone should be aware of before
moving forward. But given the market today, relative to historic markets for this type of
68
transaction, I think it’s a very favorable trade. Doing all of the analysis that we’ve been
able to do thus far, again, based on historical data, this trade would have performed
exceptionally well over twenty years. At this point time we’re of the opinion that it’s a
sound trade and it’s really just a policy decision at this point for folks at the City to
decide whether or not you’re ready to move forward with it.
Mr. Shepard: And Mike, you have your memorandum of August 22 there handy?
Mr. Speaker: [on phone] I do.
Mr. Shepard: And Exhibit A, I think it would be important that you go over the
little matrix block in paragraph three. You have some figures that are against us and
some that are for us. For the record, I’d like to put that in, if you would.
Mr. Speaker: [on phone] Steve, I’m sorry, I had a little bit of trouble hearing
you.
Mr. Shepard: I said if you have your memorandum of August 22 in your hands
there—
Mr. Speaker: [on phone] I have the memorandum in my hands.
Mr. Shepard: Do you have Exhibit A of that memorandum?
Mr. Speaker: [on phone] I do.
Mr. Shepard: And having that, I’d just ask for the record that you review this
matrix that you put in the middle of your memo.
Mr. Speaker: [on phone] Gladly. Gladly. The [unintelligible] matrix that we put
together in the paragraph there [unintelligible] indications of the variability of the swap’s
mark-to-market value. For the purpose of the chart that’s been put together, we assume
the structure that was used throughout the memo, which was at the time, August 22, using
that market as a base, a basic swap under which the City would take BMA to Deutsche
Bank and receive in return 67% of [unintelligible] basis points. And what we intended to
do was show on the trade date of that trade, so if the City were to actually [unintelligible]
the August 22 in that example, show what the mark-to-market value would be under
different conditions. So on [unintelligible] for instances, [unintelligible] the market
[unintelligible] would be approximately $3.3 million. And then what we do is look at the
ten year minimum, average, and maximum for thirty year BMA [unintelligible] ratios.
The swap mark-to-market value is going to have variability based upon the level of
interest rate, but more importantly, the variability in ratio is between [unintelligible] and
the taxable rates on the long end of the yield curve. So what we do is say how bad has it
been, how good has it been, and what would have been the average over the past ten
years. So it’s just going down in order. And just to go a little further on that or expand
on that, would be that when ratios drop—current ratios are approximately 82% on the
69
long end of the curve. As ratios drop, that’s actually a positive thing. For this swap,
[unintelligible] swap, once the swap has been executed, so if we were to execute a swap
in an 82% environment, to see thirty year ratios drop from 82% to something lower
would cause the swap to be mark-to-market and the City’s favor. So in the case of the
ten year minimum, which was 72%, or approximately ten ratios lower than we are today,
the swap mark-to-market value for the City would be approximately $9,750,000 positive
to the City. That’s the scenario over the last ten years.
Mr. Shepard: And the City is paid that money?
Mr. Speaker: [on phone] The City would be paid that money, that’s correct.
[unintelligible] numbers [unintelligible] representative from the City’s perspective.
Mr. Shepard: And then the negative numbers would represent a payment that had
to be made to the counterparty, is that correct?
Mr. Speaker: [on phone] That is correct. Yes. Much further down that chart the
ten year average [unintelligible] variable rate bonds or the BMA average or the
percentage of life [unintelligible] or BMA swaps [unintelligible] we’re looking at the ten
year average of the thirty year BMA [unintelligible] ratio. That average is approximately
78.65%, or about three-and-a-half ratios lower than we are today. At that level, the ten
year average levels for the thirty year ratio, the mark-to-market value on day one would
be positive to the City $1,169,000. And then we would—obviously another way. The
maximum thirty year ratio. The maximum thirty year ratio is four points higher, 84.5%,
which actually as you can see we’re not all that far away from the ten year
[unintelligible]. I think that happened probably about two years ago. But at 84.5% the
negative mark-to-market value or the amount that the City would have to pay to get out
of the transaction at that point in time would be approximately $6.4 million.
Mr. Shepard: $6.4 million. They need to read the negative numbers as what the
City may have to pay; is that correct?
Mr. Speaker: [on phone] That is correct, yes. And of course, these are
indications based on market value subject to change depending on shapes of the yield
curve and so on and so forth. But as of August 22, this represents shifts one way or the
other in the thirty year ratio.
Mr. Shepard: Nevertheless, it is your opinion that this could be beneficial to the
City; it’s just really a policy decision how we use the funds within the constraints of the
[unintelligible] and the [unintelligible] programs; right?
Mr. Speaker: [on phone] At these market levels, yes, I believe it’s very
reasonable, very reasonable to assume that they would be favorable to the City forward-
looking. Again, add to the expenditure of any cash flows presented from the
[unintelligible] I think that’s a policy decision on how those would be spend in the future.
70
Mr. Shepard: Earle?
Mr. Taylor: Yes?
Mr. Shepard: You will review the documents to determine that we have
termination options and you’re listening to what might happen that would be favorable
and what might not happen, that might not be so favorable; is that right?
Mr. Taylor: I’m having a hard time hearing you, Steve.
Mr. Shepard: I’m sorry. I’m speaking into the microphone and into the phone,
too. You’re on a cell phone. I’m saying that the documents would be reviewed by your
office and of course my office for the termination options that we’ve discussed and we’re
here looking at the financial consequences of that; we would have that in the
documentation I take it; is that correct?
Mr. Taylor: Correct. Correct. You would have the ability to terminate the swap
at market at any time. And that would be in the documents.
Mr. Shepard: But here again, market could cause a shift in the amount that would
be either paid to the City or paid by the City; is that right?
Mr. Taylor: [by phone] Correct. Depending on market interest rates, if the city
terminates, chose to terminate the swap they could either receive money or pay money.
Mr. Shepard: Earle, this is something, and Mr. [unintelligible], this is something
that other entities and other states are certainly doing; that was in your memo, I think?
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Authority, Mike, was doing a swap like this; is that correct?
Mr. Speaker: [on phone] Pennsylvania Higher Education. I’m not going to get
the acronym correct. Pennsylvania Higher Education Facility, the authority. About $400
million a week-and-a-half ago [unintelligible]. I think in your last conversation with
[unintelligible] he probably also referenced a swap that was executed with MARTA
probably about nine months to a year ago on about $700 million.
Mr. Shepard: Earle, this is basically a contract; is that correct?
Mr. Taylor: [on phone] Yes, it’s a contract that’s governed by the new statute
that I was involved in drafting [unintelligible] consolidated governments [unintelligible]
entering into that contract under the statute will need to develop an interest rate
management plan along with Image, the swap adviser, [unintelligible] be prepared or
reviewed by Image, Steve, your firm, my firm would review it and comment on it. I
would draw up an authorizing resolution for the Commission to adopt approving the
interest rate management plan and then Deutsche Bank and its lawyers would prepare the
swap documents. And Steve, your firm, would review and comment on those swap
documents and I would draw up an authorizing resolution for the Commission to adopt
71
approving the swap contract. It’s a contract and Deutsche Bank will be looking for legal
opinion as to the enforceability of that contract. My firm would give the opinion that the
consolidated government has the power and authority under Georgia law to enter into the
contract and that contract is binding on the consolidated government. Steve, your firm
will give an opinion that the contract doesn’t conflict with any other contracts the
consolidated government is a party to, that there’s no litigation pending against the
consolidated government that would affect its ability to enter into or perform that
contract.
Mr. Shepard: We are asking for the authorizations, then, as stated in my cover
memo for the interest rate management agreement, for your firm to be formally engaged,
Earle, to have the Deutsche Bank prepare what they prepare and then we think that—this
is our second meeting of this month—we could be ready at the next meeting with the
resolution that you discussed?
Mr. Taylor: [on phone] Yes. I think we can be ready with an interest rate
management plan and two resolutions: one to approve the interest rate management plan
and one to approve the contract with Deutsche Bank.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: [on phone] I think Deutsche Bank would also be in a position to
have all of its documents together by the next meeting.
Mr. Shepard: Phil Hunt, they are the counterparty—if you would?
Mr. Hunt: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: You want to explain the relationship?
Mr. Hunt: Yes, sir. For the record, my name is Phil Hunt. I’m with Gardner
Michael Capital. To explain that role, we just partner with a Wall Street counterparty
that is capable of doing swaps. We’re a smaller regional firm. We don’t have a swap
desk so we team with firms such as Deutsche Bank and that’s why we brought them to
the table. We knew this was going to be a great concept because it produces on
average—it looks like about $1 million a year over the next thirty years in savings, with
less risk than the last transaction that was undertaken by the county. So that’s our roll, is
bringing these parties together and bringing the idea to the county.
Mr. Shepard: Did Mr. Taylor and/or—
Mr. Mayor: The ones that are on the cell phone. I don’t really know who we’re
talking to me at this point. Did they hear [unintelligible].
Mr. Shepard: Phil, do you want to—
72
Mr. Hunt: They actually know our roles. They know our roles.
Mr. Williams: Is there a motion, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Speaker: [on phone] [unintelligible] Hunt had to say. I heard him loud and
clear.
Mr. Taylor: [on phone] I heard Phil Hunt, also. I thought there was a follow-up
question that I didn’t hear.
Mr. Mayor: You wanted to ask a question, Mr. Hicks?
Mr. Hicks: [unintelligible] risk [unintelligible] principal [unintelligible].
Mr. Mayor: Come to the microphone, Mr. Hicks. Our Utilities Director needs to
address a question in there. Speak into the microphone.
Mr. Hicks: My main question would be this, and that is the vote today, I
understand, would be a vote of principal, that is whether or not you would want to
undertake this sort of a transaction. And then there would be a decision at a later time as
to how to try to use the proceeds or how to set up the proceeds in an escrow fund, paying
monies out, bringing monies in, so that we wouldn’t make a lot of money one year and
spend it and then the next, three or four years, have to borrow money to pay something
we’d already had and sent away. So when will that discussion arise? This sounds like
something that could be gotten into. It involves more risk than I’m used to taking, but
nevertheless six votes can undertake that risk. The comment was made, it was less risky
than the last transaction. Now, that would be referring back to that transaction regarding
the 1996 bond issue. There’s nothing any more solid than a constant interest rate
situation, which is what we have with most of our bond issue right now. That is, as the
city grows and as the money grows we know what the financial situation is. We don’t
depend on some outside bond buyers and bond holders to determine a ratio that would
decide whether or not we pay money out or now. So that’s, that’s all right, though, if you
want to go in to that sort of a risk venture. But what I’m interested in is what is going to
happen to the proceeds? I really would hate to see us get in a situation like existed
previously under another administration and another time, when funds were taken out
pretty well to balance and do things in the general fund instead of raising taxes.
Mr. Cheek: Amen.
Mr. Hicks: That’s my only comment, is how is the money going to be set up and
how is it going to be preserved so that we have money to pay out, and then the money
come in, where would it go to? That sort of thing. Not the riskiness. That’s up to
somebody else to buy and sell money. I know how to produce water and how to handle it
and how to manage a water and sewer department but I don’t know how to buy and sell
money, which is what this is.
73
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Phil, I think you
indicated we could have an escrow for adverse consequences?
Mr. Hunt: Well, again, that’s a policy decision of the County, but the County
could certainly make that as one of the uses of the funds, setting up an escrow and putting
some of that money squirrel away.
Mr. Shepard: And here again, that would also be a policy decision as to removing
some from AUD? I mean you’ve read this. Everybody has read the plan here. The
recommendation that I put together based on expertise that is all around, with Kilpatrick
Stockton, Image, everybody. Even—here again, it’s a policy decision that you sort of
hedge your bet, is what I’m thinking, against these large termination payments.
Mr. Hunt: Yes, sir, that is a possibility of using the savings for an escrow fund, if
you desire.
Mr. Shepard: So Earle, I suppose if we could put that in as part of the terms of
the agreement in order to be as conservative as we could be; is that not an appropriate
thing?
Mr. Taylor: [on phone] You could put in the agreement but I would recommend
against put something. As a matter of practice, if you want to establish an escrow, just
hold the escrow where you want to hold it, rather than write it into the contract. Because
once you write it into the contract, if you want to change the practice, the contract could
be difficult to amend.
Mr. Mayor: We need to hold because we don’t have a quorum.
Mr. Shepard: We have a quorum in the Chamber again, gentlemen and ladies.
Mr. Hicks: Again, this is Max Hicks. Earle, I’m really speaking, this mainly to
you. I think you’ve been with us on each bond rating trip we made to New York; is that
correct?
Mr. Taylor: [on phone] Excuse me, Max, did you ask me if I’d been on the bond
rating trip?
Mr. Hicks: Yes. I think you’ve been with us each time haven’t you?
Mr. Taylor: [on phone] Well, I’ve been underwriter’s counsel on all of your
bond deals but I’ve never gone up on the rating trips but I am familiar with the rating
agency’s thinking about your bond issues and I do know their concerns about transferring
fund from the Utilities Fund to the General Fund.
74
Mr. Hicks: My only request would be that those involved, such as Mr. Taylor,
bear that in mind. And then like I say, I’m not an expert in buying and selling money. I
knew Mr. Taylor. He’s been with us each time so please bear that in mind.
Mr. Taylor: [on phone] Again, this is a policy decision but I think one thing you
need to keep in mind, if you were to use this revenue source to fund a recurring payment,
it’s not going to be as reliable a revenue source as say your tax revenues are going to be
from year to year. I mean things could change and the revenue stream could change. So
I would bear that in mind when you make your decision.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I don’t have any questions. I’m in favor of any savings
that we can incur. I just want to remind the body that in 1989 after the City’s long
practice of transferring funds out of Utilities Department, the system collapsed due to
lack of funding to maintain it. I, for one, plan to do all I can to make sure we do not
transfer money out of Utilities. We have a sound Utilities Department. Due to political
expediency we did not raise taxes. While we can save money and put it back in the pipes
and pumps, which there is still a large area to cover in this city, and to maintain, we do
not need to embark upon the same course the former City did, and we just heard that this
funding source would not be something that could prop up a pay raise or anything else
with any confidence. That has to go back to a sustainable income source, and that being
the tax base.
Mr. Mayor: Any other Commissioners have any questions or any comments at
this particular time? I do think that you are really in reality facing two policy decisions,
because one, if you want to do the swap and you’re dealing with the savings then that’s
one I think that we need to deal with separately, quite frankly, from where you’re going
to go and the further use of it. Because if the main line is to take advantage and to deal
with the savings then I think we need to consider that. But I think if you’ve got—the
other issue is I think you’re totally on a whole different deal at that point in time.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I’d like to make a motion that we table this item and have a
special called meeting to go ahead and deal with the issue when the rest of the
Commissioners are here.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Now, you’ve got a table or you’re going to
deal with a called meeting. Cause if you table, you’ve got table in there with the same
language as a called meeting.
75
Mr. Colclough: Well, let me rephrase it then.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Colclough: A called meeting.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a motion and a second. Let’s get into the discussion of it.
Mr. Attorney, you want to be recognized? Go ahead, you’ve got the floor, and then
Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Shepard: I think the motion would be to postpone to the special called
meeting. Let’s choose the time when there could be maximum attendance. If you table
it, that really goes just during this meeting.
Mr. Colclough: Okay, a special called meeting.
Mr. Mayor: The table is not on here. The Chair is recognizing that you’ve got
conflicting language and that’s why I’ve already stated that we need to get postponement,
we need to move it to another meeting.
Mr. Colclough: Move it to another meeting, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: And make that in your motion to do that.
Mr. Colclough: That will be my motion.
Mr. Mayor: And the seconder agrees with that, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, motion and a second to so do. Commissioner Williams,
recognition during discussion.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We sit here and had two attorneys
present, plus two attorneys on the phone. I guess they are going to bill us for this time
that we here. And I see the heads shaking and I’m certainly glad to see that and that
means no. But all the time we done sit here and went through this process. We talked
about this before. Now, we going to postpone it and put it out to another meeting, when
all the Commissioners can be here. All the Commissioners was here at one time. I got
no problem. We either going to do it or we not going to do it and we keep procrastinating
on something that we don’t want to do, we ought not to do it, but I think it’s been brought
to us. Other cities just done it within the last nine days, cities done it. Nine months ago
somebody’s done it. If it’s doable for us that’s going to help us, then we need to make
some decisions. But I just want to make that as a comment, Mr. Mayor. I been sitting
here all this time. I could have been gone, too. If y’all going to postpone it.
76
Mr. Mayor: Well, I think we lost Commissioners that had heard the discussion,
and in fairness we’ve got one Commissioner that arrived today and to a point if nothing
else I think if you’re looking at the potential to vote, the six of you all that are here in
order to do that, not the seventh one, really in fairness on something of this magnitude.
But I would hope that whenever we have the next meeting—I’m not sure and maybe I
need to get a clear understanding on this—whether or not we have to get into as much
participation in the presence of the same meeting of the four attorneys to do, because I
just think when we come, if we’re going to deal with a special meeting, and I know how
long because I’ve spent hours in the committee meeting, then we need to decide how we
are going to end up doing this and have a procedure in order to do it, get it on the
Commission floor, like we’ve discussed other large items. I mean we did sales tax the
other day. Ten of us in a situation on $160 million. And we had several meetings
discussing it. But I think when it gets to this floor there needs to be at least a very clear
direction to a point of where people can vote on something up or down and really not go
back through everything that’s been totally discussion. And with the exception of
Commissioner Rearden, it’s been one that’s been around this loop for a very good while.
And I think maybe the clearer thing maybe to do is that if we see [unintelligible] going to
do the swap, and I’m hearing a tone that the savings needs to be done. Then maybe we
need to deal with that, free up the parties that are going to do it, and then if we are going
to have another discussion about what we are going to do, where funds are, then deal with
that at a separate time and then vote that up or down. That can be a separate discussion
and argument at that time. But I think if we are going to try and co-mingle the two about
where dollars are going to go and get into that kind of situation, I think you are going to
run head-on into a train wreck [unintelligible]. And it’s not going to be good imaging for
us to get out there and to do that and to discuss that at the same time and may lose the
benefit of where the swap really needs to go, and that is to a point that it’s saving us
money in terms of doing it. The question then of how you spend it after you save needs
to be a separate issue from what you’re dealing with in terms of taking in that savings. I
think that’s also [unintelligible] Commission.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Colclough: I just still this is a policy decision for us to do. The Commission
to do. I think these folks have been here. I think Steven has given all the information. I
think a special called meeting, I think we need to get together and we need to either vote
it up or down. I think that the people here who have heard this swap, because everybody
has heard it—I think we need a special called meeting where we can just go ahead and
vote it up or down and get it off the floor. But I don’t think these folks need to be here
unless they just want to come back. But I think everybody has got enough information
on this deal, make a decision of whether they want to vote for it or don’t want to vote for
it.
77
Mr. Mayor: I fully agree. I don’t want to see us—I don’t know what the
dynamics are in terms of what we may lose, though, by continuing to deal with this on
the initial savings because that’s something that could very well change.
Mr. Shepard: I suggest that question to the advisor. I don’t think we’ve lost that
edge, I don’t think we’ve lost that advantage. Mike, did you hear the Mayor’s comment?
Mr. Speaker: [on phone] No, I’m having difficulty hearing some of the folks that
are further away from the phone, but if you could restate?
Mr. Shepard: He had indicated—I think you had indicated to me earlier that we
were still within a time frame that it was worth doing—the motion is to postpone to a
special meeting and then have a vote at that time. What the question is, is the
consequences of doing that? I don’t think the benefit is going to go away in the next few
days it would take us to have the meeting. Is that fair to say, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Speaker: [on phone] I think that’s a fair statement. Right now currently
we’re still in a market environment that is substantially similar to that [unintelligible]
date of the memo which again was a very favorable time, as is today. The expectation
would be that as rates begin to creep up, and particularly on the long end of the yield
curve, that the economics of this transaction will tend to go away or deteriorate as rates
go up [unintelligible] ratios will come down. As ratios come down, the economics of this
transaction go away. So it’s kind of a long answer, and it’s kind of a long way of getting
to this. Probably a shorter answer if the meeting is held in the next several days, then I
think the risk of the market to [unintelligible] are fairly limited.
Mr. Mayor: That answers my question. Anybody need it restated?
Mr. Handy: Yes. I’d like to hear it, please.
The Clerk: The motion was to postpone the approval of this bond swap and call a
special meeting to address it.
Mr. Mayor: And my only comment is in there, is that—and I think the Attorney,
Administrator and others can bring our newest Commissioner at least up to speed on
where we are, but I would hope that in terms of the details, do we need to have the same
dynamics in that special meeting that we have had today? If the questions are there and
particularly if we’re going to deal with a separate decision on how we deal with spending
the funds, can we vote up or down on the swap by eliminating some of the detail? I ask
Steve. In other words, will you have to go through the whole version of the law and what
we’re hearing [unintelligible]? Is that something by law we’ve got to do or is that
something we can eliminate to a point that if everybody knows what we’re doing to a
point, you know, either to make a decision one way or the other?
Mr. Shepard: It’s not something by law we have to do. I think we’ve gone
through it today. You’ll have a record of it. We’ve made verbatim minutes. They could
78
perhaps be transcribed, Ms. Bonner, on an expedited basis. She’s looking at me like, no,
they can’t.
[Laughter]
Mr. Shepard: We don’t want to give too much information but we don’t want to
err on the other side, either.
Mr. Mayor: I got you. And I know sometimes we have to go through what may
be the formality of it, but I just thought at this stage, with a couple of long committee
meetings and a lengthy discussion of getting it out here tonight, that it seems that the
division is more in terms of what do you do after the savings than it is going ahead and
moving on the savings itself. And that’s why I was hoping we could eliminate part of
that before we got to another meeting to deal with this. Commissioner Cheek, and then
we need to go on and take a vote.
Mr. Cheek: We do, I agree with you, we need to move on with the savings and
while the market is right. The only thing I would say that I really, really wish we would
change is go out to Best Buy and get a nice conference box to put on the table and do
away with the cell phones. That is technologically embarrassing.
Mr. Colclough: We can talk to IT tomorrow.
Mr. Cheek: I can talk to me—I’m not going to say that.
Mr. Mayor: There is a motion and a second to vote for the postponement. We’ll
set a date to deal with this another day. Reset for a special meeting unless we’re—what
we were discussing, Ms. Sims, was in terms of not wanting the put the newest
Commissioner on that particular spot where we are going to deal with just the swap. If
we want to vote up or down on that and then decide later what we were going to deal
with. But we were losing Commissioners and in fairness to the newest one to make a
decision on the swap and talk about how we are going to talk about spending the money
on [unintelligible]. If anybody want to hear the substitute and just deal with the swap, I
mean we can.
Mr. Cheek: A substitute motion to go ahead and deal with the swap.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Cheek: [unintelligible]
Mr. Cheek: I withdraw my motion.
Mr. Mayor: What we were trying to eliminate, Ms. Sims, and without putting our
newest Commissioner in dealing with that was the fact that it seemed to been more
discussion about what we would do with the money afterward, rather than pursuing the
79
swap itself. And we were counting heads and numbers and I’m just wondering if we
want to go ahead and pursue as opposed to the uses of the money. Then we can be
through with this swap basis and then we can deal with a policy decision to vote the other
up or down, it stays either all in Utilities and doesn’t move. It [unintelligible] that’s
creative in there. Of course we run the risk then, quite frankly, I know of triggering a
water authority. So those are things that are going to end up being discussed in the
General Assembly. So I’m just saying that for the purpose of everybody involved,
attorneys, paying them again to be on the line, of folk being here, and [unintelligible]
people making us a proposal. If we either are in favor of doing just the swap
[unintelligible] but now if not then we just go on and do at the meeting on another day. I
was just trying to figure out how not to have this rehearsal all over again. Andy?
Mr. Cheek: Act III, same play, Mr. Mayor. We’ve talked about this considerably
over the last few weeks. We’ve heard from counsel and from experts that there would be
significant savings. We have some risk associated with our current plan, as well as there
are risks associated with this. But there is, based on market trends, significant savings. If
it’s in order, I’m going to go ahead and—I guess we have a motion that’s on the floor and
it’s been seconded? The seconder never agreed to have it removed. So let’s see if we
can get this done and then we’ll worry about where to spend the money.
Mr. Mayor: I mean this is one we don’t have to fight over cause we can always
go to another day. But if there are six veteran Commissioners here that want to deal with
the first part of it, you can. I mean it says option. [unintelligible]
Mr. Cheek: It’s our job to save money.
Mr. Shepard: The new motion, the substitute motion is to go ahead and authorize
the swap.
Mr. Taylor: [on phone] And then decide later on the use of proceeds?
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Taylor: [on phone] Yes, that’s fine.
Mr. Mayor: It would take a vote of this Commission to alter any spending
changes in terms of what we’ve got. Because the current way in which we are, that can’t
be. Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Williams had seconded.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. If not, we automatically go to another day. All in favor of
that motion will do so by the same usual sign. To do the swap but no second part of what
we’ve got in there. We just do it another day. One thing about it, we don’t have to go
back to it [unintelligible].
80
(Vote on the substitute motion)
Mr. Smith and Ms. Sims vote No.
Mr. Rearden abstains.
Mr. Grantham, Ms. Beard and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion fails 4-2-1.
Mr. Mayor: We just will go to that other day. The Chair will entertain a motion
we adjourn.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on September 20, 2005.
________________________
Clerk of Commission
81