HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 1, 2006 Commission Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
AUGUST 1, 2006
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m., August 1, 2006, the Hon.
Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Holland, Smith, Brown, Grantham, Hatney, Williams, Beard, Cheek,
Bowles and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Administrator; Robert Sherman,
License & Inspection.
The invocation was given by the Reverend Matthew Nelson, Pastor Asbury United
Methodist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Reverend, if you could hang on one second? We’ve got a little something
for you.
The Clerk: Pastor Nelson, on behalf of the Mayor and members of the Commission,
we’d like to extend our appreciation and give you a token of our appreciation for being with us
today imparting that petition to heaven on our behalf and we thank you and we name you as our
pastor of the day. Thank you so much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you so much.
Rev. Nelson: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, on to the presentations.
The Clerk:
PRESENTATION(S)
A. Mr. Forrest Robinson - Operation Foundation, Inc.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Forrest Robinson and the Operation Foundation. Would you
please join the Mayor here in front of the podium? In recognition of the Operation Foundation,
Inc., whereas, Operation Foundation, Inc. was established in 1982 as an early intervention
organization designed and created to provide today’s at-risk youth with values, tools, skill sets
and a belief system to build a better life; and whereas, the mission statement for Operation
Foundation is building on life one home, one family, one foundation at a time; and whereas,
Operation Foundation is presently working with a group of young people involved in a
simulation program to encourage the respect for authority and enhance community living; and
th
whereas, on August 5, 2006, Operation Foundation will hold a simulated council meeting
during which these young people will take on the leadership roles, and now therefore, our Deke
th
Copenhaver, Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby proclaim Saturday, August 5, 2006, as
Operation Foundation Day in Augusta, Georgia. In witness thereof, I have unto set my hand and
cause the Seal of Augusta, Georgia to be affixed this first day of August, 2006.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, we hear a lot about our young people
today and all of the things that they are involved in and none of it, most of it is not good but I
want to introduce to you some, a group of kids who are not gang bangers, they don’t do drugs,
were in school. Now, they bad as hell, true enough, but we have to tell them one more time to
pull their pants up but these are a group of kids and we like to just show you who they are and
how they are and how they are investing this community by introducing you to Operation
Foundation kids.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITION(S)
MAYOR FOR THE DAY:
B. Miss Alisa Atkins, 5th grader at McBean Elementary School.
The Clerk: At this time, we would like to recognize our Mayor for the Day. Ms. Alicia
Atkins. Please stand, Ms. Atkins. By virtue of the power and the authority vested in me by the
Constitution and the laws of this State and wherein pursuance of your appointment, I do hereby
commission you said Mayor for the Day. You are thereby authorized and required to perform all
and singular the duties encumbered on you as said ambassadors according to the law and the
trust reposed in you. Given my hand and the Seal of this Office of Mayor at the Municipal
Building in the City of Augusta, Georgia on the first day of August in the year of our Lord, 2006.
Mr. Mayor: Congratulations.
Mr. Smith: Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Smith: I need to get over there. This lady is from District 8 and this is one of the
reasons that the South is rising again.
Mr. Mayor: Ladies and Gentlemen, we’ve just introduced you to the Commission and
the Mayor for 2026. Take note. All right. Let’s move on to the delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
C. Alvin D. Mason. RE: The qualifications of Commissioner C. Keith Brown to serve
as Fourth District Commissioner.
2
Mr. Mayor: Please state your name and address for the record and keep it to five
minutes, please, sir.
Mr. Mason: Alvin D. Mason, 3770 Pinnacle Place Drive. The issue that I raise in this
complaint goes to the qualifications of C. Keith Brown to remain as commissioner of District 4
and Augusta Richmond County. The evidence brought forth against Mr. Brown clearly indicate
that Mr. Brown is not qualified to remain as commissioner based on the mandated law set forth
by the Augusta Richmond County Consolidated Charter, the Georgia Code of the Georgia
General Assembly and the Georgia Constitution. Today, as a resident of District 4, I seek
immediate relief by this governing body for immediate removal of Mr. Brown as commissioner
of District 4 and in keeping with the appropriate protocol of the Consolidated Charter, I would
respectfully request from this body an additional extension of the five minute time frame to
address appropriately the case that’s being brought against Mr. Brown.
Mr. Mayor: In order to extend the five minute time limit, it would take approval by the
Commission so I would look for a motion to either approve the request or--
Mr. Smith: Motion to approve.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Brown abstains.
Mr. Hatney and Mr. Holland vote No.
Ms. Beard and Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 5-2-1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Mason. Please continue.
Mr. Mason: In anticipation of a no vote, I do have some copies of each of the
Commissioners so that they could follow along if they so choose. They’re visual aids that you
can utilize as I go through this presentation. First, I’d like to say a person’s residence is his
domicile. Domicile means a person’s fixed home where he has an intention of returning when he
is absent. A person has only one domicile. South Carolina Code of Laws, § 7-1-25. On the
South Carolina voter registration on page 2, it shows a sample voter registration form and it
shows highlighted an address of where you live. That address is your physical address of your
residence which we’ve already determined is a fixed habitation. In addition, on the voter
registration card, it shows that I am a resident of South Carolina, this county and precincts. It
also further shows that the address listed above is my only legal place of residence and I claim no
other place as my legal residence. Mr. Brown signed this form on 1 October, 2004. The address
listed above is my only legal residence and I claim no other. If we flip the page there to Georgia
Code of the Georgia General Assembly addresses this issue. Chapter 21, Section 2, 2.17 states a
determining the residence of a person desiring to register to vote or to qualify to run for an
elective office, the following rules shall be followed so far as they are applicable. The first way
3
to disqualify is Mr. Brown. The residence of any person shall be held to be in that place which
such person’s habitation is fixed without any present intention of removing there from. Mr.
st
Brown swore or affirmed on October 1, 2004 on his voter registration card in Aiken County,
South Carolina the address he listed being 480 Duncan Road, North Augusta, South Carolina as
his only legal place of residence and he claims no other place as his legal residence. Therefore,
the aforementioned address is his fixed habitation. No. 2, a person shall not be considered to
have lost such person’s residence who leaves such person’s home and goes into another state or
county or municipality in this state for temporary purposes only. Mr. Brown brought forth that
he had a lease from December 2003. He then went into South Carolina, registered and voted.
That lease then becomes null and void. His new residence is South Carolina. If he went there
for temporary purpose, that would be fine. But it goes on to say unless such person shall register
to vote which we know that he did or perform other acts, indicating a desire to change such
st
person’s citizenship or residence. Mr. Brown did register to vote on October 1, he did vote
nd
November 2, listed his address as 480 Duncan Road, and that this was his only legal place of
residence. He did not list a previous address as being 1860 Welsh Lane, Augusta, Georgia when
in fact he did list his address as--previous address as 109 Bradford Drive, also in North Augusta,
South Carolina. No. 3, a person shall not be considered to have gained a residence in any county
or municipality of this state and to which such person has come for temporary purposes only
without the intention of making such county or municipality such person’s permanent place of
abode. Mr. Brown stated that he rented property at 1860 Welsh Lane, Augusta, Georgia
stst
December 1, 2003. However, Mr. Brown reregistered to vote on October 1, 2004 in Aiken
County, South Carolina 480 Duncan Road in South Augusta--South Carolina. Further stating
that this is his only legal place of residence and he claims no other place. Not even 1860 Welsh
st
Lane in Augusta, Georgia. Therefore, his moving into Richmond County December 1, 2003
must be considered temporary. No. 4, if a person removes to another state with the intention of
making it such person’s residence, such person shall be considered to have lost such person’s
residence in this state. Mr. Brown stating that he rented property on 1860 Welsh Lane and, but
stnd
he registered to vote October 1, 2004 and voted November 2, 2004 in Aiken County, South
Carolina using his address as 480 Duncan Road. He swore or affirmed that this was his only
legal place of residence and he claims no other place. However, on his voter registration change
of address form, he listed his previous address once again as 109 Bradford Drive, South
Carolina, not 1860 Welsh. No. 5, if a person removes to another state with the intention of
remaining there an indefinite time and making such state such person’s place of residence, such
person shall be considered to have lost such person’s residence in this state, notwithstanding that
such person may intend to return at some indefinite period of time. Again, Mr. Brown rented the
stnd
property on Welsh, he then registered to vote October 1, he voted November 2, he listed his
address as 480 Duncan Road, he swore or affirmed that this was his only legal address and that
he claimed no other place--
Mr. Mayor: Okay--
Mr. Mason: --as his legal residence.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mason, I hate to cut you off but that--that’s the end of the five minutes.
4
Mr. Mason: I appreciate your time. You do have the package. I am looking for some
relief for the folks of District 4 and I certainly appreciate your time.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. And Mr. Parliamentarian, is--I believe it would be good practice
for in order to allow equal time should Mr. Brown like to speak to the issue or a representative of
his to give them equal time?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. I would give you that, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: His attorney, his private attorney is in the audience, I believe wants to be
recognized. Mr. Long?
Mr. Long: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Long, if you could state your name and address and we’ll give you the
five minutes as well.
Mr. Long: Yeah. Jack Long. I’m an attorney in Augusta. I practice at 453 Greene
Street. Mr. Mayor, Honorary Mayor, Members of the Commission. Thank you very much for
giving me the opportunity to be here to address some of these concerns. When I read Mr.
Mason’s initial press release, I began my independent investigation away from Mr. Brown and
everybody else and I have shared most of this information with the County Attorney, and this is
what I have found about Mr. Brown who, by the way, I have represented before and have been a
friend of mine for years. First of all, he is a long time Augustan. He has been in business since
1992 or before when he bought property in Richmond County from Ms. Barbara Scott. His
father was a noted physician in this community, the first black member of the Medical College
staff, started the sickle cell [inaudible]. He went to Augusta schools, Immaculate Conception,
Episcopal Day School, graduated from Aquinas High School. I have here his wife and lovely
children and family who have lived here. We have--he did have some domestic difficulties and
he separated from his wife and moved on Welsh Drive. I have contacted his landlord who
happens to be Mr. Dyches who runs a dry goods store on--and I made him available to the
County Attorney and I produced his lease and I believe that has been distributed to members
where he was leasing property within Georgia within three or two years. He--his current lease
has been--he’s been living there since about sixteen to seventeen months before his appointment.
He satisfied both the two year residency requirement and the six month residency requirement
for the district. Now, in all due regard to Mr. Mason, I would like to ask the members of the
Commission to recognize that in Georgia and South Carolina, we do have different rules of law
and in Georgia, we have said it’s a question of domicile is a mixed question of law and fact and
it’s up to a fact finder. However, there is a case in Georgia exactly on point called Haggard v.
Graham, at 142 Ga. App. 498 (1977) case. It was a challenge to someone serving on the
Madison County Board of Commissioners and they said he had registered to vote and had voted
some place else in Georgia and they said well, you can’t do this because that affirmatively says
that you are not a residence of the county and they said no, that’s not what you look at. We look
at all the facts and circumstances, and in this case, if you look at all the facts and circumstances,
5
you look to actually where his intent was, he has lived, worked, gone to school here. He
basically, his mother does live in South Carolina and he does take her to the poll, his eighty-
something year old mother to vote. Now, if that makes you a non-resident of the State of
Georgia, then I would venture to tell you members of the Commission are all those people who
did not vote a week or so ago and unfortunately will not vote next week I guess they just don’t
live anywhere because they’re not voting and I suggest to you that if, I think the County Attorney
had done an independent investigation and I would ask the Commissioners if someone wants to
challenge him in court, that’s why we have the court. But he’s a, he’s properly appointed, he’s
serving on the Commission. I think you members of the Commission would not have appointed
him unless you thought he was a resident and qualified, and I think he is qualified. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Long, thank you for your [inaudible]. Mr. Parliamentarian, I would
look to your guidance with regards to how to proceed.
Mr. Shepard: Well, the Commission has evidence that the circumstances and evidence
taken as a whole support the residency of this appointed Commissioner in Richmond County.
The, you take all the material that you’ve been furnished and you make that decision. If that’s
your decision, I think you receive Mr. Mason’s presentation for information. Therefore, you do
not, you do not take a sitting Commissioner off the board. I am, I have looked into the matter.
Either way, if there’s a vote that today, if you believe the evidence is taken as a whole supportive
that he is--should not be on this board, then that matter no doubt would go to court. The statute
provides for that. It also provides independently that anyone can take a, an action, file an action
in court which would be a [inaudible] to inquire into his, into his qualifications and from what
I’ve heard, the evidence is at least equally balanced. You’ve got to have the, what’s called the
evidence taken as a whole. How do you, how do you feel about that? If that’s the way you feel,
as I said before, the first motion would be, the most, the appropriate motion would be to receive
it as information and then if not, the Commission can pass a motion but I don’t think anything
would be final until the court ruled. I think the disqualification appears when there’s a judicial
determination in this case because I would just be surprised that if you voted to disqualify Mr.
Brown from his seat, he would immediately appeal to Superior Court and as I said two weeks
ago, we’re going to be there one way or the other. So my suggestion is that you vote your
conscience, what you think is, what you heard, what do you think the evidence taken as a whole
shows, that’s the test. Mr. Long is correct. The question of domicile is a mixed question of law
in fact. It ordinarily is a what we call a jury question which means that six or twelve reasonable
people depending on which court you’re in might see the, might see the matter differently, and it,
also waiving a jury, the matter could be decided by a court as it was in the case that Mr. Long
had cited. I was surprised to find that case as well but it did, it did state that the elected chairman
of the County Commission of Madison County had voted in Henry County twice before and the
court nevertheless went ahead and applied the totality of the circumstances taken as a whole so
that’s--that’s my ruling. My ruling is to vote your conscience based on what you’ve heard.
You’re like the jury in this case.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Williams?
6
Mr. Williams: I make a motion we receive this as information.
Mr. Holland: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Brigham votes No.
Mr. Brown abstains.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 7-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Madame Clerk, the next delegation?
The Clerk:
DELEGATION
D. Dr. Robetta D. McKenzie, Ed.D, Executive Director of the Augusta-Richmond
County Community Partnership for Children and Families, Inc. RE: Children's Week
September 29 - October 4, 2006.
Mr. Mayor: Hello, Dr. McKenzie. If you could just keep it to the five minutes, please,
ma’am.
Dr. McKenzie: Good afternoon.
Mr. Mayor: Good afternoon.
th
Dr. McKenzie: I’m here begging again this year. We’re quickly moving into our 18
year with Children’s Week, and we always need your help and so we’ve requested that you give
us some consideration in terms of helping us to have one of our activities at the Amphitheatre
th
and the other, our festival, at the 8 Street Plaza. So that’s our request that you all help us out
with those two activities for Children’s Week which is for all kids in this community.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham:I’m going to make a motion that we ask our
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Administrator to get with Dr. McKenzie and that they discuss what possibilities we can do
in order to assist them based on what we have done for some of the previous activities that
have taken place not only in the Commons but in other areas of our community.
Ms. Beard: I second that.
7
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Brown and Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 8-0.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, Mr. Cheek will be here. He
was detained at work so.
Mr. Mayor: They detained him?
The Clerk: Yeah.
Mr. Mayor: That doesn’t sound good.
The Clerk: For lack of a better word. I’ll say that.
Mr. Mayor: The next delegation, please, ma’am.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION
E. Earl L. Ishmal, III, Co-Owner of the Augusta Blaze Ladies Semi-Pro-Basketball
Team.
RE Introduction of the team.
Mr. Ishmal: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Please if you could keep it to five minutes.
Mr. Ishmal: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Ishmal: Mr. Mayor, Honorary Mayor, members of the Commission, my name is Earl
Ishmal, III, as stated earlier. I am the owner--co-owner of the Augusta Blaze Ladies Semi-Pro
Basketball Team. I brought a few representatives with me today of the team for a team that’s
new to Augusta this year. We just finished our first season. Just got defeated in the playoffs this
past Saturday by four points which is a hard fought game but we just wanted everyone to know
in Augusta that we do have a team here, something for ladies that have finished college or
finished high school and still want to continue their careers in the sport arena. We represent a
number of the local schools, local high schools, Laney, Josey, Glenn Hills, Greenbrier, Lakeside,
just to say a few. I’d also like to introduce as our head coach, Jerry Hunter. Kelly Taylor plays
for the team as well. Arnesha Wideman. Kelly Taylor represents Greenbrier, Arnesha Wideman
represents Laney, and Erica Stokes represents Lakeside, and these young ladies were all
8
standouts at their schools as well as standouts in the area. Some of them finished college here in
the area, some of them--but I’d like for our Coach Hunter to say a word or two.
Mr. Hunter: Once again, we just want to ask for you all’s support. We play all our base
games in Atlanta. Next year, we’ll probably have about four or five exhibition games right here
in Augusta and we’re not only asking for your support, we’re asking for the fans’ support as well
because as some of you all know, playing in Atlanta and being from Augusta sometimes doesn’t
play in your favor. So we just want to ask for your support and your prayers.
Mr. Mayor: Not a problem. Thank ya’ll and thank you. Congratulations and sorry about
the loss last Saturday but thank ya’ll for representing Augusta well. Even if it is in Atlanta.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION
F. Mr. Tony Wilson.
RE: A welcome to Augusta, Ga. billboard - The Home of the Godfather of Soul James
Brown.
Mr. Wilson: All right. Good afternoon.
Mr. Mayor: Keep it five minutes, please, sir.
Mr. Wilson: Okay. Good afternoon, Mayor, Honorary Mayor, and all the
Commissioners. My name is Tony Wilson and I’m a young man that have came here to Augusta
and I’ve seen a lot of potential in a lot of different things. Today, I would just like to ask the
City and the Commissioners on an idea suggestion that I have that will, I think that will generate
a lot of dollars for downtown Augusta, would bring a lot of people to Augusta, and that would be
to have a welcome to Augusta billboard, welcome to the home of the Godfather of Soul, James
Brown, and would have a picture of the statute on the billboard with directions on how to get to
downtown so that the tourists and other people that are not resident of Augusta could come and
take a picture with the statute. I think that this suggestion would generate a lot of dollars for
Augusta downtown, and bring a lot of people in. I’ve done a lot of walking around this last
thth
couple of months from 13 Street to 5 Street, back and forth, back and forth, and [inaudible],
and I looked a lot of things and I just think that, you know, this would be a great access to
Augusta. It would bring in, you know, if people don’t know what exists downtown, then how
could they, you know, stop in. I live in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, and there is a town on the way
going to Orlando called St. Augustine, and they have a broken down castle there, and a lot of
people come in there, and they take pictures with the castle, and they take lots of pictures with
the old outfits on, and it brings--it’s a historical but I think that--I been living 47 years. I haven’t
seen anything more historical than Augusta, Georgia that I’ve seen, and you know, that’s just one
of my thoughts. I think this is, would be a great money maker for Augusta. I think that in the
near future also they could actually put some type of recorder device that people can put money
into and listen to the history of James Brown within that park as well. But I think that the
billboard would be a great start. The other suggestion that I had was a location for a James
Brown museum. I did in fact, you know, go look at it, the old jail, and I basically don’t have too
9
much time to speak on it other than I think that it would be great for Augusta for a museum to be
put up. I’ve talked with this young man right here, Barry, and he has some great ideas as well.
Barry, you want to say something on it?
Mr. Speaker: Just briefly. Tony is definitely a James Brown--well, he’s impersonated
James Brown so he’s definitely one of his biggest fans. We are very interested in getting a
James Brown museum here located in Augusta. We have heard of several sites. One site we
haven’t heard of is the library on Greene Street and James Brown Boulevard. Well, looks to be a
museum already and I understand that a couple of years, that they’re going to move that out of
there so we wanted to also kind of put the library on the table so to say as one of the sites for a
future James Brown museum. That’s the James Brown--I mean, the library on Greene Street and
James Brown Boulevard.
Mr. Wilson: All right. I also had opportunities to go over to the Regency Mall as well so
there’s lots of great possibilities. I just think that everybody has a wonderful idea and I think the
City of Augusta is moving in the right direction, and I just think that, you know, wherever the
James Brown museum is built and located will be totally up to the residents and the people of
Augusta but I just think that, you know, if you’re looking for money, looking for wealth, I’m
from Chicago so if you Commissioners that are going to Chicago, that’s my home town and if
you happen to go there, you’ll see three museums that are right in walking distances. That would
be the Planetarium, the Shed Aquarium and the Field Museum, and they all have something in
common. People from all over the world come and, to these museums so I think that if and when
the City of Augusta decides on their own timing and planning to put this museum up, it’s going
to bring a lot of dollars. It doesn’t really matter where it is at this point. You know, I would
personally like to see it on James Brown Boulevard but then that’s my personal thing because
th
James Brown worked and, the streets of 9 Street which is James Brown Boulevard but I think
th
the billboard would be the first step for people coming in off of I-20, coming off of 5 Street,
coming off of all of the different points and to have a billboard that, you know, maybe the public
and the City and the private sector can get into to be able to facilitate and seeing that this
happens. This is something that should happen, you know, soon because the City of Augusta
downtown needs money, and I think this would bring a lot of money downtown to have the
statute, you know, a picture of the statute on this billboard [inaudible] billboard. In closing--
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Wilson: On closing, I would like to say I came to Augusta just briefly by and loving
it because of the first song that I heard by James Brown was “There was a Time” and that was in
1966, and the lyrics say “In my hometown where I used to stay, the name of the place is Augusta
G-A, down there we have a good time, we don’t talk, we all get together any type of weather and
we do the camel walk” and I hope you Commissioners will at least just think about it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Tony, and I’ve got actually a Certificate
of Recognition for you, given to Tony Wilson and the James Brown Tribute Band, featuring
th
Martina Mayta, for your participation in the 2006 Celebration of James Brown’s 50
Anniversary. The City of Augusta appreciates your time and dedication during the James Brown
Soul of America Music Festival so thank--thank you.
10
Mr. Holland: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland?
Mr. Holland:
Yes, sir. I’d like to piggyback off what Mr. Wilson is just saying. I
couldn’t agree with him more in reference to us having a billboard with a picture of James
Brown with the visitors coming into the City. I worked in Lincoln County, and as you would
cross that long bridge going into Lincoln County, you would see a large sign off on the right
hand side saying the home of Garrison Hurst. If you go to Wrightsville, Georgia, you will see a
big sign saying the home of Hershel Walker so it goes on and on and on so these different cities,
and we’re no exception, are recognizing the people in their cities whose bringing some
prominence to their cities. So I commend him for coming forward to doing this. This past
weekend, I was in Secaucus, New York, attending a church service, and when I was introduced
in the church service, I said I was from Augusta, Georgia, and the congregation said the home of
James Brown, and that was in Secaucus, New York so he is known all over the world, and I think
I
we should, you know, commend this gentleman and look forward to trying to get a billboard so
would like to make a motion that we receive this as information, take this to the
Administrator and see what can be done in terms of trying to get a billboard in reference to
Mr. James Brown.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to second that if I can get the motion to add in his
motion, we’ve got some funds probably left from the raising of the statute that some private
people donated, and that may be some money that we maybe look at to see about getting some
kind of billboard up there so if you’ll add that to your motion, to direct the Administrator to get
with Brigade Creek to see how much funds and how much the billboard would cost, and I do
think it’s a great idea and I think it’s something that we need to do, and we need to advertise our
own so I--
Mr. Holland: So added.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I spoke with Barry White, not the Barry White, but Barry
White from Augusta [laughter] and he had an idea that maybe the CVB could be in charge with
finding the funds for this since it’s tourism related to try to get people downtown so I’ll take it
upon myself to get with Mr. Wilson and Barry White to see if CVB could be a source of the
funding for this.
Mr. Mayor: Great. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
11
Mr. Mayor: All right, Madame Clerk. Let’s pursue the Consent Agenda, shall we? Or
do we have something to add?
The Clerk: Want to do the addendum?
Mr. Mayor: Yeah. Let’s do the addendum first.
The Clerk: I direct your attention to our Addendum Agenda.
ADDENDUM
49. Approve acceptance of the following grant awards: Augusta Richmond County
Grant No. 144 for New Savannah Road Social Services - a children program in the amount
of $15,000; Augusta Richmond County Grant No. 255 for Destination 2020 - Community
Vision in the amount of $25,000; Augusta Richmond County Grant No. 055 for West
Augusta Little League - construct handicapped accessible restroom facility in the amount
of $25,000; Augusta Richmond County Grant No. 256 for Lucy Craft Laney Museum -
operations in the amount of $25,000; Augusta Richmond County for Sheriff's Department
in the amount of $42,713.00.
50. Motion to approve Resolution and submit the Redevelopment Powers Act question
to the voters.
Mr. Grantham: So moved.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, you don’t have unanimous consent on the--on No. 1. Motion
to approve the resolution for Redevelopment Powers Act. I’m--I’m wondering why that has not
come through the committees. I know it come from our attorneys but I got a little bit of question
with that. I’m not, I’m not comfortable with that so.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. And, and Commissioner Williams, I can speak to that issue. That is,
and Steve, correct me if I’m wrong, that’s for the tax allocation district--
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: --that were approved by the Legislative Delegation. Representative Murphy
called me, I guess it was last week or the week before, and had requested that this, at least the tax
allocation district portion go on because I believe it needs to be approved by mid-November to
make it to the November, I mean mid-August to make it on the November ballot. Is that correct?
The Clerk: Uh-huh.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
12
Mr. Shepard: That’s correct. And the reason it, the resolution had been prepared, the
Administrator asked that I submit it at the earliest opportunity. This was the earliest opportunity
for this body to consider it, and it was, it’s been passed by the delegation and the next step is for
it to be a resolution to be approved here before this body.
Mr. Russell: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Commissioner Williams, my concern was that late last week, I had
recognized the fact that we had some issues with some of the committee meetings on Monday as
far as attendance. I had to, we had the agenda item ready to go and I, instead of bringing it forth,
try to run it through the committee, it was ready to go and we were able to get it on today.
Obviously, we’ve got to get it done sometime before the end of August. We could have waited
but it would just seemed appropriate to go ahead and move it forward since I didn’t think it
would have the benefit of discussion at committee next Monday any way, sir. It might have been
a bad call on my part.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, anything we’re going to send to the voters though, I at least
would have liked to have an understanding and know myself. When folks come to me and ask
me what are we voting on and I can’t tell them, I mean I done sat up here and okay and I
understand Mr. Russell and but that we still got time. It talked about the power for, it says that
November give this City more flexibility to transition such as the power of private sales of
property. Well, you talking about giving somebody power for private sales of property, I need to
know what that consists of.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Versus the letting the horse out and then try to go catch it. You see, you
can catch them when they’re in the corral but when it gets in the field, he gone and I just think
that, I like to hear more about this. I like to see it. I like to understand it a little bit better. I
talked to Representative Murphy. I’m with the tax allocation. I think that’s something that need
to be done but I just want to make sure this sauce has got everything in there, and I want to know
what else in there besides Ragu. Does that make sense?
Mr. Mayor: It does.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if I can?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: We can run it through Administrative Services and do that just fine. I
apologize.
13
Mr. Mayor: Okay. About unanimous consent on the other addition?
Mr. Williams: I got no problem with that one.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Can we get a motion to add the--
The Clerk: We have a motion to add No. 2. I think you--
Mr. Hatney: I second that, Mr. Mayor. You have a second.
The Clerk: We had--but we had--
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham: Wait a minute. I meant to vote yes.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion passed 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Watch where those fingers are going.
Mr. Speaker: Why I [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Good catch. Quick catch. All right. Let’s do the addition first.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS
49. Approve acceptance of the following grant awards: Augusta Richmond County
Grant No. 144 for New Savannah Road Social Services - a children program in the amount
of $15,000; Augusta Richmond County Grant No. 255 for Destination 2020 - Community
Vision in the amount of $25,000; Augusta Richmond County Grant No. 055 for West
Augusta Little League - construct handicapped accessible restroom facility in the amount
of $25,000; Augusta Richmond County Grant No. 256 for Lucy Craft Laney Museum -
operations in the amount of $25,000; Augusta Richmond County for Sheriff's Department
in the amount of $42,713.00.
Mr. Grantham: Motion to approve.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion? Mr.
Brigham?
14
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make sure that we have contracts for the agencies
that are outside this government since we’re eventually responsible.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with him. That should be part of the
motion.
Mr. Grantham: Well--
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, that is part--that will be part of the motion and it’s also under
a state law that we have that so I think that’s already within the grants that are submitted through
our legislative members that this be done and since we are responsible, we need to police these
spending of funds by these agencies when they use.
The Clerk: It’s through the contracts.
Mr. Mayor: Amend.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. That’s the purpose of the contracts.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Moving into the Consent Agenda.
The Clerk: The Consent Agenda consists of Items 1 through 38. Items 1 through
38.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any items to be pulled for discussion?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I’d like to pull Items 3, 4, 8, 13, 16 and 17. And I need some clear--
something clear on 26 and 27. I’m not opposed but I just need to get some understanding,
please, sir.
Mr. Grantham: Mr.--
15
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I’m not asking to pull or put anything on, I’d just like to
mention a couple of these that Mr. Williams just asked to be pulled, and that’s Items 3 and 4, and
I know his reasoning for maybe doing that but we did ask to deny these and they are denied with
prejudice is what they’re--is what we have done from the committee in order not to bring these
back by the present owner or by the applicant that made the application for these licenses so it is
with prejudice, and if those ever come up again, we, the Commission, would be notified of that
investigation.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Commissioner Grantham, that’s exactly right
and that’s what I wanted to get an understanding. I want to get it on the records here that that
was in fact going to take place.
Mr. Grantham: Right.
Mr. Williams: That that means that this business will continue to operate until of what
time--I just need to be clear on what we’re doing. I know we agreed in committee to let them
withdraw with prejudice and if it comes back, it’s got to come back so we would know. But will
that business continue to operate until when, how long, what’s--what’s--I guess I need to hear
from Rob or--
Mr. Grantham: To follow up with that as well, and I know Rob’s here, if he’ll come
forward but the, a point is that these were new applications by these people and so that is not
involving the existing business that’s there now and so we’re looking for a request from License
& Inspection to rescind the present license that are at the present location with the present
owners if that’s correct.
Mr. Sherman: That’s correct. It’ll be on the agenda next month.
Mr. Grantham: It’ll be on the agenda next month to do away with that one. It’ll close it
down.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And thank you again, Mr. Grantham. That’s why I had it pulled.
We been discussing it. It was brought before the committee and it was pulled off the committee
and then it was brought last Commission meeting and that didn’t give us all--I need to know
where that is and what’s going to happen because this is a place that we cannot continue to
tolerate. We have worked with them. People have lost their lives in this facility. This facility is
out of compliance. There’s no marshal, there’s no sheriff, there’s no fireman. These people are
compact in a condition that’s really--I just can’t see how we cannot aggressively do something
about them, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
16
Mr. Williams: And that’s what I want to be clear on and that’s all I want to do.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Williams: So--
Mr. Mayor: Are you clear on them now? Are you good?
Mr. Williams: Well, I think Mr. Sherman said they was bringing it back to--the present
owner, not the new owner that wanted to purchase this, but another owner who wanted to get--
Mr. Sherman: Not another owner but the--Mr. Hong, who is Agenda Items No. 3 and 4,
he was looking to buy the establishment both the liquor store and the lounge that’s in the rear.
He’s made a decision not to pursue that. He has no interest in buying the property. He’s
withdrawing his application, and the--what’s on the agenda is to withdraw it with prejudice. The
reason being because of the issues that, the various issues that have been going on over at that,
the existing establishment. The present owner who’s operating the business now, both the liquor
store and the lounge, he will be on the agenda at the next committee meeting, next Monday, at
the request of the Sheriff’s Department, we’re bringing it before you to consider the revocation
of his license.
Mr. Williams: Okay. So moved, Mr. Mayor, on those two.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Williams: On three and four.
Mr. Brown: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown.
Mr. Brown: I just wanted to ask while we had Mr. Sherman here the applicant that was,
that decided he would not pursue it any longer, was there any loss of revenue for him based on
his decision and our attempts to finalize what we’re going to do about this location?
Mr. Sherman: There was an application fee, a $100 application fee, an administrative
fee. Other than that, I’m not aware.
Mr. Brown: I’d like to just see if there’s something that this body could do to make sure
that that business owner does not lose the money based on something that is happening with our
government that he seems like he would have continued to pursue if we didn’t have this going on
at this location.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you have put them back on the Consent Agenda?
Mr. Williams: Yes. I made a motion to approve the withdrawal--
17
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Williams:--of that--those items.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Speaker: Could you repeat the numbers, please, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to pull Items No. 9 and Item No. 14, please.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I’d like to pull Items 25 and 31.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, I’d like to pull 15.
Mr. Grantham: That one’s already been pulled already.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t think that’s--
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Grantham: Oh, okay.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any further items to be pulled for discussion? Are there any
additions?
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull Item No. 15.
Mr. Mayor: I’ve already pulled it.
Mr. Speaker: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any additions?
Mr. Grantham: Would you repeat the numbers, please, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Could you repeat the numbers that have been pulled, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Item 8, Item 9, Item 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25, 26, 27, 31.
18
Mr. Grantham: You missed Item 10. Didn’t somebody call for Item 10?
Mr. Mayor: I didn’t show that on my count.
Mr. Grantham: Okay. I’m sorry. I thought they did.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. If there are no further additions or items to be pulled for discussion,
I’m--
The Clerk: There’s the attorney.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Oh. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Bowles, did you pull the entertainment venue ordinance?
Mr. Bowles: No, sir. I meant to--
Mr. Shepard: All right. I request it for a technical change to be pulled just so [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: And that’s Agenda Item number?
The Clerk: Five.
Mr. Shepard: Five.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. And if there are no further items to be pulled for discussion or
additions to the Consent Agenda, I’d look for a motion to approve.
Mr. Williams: So moved.
Mr. Bowles: Second.
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
1. ZA-R-175 – An request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE an amendment to modify Section 15-2 (a) Two-family
Residence (R-2), Section 16-2 (b) Multiple-family Residence (R-3A), Section 17-1 (b)
Multiple-family Residence (R-3B), and Section 18-1 (b) Multiple-family Residence (R-3C)
of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County that allows single-
family attached dwellings and condominiums by right or by Special Exception. This
19
amendment would thereby eliminate the allowed single-family attached dwellings and
condominium density provision which is less than the multi-family unit density in the same
zoning classification. (Second reading - approved by Commission July 18, 2006)
2. ZA-R-176 – An request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County to modify Section 26-2 Special Exceptions
relating to the use initiation time period. Special Exceptions for churches or church related
activities granted per Section 26-1 shall initiate a use within five (5) years of the granting,
or the Special Exception shall no longer be valid. (Second reading - Approved by the
Commission July 18, 2006)
PUBLIC SERVICES
3. Motion to approve allowing the petitioner to withdraw with prejudice the New
Ownership Application: A.N. 06-30: A request by Yong Pyo Hong for an on premise
consumption Beer license to be used in connection with MLK Lounge located at 2238
Martin Luther King Blvd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee July 24, 2006)
4. Motion to approve allowing the petitioner to withdraw with prejudice the New
Ownership: A. N. 06 - 28: A request by Yong Pyo Hong for a retail package Liquor, Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Milledgeville Spirit Center located at 2238
Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee July 24, 2006)
6. Motion to approve the FY 2007 Cooperative Agreement with CSRA-RDC for
nutrition services for Augusta-Richmond County, Ga. (Approved by Public Services
Committee July 24, 2006)
7. Motion to approve the renewal of a food service provider contract with G.A. Food
Service, Inc. for Senior Nutrition programs for Augusta, Ga. (Approved by Public Services
Committee July 24, 2006)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
10. Motion to approve the reprogramming of $30,000 from the Aragon Park Housing
Project and award to Light of the World Neighborhood and Economic Development, Inc.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 24, 2006)
11. Motion to approve the deferred retirement of Ms. Maxine Powell under the 1977
Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 24, 2006)
12. Motion to approve retirement of Mr. Frank Farris under the 1977 Pension Plan.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 24, 2006)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
18. Motion to approve the purchase of two Volvo dump trucks which are currently
being rented from ASC Construction Equipment, USA, Inc. (Approved by the Engineering
Services Committee July 24, 2006)
19. Motion to approve the deeds of dedication, maintenance agreements, and road
resolution submitted by the Engineering, and Augusta Utilities Departments for
Cambridge Subdivision, Section Eight. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July
24, 2006)
20
20. Motion to approve the deeds of dedication, maintenance agreements, and road
resolution submitted by the Engineering, and Augusta Utilities Departments for
Cambridge Subdivision, Section 11. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July
24, 2006)
21. Motion to approve the deeds of dedication, maintenance agreements, and road
resolutions submitted by the Engineering, and Augusta Utilities Departments for Cameron
Subdivision, Section I. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 24, 2006)
22. Motion to approve and accept the CSX Crossing Agreement for the Main
Interceptor Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 24, 2006)
23. Motion to approve proposal from B&E Jackson for $118,000 for an engineering
design of 7,000 feet of sixteen inch (16”) water main along Jimmy Dyess Parkway as part of
the 630 system improvements. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 24,
2006)
24. Motion to approve the deeds of dedication, maintenance agreements, and road
resolutions submitted by the Engineering, and Augusta Utilities Departments for
Evergreen Subdivision, Section Two. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July
24, 2006)
28. Motion to allow the Administrator to negotiate with the Augusta Housing Authority
to cover collection fees associated with solid waste services. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee July 24, 2006)
29. Motion to approve the deeds of dedication, maintenance agreements, and road
resolutions submitted by the Engineering, and Augusta Utilities Departments for
Pinehurst, Section Six, Phase One. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 24,
2006)
30. Motion to approve and accept the Option Agreement and Easement Deed from
Proctor & Gamble on the Highway 56 24 Inch Water Main Project. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee July 24, 2006)
32. Motion to approve the deeds of dedication, maintenance agreements, and road
resolutions submitted by the Engineering, and Augusta Utilities Departments for
Sanderling Subdivision, Phase Two. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July
24, 2006)
33. Motion to approve the deeds of dedication, maintenance agreements, and road
resolutions submitted by the Engineering, and Augusta Utilities Departments for Walton
Acres Subdivision, Section IV. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 24,
2006)
34. Motion to approve the deeds of dedication, maintenance agreements, and road
resolutions submitted by the Engineering, and Augusta Utilities Departments for Walton
Acres Subdivision, Section VII. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 24,
2006)
35. Motion to approve the deeds of dedication, maintenance agreements, and road
resolutions submitted by the Engineering, and Augusta Utilities Departments for Walton
Hills Subdivision Section VI. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 24, 2006)
36. Motion to allow the Administrator to begin negotiations regarding the Walton Way
Project and determine if a better deal can be arranged concerning the cost allocations to
cover landfill fees associated with the second level canal improvements. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee July 24, 2006)
21
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
37. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held July
18, 2006 and the Special Called Meeting held July 24, 2006.
APPOINTMENT(S)
38. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Mike Askew to the Human Relations
Board representing District 10.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0 [Items 1-4, 6-7, 10-12, 18-24, 28-30, 32-38].
Mr. Mayor: We did some serious pulling today.
The Clerk: Uh-huh.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s go through the Consent Agenda pulls.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
5. Motion to approve second reading of Ordinances regarding a regulatory fee for
entertainment venues and alcohol sales at entertainment venues. (Approved by the
Commission July 18, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. Since last time, Mr.
Sherman and I had again conferred about 6-2-52(b) and if you’ll look on, that’s on page 2 of
what we just handed out, there’s a slight language change to define more precisely the idea of
fixed seats, and if you’d look there, we underlined affixed to the floor or attached to each other in
rows of at least five seats each in a row in a theatre like design in front of a stage. It was felt that
that language was an improvement over what had formerly been in the ordinance. The
ordinance, as you recall, was going to apply to a district. It is now going to apply county-wide.
That change was explained in the Agenda item that was sent in.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, that’s totally different from what we approved the last time,
and I thank the Attorney for bringing it to our attention but who decides after an ordinance is
written that you need to go back and add to it or take away from it? This Commission hadn’t
decide that. I mean, who make the decision I guess is my question, Mr. Mayor?
22
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Williams, to answer your question, I think that’s incumbent on staff
whenever they see that an improvement in the language might be made. They had that
responsibility to you, sir, to use their best efforts and Sherman came to my office and suggested
that we look at the fixed seats--fixed seating definition and we did and we tried to improve it, sir.
That’s all we tried to do.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, and my question is, I’ve got a bunch of calls about it because
it was going just entail the downtown businesses at one time where they going to be allowed to
do some things different from the rest of the--this one set area we keep talking about that. We
want Augusta, ain’t no county, city no more, we one big city, and if you going to have, if you
going to word the ordinance that’s going to cater to a certain group, then ain’t no sense in saying
its going to be city-wide. Because that’s what we said last time, we didn’t want to just designate
a downtown situation. If you going to have an entertainment venue and going to use that as part
of your revenue, and you’re going to show where you can do that in other entertainment areas,
we--I think we’re sending a mixed signal here. I think we need to stick with a area, a rule that’s
going to be fair to everybody and I just can’t see how a restaurant for instance that have
entertainment in, going to have put in fixed seats. If you going to have a nightclub, and I know
ya’ll don’t go to nightclub, ya’ll ain’t never been in there, ya’ll don’t know what that look like,
but I can tell you about them. If you going to put on an event and use entertainment as part of
that, you got to turn around and change your seating in order to do that? All we doing is setting
up stuff for certain people and we ought to be fair across the board now, with anybody who’s
going to do entertainment. There’s outdoor venues. We just got through talking about Mr.
Brown, the jazz thing down, down, that’s entertainment. And people brought their own lawn
chairs and we had a great time. They talking about extending it. But if you going to do that, I
think we ought to be--
Mr. Speaker: --our attorney to write this resolution to get out that we could get this
forwarded right away.
Mr. Mayor: It has been voted on but Mr. Attorney, you know what to do.
Mr. Shepard: I understand that.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: We waiting for the tape?
Mr. Brown: Mr. Mayor? While we’re waiting for the tape, could we also ask anybody
who needs the services of Mr. Broom because of his three year wait, go out and do as much
business with him as they can?
Mr. Grantham: Yeah.
Mr. Speaker: I rented [inaudible].
23
Mr. Mayor: I think we can get unanimous approval on that.
Mr. Speaker: I just left from out there.
Mr. Speaker: All right.
Mr. Williams: --reword and change the wording. I can’t support that. I can’t--
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Reverend Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: My question is--
Mr. Mayor: Can we--can we hold off one second, Reverend Hatney? I believe we--
Mr. Hatney: Oh, okay.
Mr. Mayor: We good to go?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Please start again.
Mr. Hatney: Two questions. First, would be and it’s meant to be--Attorney, and it--I see,
is this a new ordinance or a revised one of one that’s already in place? If it’s a revision--
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: It is a revision--excuse me, it is a revision, Commissioner, in that this was
a restatement of the other fees, as well as the additional new fee for an entertainment venue. The
italicized type shows the changes in each section, and so you’re not passing all the sections,
you’re simply passing the one new one that we wrote for entertainment venues and that’s show
in the, several places that are in your agenda book, Commissioner.
Mr. Hatney: Okay. The other question, if this is a revision, I’m not going to apologize
for not being here, I just wasn’t, but what necessitated the change?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. I think that Commissioner Williams and others, when we
talked about this ordinance last week, last two weeks, there was a consensus that this should
apply county-wide, not just for downtown district.
Mr. Hatney: I’m talking about--I’m talking about the initial change. I’m not talking
about the what the caveat that you put in here.
24
Mr. Shepard: Well, the initial change was to supply License & Inspections with more
accurate description of the type of business known as an entertainment venue which we are
attempting by these amendments to clearly regulate and prescribe a fee for. That’s the--that was
the genesis. This came out of License & Inspection, and that’s why it was done the way it was
done.
Mr. Hatney: So you’re saying that License & Inspection requested this?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Sherman: If--if I could?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman: If I could address that, Commissioner Hatney? There’s a new business
down on Broad Street. It’s the Blue Horse Music Hall, I believe is the name of it, and they see
an opportunity to I think become a thriving business in the central business district and as it was
discussed at the other meeting for the city-wide altogether, and the reason they see the
opportunities in Augusta are because of the age groups, because of the Medical College students,
Augusta College students, Augusta State students, and Paine College students. It is a music hall
where they introduce new start up musical acts but not only do they allow them to play there, but
they have a recording studio there, and then they will promote the new--new music groups, and
one thing that they’ve set up is a music hall. The idea is to go in, it would be very similar to the
Imperial Theatre where you’d go in and you listen to the music but also like the Imperial
Theatre, you could go in and in this case, you could buy beer and sit and listen to the music. The
reason that we amended or we’re proposing an amendment to the alcohol ordinance is that they
want to allow all age groups to come in and listen to the music, the same as they, the way they
sort of expressed it, the same as the Imperial Theatre or if you go to a Green Jackets baseball
game. You can sit and drink a beer while you watch the game. The only way that that can be
allowed is with an amendment to the alcohol ordinance, and it’s very similar to, the way its
written is very similar to the way that restaurants operate. If you’re a restaurant and that is your
dominant business, TGI Friday’s for instance, where the majority of your income or at least 50%
or greater of your income, gross annual income, comes from the sale of food, all ages can come
in because then alcohol is an incidental use or an incidental business say. Okay? And--
Mr. Hatney: What you’re actually saying though is that what necessitated this is that this
new business going to have the opportunity to do this?
Mr. Sherman: That’s correct.
Mr. Hatney: And without--without the revision, they couldn’t have it?
Mr. Sherman: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: Right.
25
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Can we get a motion either way?
Can we--
Mr. Williams: Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we move to proceed the way we
began in the first reading and make this county-wide with local sheriff and code enforcement to
make sure that these business stay in compliance but not put fixed seating in a facility, especially
if you’re going talking about entertainment venues. You have to set up and take down and do
other things. I just, I want to be supportive but I want to be, I think it ought to be the entire City
not just the downtown which it started off to be just for something for a new venture downtown,
and I think that they opened our eyes and we ought to look around and see. We got as many law
enforcement people that any city this size. We got code enforcement people. If somebody’s
caught breaking the rules, breaking the law, then they ought to be dealt with but I don’t think we
ought to limit them to just one area and that’s saying well, you can do something downtown, you
can’t go across town. So I mean, I just think we’ll be fair to do it county-wide, city-wide versus
then trying to do it for just one area, Mr. Mayor, that’s my motion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: I agree with Commissioner Williams. It should be county-wide. I do want
to--and Rob can come address this but the fixed seating has always been a part of this regulation
and I believe what Rob is doing is defining what is meant by fixed seating. Is that what the
change is?
Mr. Sherman: That’s correct. In the original ordinance that was presented to you, it did
include one of the definitions of an entertainment venue is in addition to the 50% income is that
they have a minimum of 200 fixed seats. After reading it over and over, and talking with
Richard at the Sheriff’s Department, and then John at Steve Shepard’s office, we found that we’d
have a problem if we didn’t define what fixed is. What we had imagined was at least that they’d
be attached to the floor or attached to each other and so we came back up with this. It just, we
put it in words so it’s not left to our interpretation. But when a place takes out an alcohol license,
we have a somewhat of a declaration statement where they say what they are. You can be an
entertainment venue or you can be a lounge but you can’t be both. Because we will conduct an
audit of the books to see, to determine that they do our 50% or better of their income from the
sale of admission tickets and without that, we would have a problem, and I believe the Sheriff’s
Department feels that we would have a problem in controlling, you know, what we’re proposing
here.
Mr. Mayor: Reverend Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: Sir? Excuse me.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Hatney: One other question, with the--with the 200 seat minimum, that lock a lot of
folk out of that.
26
Mr. Sherman: Pardon?
Mr. Hatney: That would lock a lot of folk out of that.
Mr. Sherman: Well, it’s not so much the seating that will but it’s the 50% revenue from
the sale of admission tickets. It’s not tickets that you can sell that’s attached to a drink but it is
actually admission tickets so that when we go do the audit, the 50% or better of your income has
to come from the sale of tickets. The 200 is just a number that we came up with, whether it was
56 seats, it really doesn’t matter but you have to be able to have 50% or better of your income
from the sale of tickets. Otherwise, you’re really a bar and you’re allowing minors in, and if
minors get into a bar, minors will end up with a drink in their hand. I mean it’s, that’s just the
way that is, and we’re thinking that if it’s, if it’s truly an entertainment venue and if you picture
in your mind the Imperial Theatre, that’s what we’re looking for is a place where you can go
where all age groups can go in addition to the Imperial Theatre for a play or for music. That’s--
those are our thoughts, I guess our thought process.
Mr. Hatney: Are you suggesting that the Imperial Theatre be able to sell alcohol too?
Mr. Sherman: Yes, sir. Imperial Theatre does sell alcohol.
Mr. Hatney: They already do that?
Mr. Sherman: Yes, sir. They have been for quite a few years.
Mr. Hatney: Okay. That’s my--that’s the question that I raised. Why was it necessary to
change this if you’ve got something already in place where the Imperial Theatre qualifies?
Mr. Sherman: Well, we don’t have anything in place. What the Imperial was doing back
when it was the City and then after consolidation, when they were taking out a single event
license, a special event?
Mr. Hatney: Oh.
Mr. Sherman: And it could--
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion to approve and just for clarity as originally
submitted? Is that correct, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. And the seating Dr. Hatney had mentioned, the
seating I think we’d say 200. I mean, I can understand that fixed seating. I think Rob said either
fixed to the floor or connected but when you limit any person to have to have 200, that, we still
got a lot of small businesses in this town who’s trying to grow, who’s trying to get to that point,
and I don’t know any but I just think we ought to be friendly to everybody. We ought to be--
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles?
27
Mr. Bowles:
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Last or two weeks ago, the ordinance, since
I was the one that brought this forward, also included 200 seats. I mean, we’re basically still
I’d just like to make a substitute motion to approve this as
talking about 200 seats and so
recommended by License & Inspection and the Sheriff’s Department as is today.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Brigham: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a substitute motion on the floor and a second.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: I believe that if we don’t define what fixed seating is, that we’re going to
have a problem and that it would be better to define it up front and save certain opportunity while
we’re doing this and that’s the reason I’m in favor of voting forward the way it is.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a substitute motion. Commissioners will now vote by the
substitute sign. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek out.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Brown vote No.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
Motion carries 6-2-1.
Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item?
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
8. Motion to approve Budget Adjustment to the Community Development Block Grant
Program. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 24, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. We didn’t have a quorum in committee but this did
come from committee, and I just need to ask all I guess a question, and my question is that I
know part of you stated that we was doing this to keep from falling into the same situation we
was in last year about our spend down.
Mr. Russell: Right.
28
Mr. Williams: But if that was, if that’s, if this is all required, I guess my question is why
didn’t we do this earlier? I mean, I always said it’s easier--
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Williams: --to spend money than it is to make money.
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Williams: But now we talking about adding--who, where would this money go? I
mean is--
Mr. Russell: This money goes to projects that are already program, Commissioner. This
is basically an accounting move. What we’re trying to do is make this budget adjustment simply
to bring in additional funds that are already in the City’s letter of credit with HUD to make sure
that we have sufficient funds in the budget for CDBG in order to continue to spend the funds
down in a timely manner and not encounter what we call budget blocks. Now that we’ve--and
those budget blocks are essentially a, if we, well, at this point in the City’s financial system,
we’ve overrun the CDBG budget for the year so far so in other words when we originally set the
budget up, we’ve already spent down more than that amount, so we need to bring in more money
of the budget just so we don’t encounter any kind of administrative delays in processing
payment.
Mr. Williams: And Mr. Mayor, and that part my question. If we already done spend
down and we going to give these funds to entities who’s already applied for them, who’s some
got turned down, some didn’t make it, some--I mean, I’m trying to see how can we go back and
add to the monies that their project needs--
Mr. Russell: Well, we’re not adding money to--by this item, we’re not adding money to
any particular project. We’re not funding any new projects, we’re not bringing additional funds
in for existing projects. All we’re doing is making a budget adjustment that ups the budget, the
CDBG budget for the year from where we had originally set it. We set it too low.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Russell: We set it back almost a year ago when we didn’t know we were going to
have this spend down problem. Now, you’re correct. We could have come to you in January or
February of this year and requested this budget adjustment. Why are we doing it now? Because
we know we have to do it.
Mr. Williams: Well, and that part of my question because when you talking about
adjusting your budget up, I know when you’re taking the budget down.
Mr. Russell: Right.
29
Mr. Williams: But when you add to that budget, that tells me that there’s some more
money there to be spent, to be used before the end of the year--
Mr. Russell: That’s right.
Mr. Williams: --so and [inaudible] need.
Mr. Russell: And that’s exactly what we’re trying to do.
Mr. Williams: The question come to my mind then is who’s getting the money? What--
are agencies already, you know, grants and stuff already there and can--
Mr. Russell: Right. These are for existing projects. This is only to fund existing projects
and to continue to do, to implement the projects that the department does in-house such as the
housing rehab program, such as funding various public facility projects that are already in the
action plan approved by this body, as well as activities that are carried out by some recipients
again who have already been approved for funding.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, maybe nobody understand my question and, in this, and I see
you, you know, and--
Mr. Mayor: Well, let me recognize you again for the second time because you’re up on
time on the first time but go ahead, please, sir.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Mayor. Well, I can just put this back on the agenda. I’m
trying to get some clarified.
Mr. Mayor: I understand.
Mr. Williams: I just don’t understand how when we add to the budget and then there’s
project already been assigned, people already doing things, and we going to put more money in.
If you put more money in and you put it in to spend it out, I understand that much. But then
when you just tell me you’re going to add two more million dollars to the budget but it’s going to
be spent anyway, it’s hard to see--
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Williams: --because there’s a need for it.
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Williams: And that should have been known at, on Day 1. I just, that’s the question
I have.
Mr. Mayor: Let me qualify so far. You’re saying that this is an accounting move to free
up these funds so that they can be spent now.
30
Mr. Russell: Right. Just to bring them into the budget so that when we, when the, when
we use the accounting, the financial manager, the City’s financial management system to make
payments as they come in on a daily and weekly basis for these various projects, that we don’t
encounter what we call budget blocks because now that we’ve, with, when we originally set the
overall budget of $1.8 or $1.9 million for CDBC, we’ve already spent, spent up, spent down
below that so we need to bring in additional funds simply so that we can continue to make
payments on already approved projects in a timely manner.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: The question was raised about, why wasn’t it done I think in January but--
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Hatney: --actually, if you had, there’s no way to see this in January because you
hadn’t--
Mr. Russell: Well--and--
Mr. Hatney: --couldn’t see in January.
Mr. Russell: In all, in all honesty, earlier this year, we could have done it but--
Mr. Hatney: But you couldn’t do it in January?
Mr. Russell: Right. Well, we--we hadn’t gone to Washington yet but we certainly could
have done it earlier.
Mr. Mayor: We didn’t, weren’t sure that we had the money at that point.
Mr. Russell: That’s correct as well.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: The more you talk, the less I’m following you so you need, I think, you
need to earlier--
Mr. Russell: Well--
Mr. Brigham: --question or two from me?
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Brigham: Sorry, Mr. Mayor.
31
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Brigham: My basic concerns are we’re up in the budget so we can spend the money
but there’s no planned recipients of the money so I’m assuming that this item is related to
another item on this agenda?
Mr. Russell: No.
Mr. Brigham: No?
Mr. Russell: Well, this is--
Mr. Brigham: Okay. I’ll accept that we’re upping the money to spend the money.
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Brigham: My next question is, is all of the recipients up to date in their completion
of these projects that we will not have this money even after we up this budget left over?
Mr. Russell: Well, we’re doing everything we can to ensure that our sub-recipients spend
down their funds in a timely manner related, but you know, related to say another agenda item, I
still have some concerns about overall spend down but our sub-recipients have been put on
notice to spend their money.
Mr. Brigham: Well, I--
Mr. Russell: And to spend it in a timely manner or it’s going to be recaptured.
Mr. Brigham: I would think that if we’re going to up the budget to spend down, if our
sub-recipients are not current, that we need to be made aware of this immediately.
Mr. Russell: Okay. Will do.
Mr. Brigham: And the--I think that’s where it sits right now.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any further discussion? If we could get a motion either way?
Mr. Williams: What’s the either way?
Mr. Mayor: A motion to approve or to deny.
Mr. Hatney: I move that we approve.
Mr. Brown: Second.
32
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
9. Motion to approve the solicitation of proposals for the Center City South Augusta
Development Initiative. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 24, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I believe this has come about because of the
hard work from Commissioner Holland but I just want to get a basic overall understanding. I
couldn’t really get a good feel for what exactly this is going to do and where it’s going to be
implemented and I just wanted to get a better understanding of this project.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland?
Mr. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Bowles, this is a project that I’m sure
sometime ago you received this proposal in your packet about three weeks ago. Well, this is a
Center City project that we are initiating in order to do some redevelopment work and some
development work in the entire South Augusta area. For some times now, we’ve been talking
about South Augusta and how we’re going to develop South Augusta so what I’ve tried to do is
come up with a proposal that will initiate the redevelopment in this total area. I’ve spoken with
Commissioner Jimmy Smith, Commissioner Brown and briefly with Commissioner Cheeks, and
in these different areas, we have some blighted areas there, and so what we need to do is come
together and work out some plans whereby we will be able to develop some areas over there that
would be much better than what they are now. This is something that has happened before, I
think, but the timing now is ripe for us to start doing something in these particular areas. It was
brought before the Administrative Services Committee before, it was passed, and it’s been
passed to go through the Procurement Committee so we feel at this particular time that it is
necessary for us to start mixing mortar, you know, and get some things done in the South
Augusta area. Even on the Gordon Highway area. We want, and the Mayor has alluded to the
fact that he’s willing to help with this particular program because we’re going to be working
even with the South, with the Hyde Park area because we want the entire area to benefit from
this initial proposal.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: Let me ask Commissioner Holland a question, please?
Mr. Mayor: Please.
33
Mr. Hatney: Commissioner, are you asking us today to vote on the project or the concept
itself? Can you do the [inaudible]--some, seems like there’s no plans yet in place. Are you
talking about the concept or the project itself?
Mr. Holland: The project itself to be passed on to Procurement so they can get the RFQ
and then get the consultants in order to bring the information back to us to let us know what can
be done in that particular area. So I’m asking for your approval for this particular project.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown?
Mr. Brown: Yes. As a member of the Administrative Services Committee, I’d just like
to say that we did have a plan that we reviewed in the, our committee meeting, and Mr. Cedric
Johnson is here today, and I’d like for him to be able to speak if he could, just to maybe shed
some more light on this project?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Johnson, please come forward and know everybody knows you. Please
state your name and address for the record.
Mr. Johnson: Cedric Johnson, 3387 Tanglewood Drive, Augusta, Georgia.
Commissioner Brown is correct. We did, working along with Commissioner Holland, look at
what we could try to do to do some revitalization in the South Augusta district. One of the
reasons that I was kind of called to work with this, we did something similar with the Laney-
Walker Development Corporation which formed 501(c)(3) to do Armstrong Galleria plus the
addition plus housing in Summerville East. So it’s not anything that’s new to the City. We’ve
done it before. It’s just that we’re going to look at coming up with a master plan and find out
where we need to start in South Augusta to get the ball rolling to take care of some of this
blighted area.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: The reason I asked the question were you talking about a concept today
because you still saying that the plan has not yet been developed. You know, so I don’t have no
problem with either way but you know, the concept need to be accepted and then when you get
your plans down there where we can work with them, then we need to work on that.
Mr. Johnson: Yeah. Well, and I’m going to--
Mr. Hatney: Without plans, without plans, it’s hard to, and I’m on Administrative
Services too but--
Mr. Johnson: Yeah.
Mr. Hatney: --it’s very difficult to say let’s do the project when you don’t have no plan.
The concept, get it out there and everybody do what they need to be done, doing and bring it
back here and we can, then can approve the plan, rather, rather than to attempt to do something
that’s not in place.
34
Mr. Johnson: Yeah, and I think what you’re saying what will basically happen if you do
the RFQ, then the [inaudible] will bring back the plan to you so, to vote on the plan so no, we
don’t have a plan but what we wanted--
Mr. Hatney: Wasn’t saying that before. Say it now.
Mr. Johnson: All right. Well, I hope I cleared it for you then.
Mr. Holland: I thought I mentioned the RFQ through, coming through procurement--
Mr. Johnson: Right.
Mr. Holland: --and the consultants would come back with the master plan.
Mr. Johnson: Come back--will come back with a master plan to this body.
Mr. Holland: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: It’s just not something that would be very helped by the passage of a tax
allocation district at the referendum, and if so, I think we need to maybe call a special, specially
th
held meeting to make sure we get it passed before August 15 so we can get it on the November
ballot.
Mr. Mayor: It is indeed something that would benefit from the tax allocation districts.
Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I’m in full support. I guess, are we asking for
the qualifications of the people to perform a study? Are we asking for proposals on, that we
would bring back? I know that there needs to be an action by the Commission directing staff to
do this but are we asking for the qualifications of the many different people that would perhaps
bid on doing this work for us or are we asking for proposals for actual redevelopment in this
action?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Holland?
Mr. Holland: Ms. Sams? Can I get you to address this for me, please?
Ms. Sams: Good afternoon, Commissioner, Mayor and Commissioners. The goal of it is
to go out for RFQs and they’re going to come back with some suggestions and the concept. We
will put in place the concept of it. It is not to go ahead and do the work by no means.
Mr. Cheek: The question is we’re asking for the qualifications from a group of vendors
perhaps to do this study?
35
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: And then they will, we will select a vendor who will come back and do a
study and make a proposal on the project scope and so forth?
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek:Move to approve.
Okay.
Mr. Bowles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to know where we are with the Bethlehem area. You
know, when Mr. Holland came in, he came in with his proposal but before that proposal, the
Bethlehem area was on the agenda, and no, it’s not my district but it’s so important and it’s so
dilapidated. Something needs to be done there. Now, when you go further into the information,
you will see that funds, funds for consultation work is being pulled for other things, and I’m
wondering who, who in HEW, HED would be responsible for seeing that that’s put forth? Now,
it, all of this started with Lyman and Dover Street, and I graciously pulled back so that that
project could go forth, and it was stated that it would be a pilot project, and that your districts in
the inner city would be considered next. Yet it seems like all of this is on the back burner now.
I’d like to know where we are and if we will continue to move forward there--
Mr. Mayor: Mr.--
Ms. Beard: --and I think Andy can back me there.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. DeCamp and then--
Mr. DeCamp: Mrs. Beard? Which--I’m sorry, which project were you talking about in
particular?
Ms. Beard: The Bethlehem area.
Mr. DeCamp: The Bethlehem--
Ms. Beard: The $125,000 that you’re about to pull funds from.
Mr. DeCamp: Right. Right. Well, Ms. Beard, in all honesty, it’s with, my experience
with the HED so far has been that the, with a lot of the projects that are having to be
implemented aside from this particular housing project, at this point, it’s been difficult for the
staff to find time to get to it. That doesn’t mean that we don’t want to assist with the project,
focus on the Bethlehem neighborhood. Frankly, knowing exactly, without a, without a plan that
says here’s where we’re going to start and here’s what we’re going to do, and here’s what, here’s
36
what, what, here’s what the financing for a project like that is going to be beyond $125,000
because as we all know, that would only begin to scratch the surface--
Ms. Beard: But that’s what [inaudible].
Mr. DeCamp: --to address the needs of that neighborhood. And it’s going to, it’s very
crucial for the long-term redevelopment of all of these blighted areas that there be a clear long-
term plan developed that addresses them in a, in a fashion that’s certainly fair and equitable to all
but with a clear realization that with the limited, really the limited HUD funds that we get each
year, without some additional significant financial resources, it’s going to take years for, for all
of these areas to be redeveloped and it’s going to be crucial to set priorities and frankly to be
willing to, to wait for some, some things to happen.
Mr. Mayor: And--
Mr. DeCamp: But we’re committed but it’s difficult, at this, at this particular point in
time, we are extremely focused on this spend down issue and it’s been difficult to find time for
that project.
Mr. Mayor: And Ms. Beard, I’d just like to speak to that with regards to my request to
the Commission after the bus tours ended to come up with the five major needs of each district.
Part of the idea behind that was so that we could prioritize these projects within the district. So
often it seems as though we give staff direction and there’s no priority list and we sort of jump
and move around so I, that was part of my idea behind prioritizing that list. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I want to, I’m going to add this to, as a note of concern and
certainly I’d like to follow up offline on this information is for all of these projects to work,
there’s the (1) you got to define a geographic area that you want to work in, develop a plan for
that area, (2) you have to have the ability to acquire the land, (3) consolidate the land, and then
(4) disposition it to some developer or CHODO or whoever to make that happen. Now, this
Commission passed last year staffing the land bank with attorney positions and paralegals in
order to facilitate getting properties in the land bank to make that happen. That one question and
we can answer it now or later is has that been done and (2) is the companion legislation to allow
us to consolidate and then remarket these properties. Is that in place? This was passed well over
six months ago, I believe in the October, September, October time frame of last year by this
Commission and has staff followed through with those actions in order for us to move forward
with economic development in those areas?
Mr. DeCamp: No. The staffing of the land bank has not taken place. We’re still
assisting through the combination of the Law Department and staff at HED to, to assist the land
bank authority.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this, this Commission mandated, identified funds and funded to
fill those positions in September, and again, this is an example of us passing very good
legislation without any, and with the understanding that this would be carried through and here
again we’re several months later and there’s reasons, excuses or whatever, the elements that, that
37
are necessary for us to do what we want to do in our community are not in place in spite of the
fact that we passed the legislation and directed staff to have these elements in place and these
initiatives accomplished by now, and then, I just find that very difficult to swallow.
Ms. Beard: And I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Would it--would it be appropriate to task staff with coming back at the next
Administrative Services Committee and giving a full report with regards to where we stand on
this, and a path forward as well? Can we get a, can we get a motion to that effect?
Mr. Speaker: We’ve already got a motion and second.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, okay.
Mr. Cheek: So moved and this will be about the third report to that effect.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I agree with Commissioner Cheeks. We, we did task staff to
do that. We talked about a plan. We went out to, made the example out of Lyman Dover Street.
We was going to make that a example, and we, we went out without a plan. We went out
without a plan for land use, little consolidated effort as to how far we going to go. We just went
out because we, because we was excited, and I think all that stuff has caused what we getting
right back now, the plan for Commissioner Holland’s proposal and everything else. Ms. Beard is
right though. We talked about the Bethlehem Community and how we were going to make a
model and come back and do that but things just have not got done. Our park is way down the
road as far as being ahead. Our park been in line so long, they think they first out there but I just
think that we need to get the staff to understand when we give some direction, we mean for those
things to happen, and if they don’t happen, then there ought to be some, some responsibility left
on somebody’s shoulder when they don’t do those things.
Mr. Mayor: I’m, I agree and with regards to the planning process, plans are no good
unless you have action, action items and measurable goals and so that, that is what we need when
we put together plans but we have a motion and a second with regards to this item.
Commissioner Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: Now what are we about to vote on?
Mr. Mayor: We--
Mr. Hatney: Are we voting on Item 9?
Mr. Mayor: Could--voting on Item 9, and Madame Clerk, could you read back the
motion?
38
The Clerk: The motion is to approve the solicitation of proposals for the Center City
South Augusta initiative and direct staff to report back at the next Administrative Services
Committee on the staffing of the land bank attorney and acquisition personnel.
Mr. Hatney: My question is I kind of have some problems with all that being put
together. Personally, I think those are separate entities. To me, they are separate entities and
that No. 9 ought to be brought on by itself, and then that other stuff because if you do, you
carrying a whole lot of stuff in here that--
The Clerk: What do you mean? For the motion?
Mr. Hatney: Yeah.
Mr. Mayor: Yeah.
Mr. Hatney: There’s two, there’s three, four things in the motion and No. 9 talks about a
proposal for a project, and then you talking about the land bank and all this stuff. See, that’s,
that’s tying three or four things into one motion.
Ms. Beard: And Mr.--
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: And Mr. Mayor, I’d like to see what you have proposed that we turn our
information in and that the projects for the City of Augusta be prioritized.
Mr. Mayor: And yes, ma’am, that’s why I’m, had requested the Commission to bring
forth their five, their list and then to have a work session afterwards to prioritize those projects so
that we don’t go off, you know, in a bunch of different directions and I, the bus tour showed us
that there are parts of this community where the needs are far greater than others, and I think we
need to address the neediest areas first. Okay. But Reverend Hatney, back to your question.
Mr. Parliamentarian? Can we split the motion?
Mr. Shepard: Do you think--
Mr. Hatney: Question, what I’m hearing is that we, we can go on and approve No. 9 and
with that, talking about these other caveats, that won’t have any negative impact on No. 9, right?
Mr. Mayor: No.
The Clerk: No.
Mr. Hatney: Is that what he’s saying?
Mr. Mayor: Um hmm [yes].
39
Mr. Hatney: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. We’re getting this
whole thing straightened out.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, point of personal privilege please?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just quickly. We’ve conducted the tours of the districts but we have not
conducted a tour of the river front, the most vital asset in this City, and until we conduct that and
see the needs and the beauty of it, we--
Mr. Mayor: And we are in the process of scheduling that.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. Well, that’s, that’s good.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk and I are working on that.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll help.
Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item?
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
13. Motion to approve the reprogramming of CDBG funds to aid in the spend down of
grant funds. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 24, 2006)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? I think it’s a companion item that Mr. DeCamp talked about
earlier, I believe. Is that, is that the same?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. DeCamp, is that a companion item that’s in similar situation to the last?
Mr. DeCamp: It’s a [inaudible]?
Mr. Mayor: To the previous--
Mr. DeCamp: --pulled Item No. 8?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. DeCamp: [inaudible]--it is, it is in the sense that we’ve been tracking this, this spend
down issue on a weekly basis. It’s become apparent even though we spent more already more
40
CDBG funds this year so far in the first six months of the year, for six and a half months than we
did all of last year, that in order to reach that $3.6 million goal that we’ve set for, for the
community that we’ll just, we’re recommending some additional reprogramming of funds as
spelled out in this particular agenda item. We’re anticipating that there are going to be fewer
housing rehab jobs done than, and than we had originally anticipated. Some of our other facility
projects are moving slower than anticipated, and so what we’re recommending is reprogramming
of approximate $540,000 from a group of projects to one, one road and drainage improvement
project affecting East Boundary, and then four projects where--well, three projects affecting
recreation facilities and one involving the purchase of three Meals on Wheels vans for our Senior
Nutrition Program.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question as [inaudible] for--
Mr. DeCamp: Yeah.
Mr. Williams: --is how, how do we track what we reprogramming in recreation for
instance versus recreation monies already for parks, and this is federal dollars that we using.
Well, how do we track whether or not the twenty, twenty-five, whatever dollars--
Mr. DeCamp: Right.
Mr. Williams: --they are, are being spent and not other monies moved because--
Mr. DeCamp: Okay.
Mr. Williams: --because see if you had put $20,000 in recreation--
Mr. DeCamp: Right.
Mr. Williams: --in any, in any park--
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Williams: --and they need $10,000 where the other $10,000 go? I mean, I, how we
tracking that versus the needs for the community--because they got to fit the guideline, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. DeCamp: Right. And in this part--
Mr. Williams: --and if they meet the guidelines, that’s additional money to the money
they already should have in there and, and I don’t see how we doing that. I don’t even know
how we tracking that to make sure--
Mr. DeCamp: Okay.
41
Mr. Williams: --that the money are spent or utilized along with the other money that
supposed to have be utilized now.
Mr. DeCamp: Right. Right.
Mr. Williams: I have some serious issue with this one.
Mr. DeCamp: Well, and in the way it’s tracked, Commissioner, is that when a project is
bid out, we make sure that, that, you know, it’s based on an estimate of expenditures and that, if
it involves two sources of funds, then it’s going to, going to fund specific improvements that are
needed. I mean it’s going to fund at a level that uses up both sources of funds. I mean, it’s all
combined into one project. It bid out as one project but--and then, and then as, as invoices are
presented by the contractor, it typically, depending on a lot of the availability of the funding,
we’ll fund our, we’ll pay up to our, the amount that we’ve committed to the project and then the,
the SPLOST funds or the other source of local funds will be used to pay the remainder of the
project costs.
Mr. Williams: One other question, Mr. Mayor. Who determine the needs for the projects
are, Mr. DeCamp?
Mr. DeCamp: Well, we, we in consultation with the, the City Administrator and the two
departments that, the Public Works Department and the Recreation Department. We were trying
to directly identify in-house projects that were ready to go, that were eligible for funding, that
would benefit low and moderate income persons in these, in these neighbor, in these particular
neighborhoods, and as well as senior citizens and, and were essentially projects that could be
done in a short time frame. That’s why we’re focusing in on, on a road project that is about to let
for bid. We’re focusing on property acquisition by the Recreation Department for properties that
are adjacent to existing parks and will be incorporated into those parks, and the purchase of these
vehicles.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just hope that the, the department head, the Administrator,
along with the HED Director would at least consult the, he or she, whoever the Commissioner of
that district, before they make that final decision as to where the money need to go because then
you turn around and reprogram the money from one place to another place because the
Commissioner who sit there, whether it be a super district commissioner or a single district
commissioner ought to have at least some input as to what’s going on in that area.
Mr. DeCamp: Um hmm [yes].
Mr. Williams: I see two, two parks that’s in my district, and I’m not against that but
there’s another park who, who--and it’s a building need some help with some financing that
could have been used right away, but I just think that he or she ought to be consulted, Mr.
Mayor, before the Administrator, department head and the Director of HED decides for the
commissioner or for what ought to be done in their district.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham?
42
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I know it’s not on the list but my
recommendation is going to be which has been there for two and a half years that when we
reprogram funds like this that can be used in areas that you’re speaking of, that we include
Station No. 7 on Central Avenue, and that that area be looked at as far as spending the necessary
dollars out of federal grant funds that we have coming in so that we can clean that building up
and clean that facility up. It is next to an old park that we had there at one time. It’s now--it
used to be a voting precinct there, and I think it would be wise to spend money from the, from
these grants in that area to help clean that particular location up.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just, this is something that we instructed staff to do last year, to
come up with a short list of priority items in the event that we didn’t have adequate spend down.
Question 1 is are we going to be at the end of the fiscal year with inadequate spend down or is
this part of the solution to keeping us from being in the same boat we were in last year? And 2,
just to comment, as a courtesy, and I have to agree with, with Mayor Pro Tem Williams that we
need to at least when we see these blips come up on the radar screen, consult with the
commissioners that are losing the funding, and just as a courtesy but are we, is this a step to
mitigate the problem of spend down that we had last year?
Mr. DeCamp: Yeah.
Mr. Cheek: And ya’ll are in fact doing what we asked you do ?
Mr. DeCamp: Right. And to be honest with you, we’re going to be cutting it close but
we’re doing, you know, we’re doing everything we can to push our sub-recipients along and to
push the projects that we’re working on in-house and that’s, we’re tracking it on a regular basis
and if there’s an, I don’t anticipate coming back to you with any additional reprogrammings and
just to reiterate a point I made earlier, actually back in the committee meeting, if we can go a full
year with reprogramming any, any of these funds, I think that would be a great step in the right
direction.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’m, I’m going to applaud the Department for finding
the funds to do the East Boundary Road project.
I remember sitting in the commissioner’s
office in Atlanta with the Department of Transportation, and he was stating that there was not
enough funds to complete the project, and I am glad for one to see that we’re spending our HUD
dollars to get these projects completed for the citizens of Richmond County.
Mr. Mayor: Does that come along with the motion to approve?
Mr. Brigham: I can make that motion.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
43
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Holland out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. DeCamp: Thank you all.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
14. Motion to approve tasking the Attorney to issue a demand letter for payment to the
Department of Family and Children Services regarding the rental of their building and
pursue the route of litigation if that request is unsuccessful; Approve tasking the
Administrator to write the Legislative Delegation concerning the failure of the Department
of Family and Children Services to pay rent for their building; Approve the
Administrator's recommendations to address the 2006 Budget shortfall. (Approved by the
Finance Committee July 24, 2006)
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I’ve spent my entire career advising people on financial
situations and, and I hope that, that we can address this situation rather than passing this on to
future generations. We are looking at not only raising, which we have already done, is raising
our millage rate. We’re looking at increasing license fees, increasing insurance premiums on our
employees, looking at a storm water run-off fee for our citizens. We’re looking at every way we
can to increase revenue, passing it on to the taxpayers when we have unpaid license fees, unpaid
utility bills and unpaid taxes. We need to make cuts and we need to make them now, and I hope
that we can hold off on approving this budget until we have our workshops to discuss these
th
budgets. We have until August, August 15. We, we don’t need to pass this and put it onto
th
somebody else. We, you know, at the June 12 meeting, Mr. Grantham made a recommendation
for the Administrator to come back at the end of July with reductions of the budget without
going into the fund balance. We need to address these situations without passing the fees onto
our citizens like we did with the tax increase, and I, I hope and I will make a motion that we
approve Item No. 14, pulling out the approval of the budget shortfall until it can be approved in a
workshop.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: That would be a substitute motion, correct?
44
Mr. Bowles: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: I never got a second.
The Clerk: Never got a second.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, okay.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Mr.--
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: While I greatly appreciate Mr. Bowles’ statement and I understand his
desire to cut what we’ve asked you to do by making these changes and recognize funding is
going to be available so that we can move these dollars into the appropriate slots to be utilized as
appropriately. What we’ve asked you to do is take advantage of things that are already there and
just make the budget changes that are necessary. What I’ve asked the departments to do are give
me cuts, and we’ve looked at those and we’ve looked at those and looked at those. Trying to get
blood out of a turnip is not one of the best things that we’ve been able to do around here. In the
next Item, you’re going to be talking about turnips and blood to be honest with you, and you
can’t continue to have it both ways. I agree with Commissioner Bowles totally. What we’ve
asked you to do here is just move some money around so that we can continue to move forward.
The cuts that are there, we’ve looked at those and what I have done is instructed the department
heads to save those to this particular point in time because we are facing extremely high gas
prices, utility prices and those other items that are faced by every family in this community
where the same ones that are faced by our government. We’re going to have plenty of
opportunity to talk about the level of service that we have as we look at next year’s budget.
What I’m attempting to do is get through this year’s budget and have those cuts, make those
decisions which you’re going to have to make, and you’re going to make lots of people very,
very angry when you make them because you’re going to talk about things that people really like
to have and you’re going to say no, you can’t have them anymore, and I think that’s something
that deserves more than one workshop. I think that’s something that deserves a lot of our time as
we continue to move forward. I think that’s something we need to plan for in next year’s budget,
and I respect Commissioner Bowles’ opinion very greatly. I know that he’s on the right path but
I think that path should be taken as we look at next year’s budget instead of trying to fix
th
something that we’ve already spent 7/12s of.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles?
45
Mr. Bowles: Yeah. And I appreciate the Administrator’s efforts but again, I’ll say that’s,
these plugs that we’ve made to balance this year’s budget are non-recurring. They will not be
there next year, and I think the time to address the situation is now, so I stick with my motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I will make a substitute motion that we pass that as the Administrator
outlined. I agree with him. We’ve got to go on and make some decisions. I wasn’t in favor of
an increase, but I think that if we going to have an Administrator and give him the authority to
make suggestions and they’re the most reason one, then we need to try to follow those. So that’s
my motion.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I’m just going to add this, that last year when we went through this, we had
several departments that made drastic cuts and a great effort to do that, and I applaud them for
helping the people. My concern is that some of these other departments maintained their same
funding level when they had funding cuts and they spent it on anyway, and I’m just, I’m, other
constitutional officers and other departments within this City that are not making the cuts that
we’re putting on everyone else concerns me greatly and I’m, I’m at a point to where they need to
be cut whether they like it or not, and then made to make ends meet like the rest of our
departments and much needed services in this City so I just wanted to make that comment, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Well, and I’d just like to say that we’re going to have to make the
substantive cuts. We’re going to have to make people mad because I agree with Commissioner
Bowles completely, that if we continue to just plug with non-recurring revenue items, we’re
going to continue to be in the same situation so we’re, we’re not going to make everybody happy
on this one but we have a substitute motion, and a second. Commissioners--any further
discussion?
Mr. Hatney: What’s the substitute motion?
Mr. Mayor: It’s to approve--
The Clerk: Item 14 in its entirety.
Mr. Hatney: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign.
Mr. Cheek: Madame Clerk, I thought I punched no on that. If you would punch no up
for me or change my vote, please.
46
The Clerk: Okay. Well, I’ll let you--Mr. Cheek votes no.
Mr. Bowles, Mr. Brigham, Mr. Grantham and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item?
The Clerk:
FINANCE
15. Motion to deny a request from the Hispanic American Cultural Association of the
CSRA for assistance from the City regarding the use of the Augusta Commons venue and
funding for security for the 14th Annual Hispanic Festival on October 14, 2006 and task
the Administrator to develop a written policy regarding such requests. (Approved by
Finance Committee July 24, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: And let me speak to this one first because I had this one pulled. It’s just we
have a wonderfully diverse community. We just approved asking the Administrator with
working with Dr. McKenzie in a similar regard, and so I think that we ought to, the playing field
ought to be level and we ought to treat everybody the same way. Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, I agree and my recommendation is we deny this. My
recommendation is that we revisit the other and deny that too.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles:
Mr. Mayor, we set a precedent already this year and why, I agree with the
I’d like to make a
Administrator when it comes to security and, and staging and fencing.
recommendation that we waive the rental fee for the Commons for this project.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Mayor: And you’re putting that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Bowles: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney: And I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I agree with Commissioner Bowles and Dr. Hatney but in the
GMA training that we get every year, and folks think it’s a waste of time but I learned that
security don’t have to come from the Sheriff’s Department. I learned that you can staff your
security with uniforms where it be identifiable saying security, and as long as they got
communication where it be radios or whatever and they can detain until the Sheriff get there.
We been spending a lot of money with the Sheriff’s Department using cars and everything else
47
when we, when we can or have our own security. We can staff our own security as long as they
identifiable, and they, and they’ve got communication. Where we been bamboozled thinking
that we have to have a patrol car with the light flashing and other venues are put on all the time.
While we was in Savannah doing this training, there, there was a light event going on. You
didn’t see an officer. If you saw him, he was in plain clothes, Coach Holley. I mean, we, we
didn’t see people walking their dogs and carrying sticks and all that kind of stuff. We can, there
is another way to provide security whether it be this, this venue put their own security together
but we don’t have to spend those dollars putting the Sheriff’s Department in that position with
overtime and, and being stressed as much as they say they are. Any taxpayer need a officer, he
needs to show up. Regardless of what venue going on, you can’t tell me that folks come to this
town because we don’t have a Sheriff on duty that we can’t put on a venue. That, that’s not true,
and I think we need to come out of that box and understand that there is another way security.
So I agree with Mr. Bowles. I think that we can abide that and I think we can assist in how to
have security within our own self whether it be through dressing with some type of uniform to be
identifiable but that, that’s all.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Brown?
Mr. Brown: I’d just like to say, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for recognizing me, that if we
have someone here to represent this group, then I think it’s only fair for us to give them the
opportunity to speak.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Please state your name and address for the record.
Mr. Barreras: Thank you very much, Mr. Brown, Mr. Mayor, Honorable Commissioners.
My name is Carlos Barreras. I am the President of ACHA, the Hispanic cultural association. I
met earlier with Mr. Russell and I met with our Honorable Mayor, and I also sent a written
request to the Commission asking for some assistance. Our organization is a very small one.
We only have about fifty members as a matter of fact so that every thing we do is on a volunteer
basis and I can’t see us doing any more and putting on uniforms as Mr. Williams says. As I
indicated in my request, this is the fourteenth annual Hispanic Festival. We have always sold
beer at our one day festival except last year, and we’ve never had any trouble. Of course, we
have had security. I just want to say that none of the money that is raised based on a donation of
[inaudible] at the gate and any monies raised from the selling of beer or anything like that is,
goes right back into the Association’s budget for bringing in performers and paying for the
insurance and paying for the venue and paying for the security and so on so I was glad to hear
Mr. Williams talk about the fairness and this is what I’m bringing to you here as a matter of
fairness. As the gentleman indicated earlier about the billboard, James Brown billboard, this is a
historical educational event. We’re not a charity organization, no, but we are a 501(c)(3) cultural
and educational organization. We feel that Augusta has not taken a opportunity of a history
nature here. In 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed the Desoto Commission to
determine the exact routes of Hernando Desoto coming through Georgia and South Carolina. It
was not until 1972 that a plaque was posted on the Riverfront so designating the areas Hernandez
Desoto in 1540, so these are the kinds of educational events and information that we want to
bring to the community. All of the members of our organization are not just Hispanic, we have
man non-Hispanics, and I can assure you that as far as I know, all of them are citizens of the
48
United States as I am, and I just wish to thank you for the, any consideration that you might give
us.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Barreras: And I apologize to some of you that may have called me earlier. I didn’t
get the message until very late. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Barreras. We have a motion and a
second. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Williams: What is the motion?
Mr. Mayor: The motion is to--
Mr. Cheek: Approve the--
Mr. Mayor: Approve the waiver of the fees on the Commons.
Mr. Brown: The rental fee.
Mr. Mayor: Rental fee.
The Clerk: Yes.
Ms. Beard: Just the rental fee?
Mr. Mayor: Yes. Mr. Williams?
Ms. Beard: Not the additional fees?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, it’s Administrator and I think he stated that they was going to
sell of alcohol, beer or whatever. They would have to have a officer and not a, not a staff or
officer. Now, and I think that we need to exercise though those privileges that we can use for
security. Now, they need a officer on duty because of that, and I think they ought to have a
officer but as far as security by the Sheriff’s Department, I need some clear, in my mind, as do
we have to do that or can we--
Mr. Russell: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: But can they provide their, their security? As long as they got identifiable
security and, and that’s what we was taught in class and maybe that’s wrong but that’s what they
told us in Savannah, and maybe work in Savannah and won’t work in Augusta but it was told in
Savannah to us in class.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
49
Mr. Russell: The--the way we worked here historically is that apparently the Sheriff
determines whether or not security is needed at a particular event. By ordinance, they are
required to have law enforcement or deputies there when, when they sell alcohol and it, in my
history, that seems to be appropriate but apparently, the Sheriff is the one that makes the decision
on size of the crowd and whatever according to Mr. Beck, so that’s something we, we can work
with him on, sir.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if we can get the Administrator to bring something, I don’t
think the Sheriff make the laws for the City. The City make the law for the Sheriff and, and I
think--
Mr. Barreras: May I--may I just say that we welcome--
Mr. Mayor: Hang on one second. Yes, sir? Let him--
Mr. Williams: I just want something brought back so we get it, we get it clear. I think
we, we set all these other laws in place and I need to know.
Mr. Brown: Call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown, I’ll recognize you and then--
Mr. Brown: Yes. I’d just like to say that one, two questions that I have. One, I’d like to
know is this something that we’re voting on as a one time event or are we talking about
something that we will do in the future to assist this organization. The other thing that I’d like to
know is, or I’d like to say is that although we did allow the President of this organization to
speak, we didn’t hear his full request. His request is for funding for security as well but he has
not given us an amount that he had in mind.
Mr. Mayor: Well--
Mr. Barreras: Are you asking me to respond to that?
Mr. Brown: Yes.
Mr. Barreras: Well, I assume that all of you received my letter, my letter of request and
have read it, I hope. So yes, we were asking for the assistance with the venue and the security,
and we welcome the security. We’d welcome the presence of the Sheriff’s Department there. It
prevents a lot of problems. Even though we have not had any problems in fourteen years.
Mr. Mayor: But Mr. Barreras, and to answer your question, Commissioner Brown, I
believe this is a one time request and that if they wanted to request next year, they’d have to
come back before the body and we’d be, very cognizant of budgetary issues at that standpoint as
well, and Mr. Barreras, I believe that with regards to the action of the Commissioner, the motion
that’s on the floor, it is due to those budgetary issues that we’re facing that the Commissioner
50
had made the motion to grant you the venue but I believe if Commissioner Bowles could speak
to the issue, that security would have to be covered by your organization.
Mr. Bowles: That is correct, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: So we’re, we’re trying to help you as much as we can is the bottom line.
Mr. Barreras: I understand your budgetary situation. I appreciate what you’ve done.
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. The question has been called for. Commissioners will now vote by
the usual sign.
Commissioner J. R. Hatney passed.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
16. Motion to approve the transfer of city owned properties requested by Silver Sheet
Metal and McKnight Construction Company to the Land Bank Authority for a negotiated
sale. (Approved by the Finance Committee July 24, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I had a problem with this one. I think the rule states that any
of the City’s property that’s going to be sold will have to go in a, through a bid process and I
know we taxed the Administrator to come back with a recommendation for a policy but I can’t
see how we can designate any one or two entities to sell a piece of property to when it’s, when
it’s City’s property. That’s a, that’s a process now ya’ll. We done circumvented that because we
did it earlier but it still don’t make it right. Now, my problem is if there is a rule said you can’t
designate the Land Bank or any other authority for City’s property, if, and when you put
something in the Land Bank, we got no more control over it. It goes to the Land Bank. They
can sell it for $100 or $1.00 because the Land Bank’s an authority within itself, and I just don’t
think the last move with the Land Bank or the DDA was right, and I don’t think this, this is right,
and I’m going to make a motion that we deny this and have that process go through, no more
process that anybody else that buy City’s property have to go through and not just pick one or
two businesses to sell to.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Beard?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor. There was a sense of urgency in reference to this sale because
this company is attempting to, to move from one place to another. It’s in reference, it’s because
GDOT or the City needs the property for that, for St. Sebastian Way, and he’s going to lose an
51
awful amount of money if he cannot move forward, and along with that I do believe our
Administrator said there would be something definite in reference to this sale today, and we
would let him know. Is that not correct?
Mr. Speaker: That’s correct.
Mr. Russell: No. No, ma’am. What I was looking for was that today I would get the, the
approval to go ahead and negotiate the sale. I could not do that until I got the final approval
from the Commission but what you’d be doing today is authorize to do that through the Land
Bank and we get back to you at the next meeting with the , with the price that we negotiated, and
I apologize for the confusion there but I need your full approval before I can do anything.
Ms. Beard: Well, I’d simply like to say it is absolutely essential that we move forward on
it.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham?
Mr. Grantham:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and Ms. Beard is correct in her understanding
that this particular business is having a problem with the DOT as far as relocating St. Sebastian
Way. Not only Silver Sheet metal, we had indicated to them that a piece of property next door to
them that is owned by the City and there was to be a similar swap out in order to retain that
business in the City of Augusta. In addition to that, the McKnight Construction Company came
with an appeal that their property is landlocked by the property around them based on the City
ownership and they were asking to purchase that so that they can add to the properties that they
I’m going to make a substitute motion that these
own within the landlocked area and so I’m,
two items be approved, along with the approval that the Administrator is requesting for
the Silver Sheet Metal in order to negotiate the sale of these two pieces of properties.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this is case in point of what, what I discussed earlier. If, if we
can’t do this, then we cannot assemble properties in Bethlehem, Dover or anywhere else to be
redeveloped by anybody in the better interest of the City. One, we need to pass this, and this is
something we’ve instructed staff to move forward with, whether it’s in place or not, this is what
we’ve instructed staff to do. Two, we all have at one time or another said we want to become
business friendly. These are businesses that are interested, long-established businesses in
Augusta that are interested in staying in Augusta. Aiding and assisting them when they are
disrupted by a project that is being pushed by DOT and the City of Augusta is being business
friendly. So I just urge passage of this, and there’s nothing wrong with the City acquiring
properties, assembling them and then sending them out to be redeveloped as a package, choosing
the manner in which it is to be developed in the best interest of the City and yes, and sometimes
that means choosing the people that we allow to redevelop it, whether it’s a CHODO or in this
case a business that is already here. These are things that are done in other cities and for us to
continue to hang on to archaic practices of the past, which have been inconsistent in the past,
52
makes no sense and I just urge passage of this. This is in the best interest of the City and
establishes a precedent that we can use to redevelop blighted areas of the City of Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor. I agree with my commissioner that we have not been
consistent by no means when it comes to anything down here but certainly not by this, about land
and the sale of land. What I’m proposing is that if this a rule, if this is what the law says that this
is what we supposed to do, we supposed to do it. Now, how we, how can we pick and chose
when we want to do it and when we don’t want to do it. I mean, one day, we’ll say well, I don’t
want to do that, we’ll do it another way. If it’s in, it’s in. If it’s out, it’s out, and I just disagree
with the way that this is being brought. I’m, I’m being this friendly. I hope people come in and
move to Augusta but I want everybody to be treated fair now because this ain’t the first one that
come across this desk that we didn’t do and we could have did the same way but because there’s
a business who making money, we, they ain’t volunteering, they ain’t doing nothing free. This is
a paid construction company that, they’re making a lot of money of the City so I’m, and I’m not
opposed to that. But we ought to be consistent at least. We going to do something, do the same
thing all the time. I tell Mr. Wall they could give me the same ball that everybody else bounce.
Don’t give me no lead ball. I can’t bounce that so we ain’t playing with the same ball today that
we been playing with before. I can’t support it. I’m just one though.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: A question. I, did I hear someone say that these individuals were, were
being displaced by G, the Georgia Department of Transportation?
Mr. Cheek: Yeah. St. Sebastian Project.
Mr. Hatney: They’re being displaced by the State. I think we need to step up to the plate
and we help these folks because they, they are, they are our taxpayers and we need to keep all the
money we can and.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a substitute motion and a second. Substitute motion,
Madame Clerk, is to approve?
The Clerk: We didn’t--that’s the main motion. He didn’t get a second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a main motion. Any further discussion? Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
53
17. Motion to approve the Administrator's recommended policy and procedures for the
sale of City property. (Approved by Finance Committee July 24, 2006)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams:
Mr. Williams: This is a policy that we asked the Administrator to come back which is the
same scenario as 16 was, using the Land Bank authority. I mean, I, if, now we, we just voted on
an item which used the Land Bank Authority to sell to certain people. Once we give it to the
Land Bank Authority, it’s out of our hands but that is an Authority, and I disapprove of this one
as well. I think that’s a, that’s the way to circumvent the little man from coming and being able
to purchase property when somebody else can say we’ll give it to the Land Bank and already
done, you already done cut a deal. You already done premeditated the event that you want to do.
So I can’t support this, Mr. Mayor, and I’m going to make a motion that we deny this and let the
Administrator come up with a true plan to sell the City’s property versus the same old plan that
we’ve had that we don’t follow no way but that’s my motion.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I didn’t have a great deal of problems but then I haven’t
reviewed a lot of them but I would like a little clarification where you state recommendation on
any restrictions to be placed on funds.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Yes. Yes, sir. If I can respond to both of those questions.
Ms. Beard: Because my thing is I think with most things we do, we should try to be sure
it gets to the general fund.
Mr. Russell: Yes, ma’am. I agree fully but in some cases where we paid for property out
of SPLOST dollars or used other funds to pay for them, out of Utilities or something like that, it
would be inappropriate for those dollars to go into the general fund when, in the case of the, for
the Pension property, we used SPLOST dollars and general fund dollars both. It would be
appropriate in my mind to replace those SPLOST dollars and the general fund dollars too so that
would be the, that’s the meaning of what that says there is that what particular fund the dollars
came out of should be the one that the dollars would go back into and then that would be the
restriction.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, one of the things we should all keep in mind is that selling
properties in the Land Bank, you need to retain certain amount of those funds to operate the Land
Bank and that is one of the funding mechanisms that other cities use is the portion of the profit
some of the property is rolled back into it to cover the administrative costs of the legal
54
requirements, the title searches and so forth. This is how other cities fund their land bank apart
from the general fund and something this Commission passed in concept to do over a year ago,
and as far as the independence of the Land Bank itself, the Land Bank is just made up of staff
members of Augusta-Richmond County. There was some discussion in the past about adding a
Commission member to that board or serving as a, in an advisory capacity, an oversight capacity
of, to make sure the interest of the Commission, a manned Commission were followed through,
so that may be something that would calm the fears of some Commissioners but we need to go
ahead and move forward. We’ve, I have hammered on Fred about this and staff today about
coming forward with a comprehensive policy as it’s been said. What we’ve done in the past has
not been consistent. This is a chance for us to move forward. If we see issues with the current
bill, those are some things that we can adjust and change as the process moves forward but
Ladies and Gentlemen, we’ve got many, many properties that are stagnant now. We need to
move forward with this policy and getting those properties back on the tax rolls and this is a way
to do it.
Mr. Mayor: And I will just say I’m, during the, and I’m, I’m glad that the Mayor Pro
Tem reference the GMA conference. I met with the real estate company down there that does
comprehensive strategies for communities in which, and I know that the Mayor Pro Tem has
expressed an interest in certain situations. We might not want to sell a property, there might be
properties that we’d want to develop affordable housing on or other projects but I feel like we
really, a comprehensive strategy for our real estate options would be a good thing. Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: What this policy does, sir, is, and I, it’s put together with Commissioner
Williams’ concerns in mind mainly. It does create a fairly fair level playing field for everybody
that either approaches us about buying property or that we determine property might be surplus
through our action or through an action of the Commission. What that does is create a policy
where we would review that, come to the conclusion that it is either surplus or not surplus, let the
Finance Committee review that. It basically places all the decisions in your hands on what the
process we use, even to the extent of which particular mechanism we would use to sell the
property. Part of the package is you would be able to make that decision as part of the Finance
and the full Commission activity on that. There are options available. You could do it through
bid, both either sealed or open. You could do it through the Land Bank, the Downtown
Development Authority, and the Development Authority of Richmond County. All those would
be presented to you as an option, and we would make a recommendation on what we thought
would be the best to accomplish that but this policy puts those decisions in your hands. It levels
the playing field. It becomes something that you get a uniform package with. It’s not Johnny
coming up and say I want to buy this. It’s Johnny’s doing that and then you get him the same
information you get on that particular parcel that you’d get on every other parcel with the
recommendations of staff which you can either accept or not accept so I think it accomplishes a
lot of what Commissioner Williams is after, and I think he’s absolutely right. We need to be
uniform. We need to be concise but we need to be fair and that’s what it’s all about.
Mr. Mayor: Amen. Commissioner Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: I have one concern. I think it’s Item 5 down here where you say surveyed.
Is that county attorney appraisal? County attorney, due to the fact that we are working toward
55
instituting a law department, I would prefer seeing that simply say attorney or county attorney or
law department attorney. I don’t think you should say county attorney when we’re moving
toward the law department.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham?
Mr. Grantham:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Based on the conversations we’ve had
I’m making a motion we
regarding this item, I think everyone wants to head in that direction so
approve.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Russell: Is that with the changes of the language to Law Department, I assume?
Mr. Grantham: Yes.
The Clerk: It’s recommended.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and second. Any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
The Clerk: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: You’ve been talking about this stuff all day. Have you forgot to vote on that
one?
Mr. Cheek: It’s the saying about this, this is why we staff the position, the point of
personal privilege, why we staff the--
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: --mandated to staff the position of the Land Bank Authority.
Mr. Grantham: Exactly.
Mr. Cheek: To cover those costs and they are funded under the Land Bank Authority,
and that’s, that’s what concerns me. Again, we don’t need to be spending that additional money
for other resources when we have that position staffed.
Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item, Madame Clerk?
56
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
25. Motion to allow the Administrator to cover landfill fees associated with Georgia
Department of Transportation (GDOT) from the general fund. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee July 24, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard? I believe you penned that one.
Ms. Beard: Which one?
Mr. Mayor: 25.
Ms. Beard: Item No. 25. Okay. It appears the land fill Mark is going after his funds and
it was not funded, and I was thinking maybe you had something in mind when you did not fund a
couple of items last year, and what did you have in mind in reference to this?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: I’m not sure. Hold on.
Ms. Beard: And that’s No. 25 and 31.
Mr. Russell: Hold on a second. Let me talk to Mr. Johnson, if you don’t mind.
Ms. Beard: Oh, he’s right there. 25 and 31.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Commissioner Beard, they were issues that as Mark transitioned into this
position that we were unaware of some, of some problems there. We knew we were taking the
D--
Mr. Mayor: The D pet?
Mr. Speaker: G-Dot.
Mr. Russell: GDOT. I’m sorry. Well, they were, you know, they were obviously given
a free ride as far as collecting they’re, they’re waste and we do that and I think that’s appropriate.
What we’ve done is a two-fold thing. We’ve asked Mark to come up with dollars that are
available and we’ve also identified some holes that we had in the budget. By doing so, we need
to do go ahead in my mind and absorb those costs from GDOT and from the Item 31--
Ms. Beard: Salvation Army.
57
Mr. Russell: --the Salvation Army, both of which, Salvation Army does have a contract
with us and we’ve seen that so we need to pull those costs, and GDOT I think is a fair quid pro
quo for the services they provide. We just need to be able to, to do that and need your blessing
to do that. That help?
Ms. Beard: Yeah.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We have talked with the Department of
Transportation and they feel that the work that they do on our roads, picking up road kill, trash
and all the other things more than offsets the amount that we’re talking about, and I certainly
agree with that. I really think we need to waive this.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: I’m trying to figure out. I understand the Department of Transportation but
I’m just trying to figure out where a non-profit falls into this as it does with the Salvation Army.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Several years ago, the Salvation Army received the contract from the City
or agreement with the City to provide--
The Clerk: A shelter.
Mr. Russell: --to provide a shelter in lieu of paying fees for garbage basically, and that’s
been a long-standing agreement that we’ve had with them. Not one that I negotiated but one that
was done prior to our arrival.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brown, did you have your--
Mr. Brown: No. No, thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Can we--
Mr. Grantham: Make a motion we approve Item No. 25.
Mr. Williams: And 31.
Mr. Mayor: And 31?
Mr. Grantham: And 31.
ENGINEERING SERVICES
58
31. Motion to allow the Administrator to identify funds from the general fund to cover
landfill fees and solid waste collection fees associated with the Salvation Army. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee July 24, 2006)
Mr. Russell: Well, that’d be fine with me.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham and Mr. Cheek out.
Mr. Bowles votes No.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: And we’re on our regular agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
39. Motion to approve disability retirement of Mr. Robert Harrison under the 1977
Pension Plan. (Deleted from the July 18, 2006 agenda - Requested by Commissioner Jimmy
Smith)
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Harrison is here with my office.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Before we move on, did, did we--were 26 and 27--
The Clerk: Oh, yes. I’m sorry. Mr. Williams needs some clarification on those. You’re
right.
Mr. Shepard: If, if we could, then if we’ll take 25 and 26, I’ll let Mr. Hamilton and Mr.
Long confer on these other items?
Mr. Mayor: Okay. No. I’m--I was--on the Consent Agenda, I believe it was 26 and 27
were also pulled for discussion.
ENGINEERING SERVICES
26. Motion to approve an Option for Right-of-Way between W. Rodger Giles and W.
Rodger Giles, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, as owners, and Augusta, Georgia, as optionee, in
connection with the St. Sebastian Way Project, for 0.29 acres (12,707.72 sq. ft) in fee and
0.113 acres (4,926.73 sq. ft.) of "Temporary Construction Easement" and also one (1)
"Temporary Driveway Easement" for the following property located at 1399 Walton Way
for a purchase price of $255,800.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July
24, 2006)
27. Motion to approve an Option for Right-of-Way between W. Rodger Giles, as owner,
and Augusta, Georgia, as optionee, in connection with the St. Sebastian Way Project, for
0.159 acres (6,915.40 sq. ft) in fee and 0.067 acres (2,920.46 sq. ft.) of Temporary
59
Construction Easement for the following property located at Young Street for a purchase
price of $191,000.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 24, 2006)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just want to get some understanding.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I want to get some understanding. We talking about spending $255,800
for a right of way. That’s $26,000 and $191,000. Item 27 and that money’s supposed to recoup
from--
Mr. Shepard: Georgia Department of Transportation, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Williams: When, when will we see that money, Mr. Shepard? How do we--I mean,
here we are talking about a swap with garbage and trash pick up and how they feel like they
giving more than their fair share now. I see we’re going to spend this kind of money for 12--
what’s that 12,772 square feet? 4,926.73 square feet and $55,800, and we going to pay that and
Georgia DOT going to give that back?
Mr. Shepard: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: Okay. When, how, when we see that? How do we know--
Mr. Cheeks: I’ve seen that total.
Mr. Shepard: My prediction would be to see it within thirty days of this meeting. You
are, you are assenting. The Committee is not--I mean, the Commission is not--
Mr. Hatney: We can’t hear you. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Shepard: The Commission is assenting today to this transaction, and the
reimbursement I would think it takes a, a reasonable amount of time and I would think 30 days
would be a reasonable amount.
Mr. Williams:I’m going to make a motion to
Okay. I got no problem, Mr. Mayor.
approve with the condition that that be brought back to this body to show us when it comes
in
and it, you know?
Mr. Shepard: Sure.
Mr. Williams: I mean because that’s just check and balance, that’s all. We going to
spend, we’re spending City dollars which they going to pay, I can’t see why they can’t pay
whoever is, you know, getting the money that can go, why we got to swap to at the ends, Mr.
Mayor, I guess but my motion is to approve.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
60
Mr. Hatney: I second that motion but I have one question.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: And No. 26 down and nearing the ending, it says temporary construction
easement and also one temporary driveway easement for the following properties located, help
me with that.
Mr. Shepard: Okay.
Mr. Speaker: 1399 Walton Way?
Mr. Hatney: Yes. Help me with the temporary business.
Mr. Shepard: Are you looking at 26, sir?
Mr. Hatney: 26. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: All right. When you look at 26--
Mr. Hatney: Both of them say the same thing.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. The money is allocated to acquire what we call property in fee
which means we get it outright. In addition, we are also, in order to put the improvements in
place, it is necessary to have what they call a temporary construction easement and a temporary
driveway easement so the money is allocated to land we will have perpetual title to as well as
some adjacent property which is going to be disturbed temporarily. It is a fairly, fairly standard
practice, Commissioner.
Mr. Hatney: It might be fairly standard but I still don’t understand it how you can call
$255,000 item temporary as part of that.
Mr. Shepard: It’s a--
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
thth
Mr. Shepard: If you look down at the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 line from the top, it says they’re
getting projects property also in what they say in fee, that means in fee simple. It means outright
title.
Mr. Hatney: I have no problem with that. I’m still having some concerns with temporary
business.
Mr. Shepard: Well--
61
Mr. Hatney: Are you saying you’re using somebody else’s land temporary while this is
constructed? Help me. I don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. There’s--it’s not someone else’s. It’s the effect on this property
owner is going to be partly permanent and partly temporary, and they’ve allocated as between
the temporary and the permanent.
Mr. Hatney: And that just--
Mr. Shepard: The construction--construction disturbs more than just the area that it
permanently effects.
Mr. Hatney: We understand that and we’re not arguing. My main concern is there is
we’re not fixing to do temporary work. That’s what’s concerning me.
Mr. Shepard: You’re going to do temporary work?
Mr. Hatney: We’re not doing temporary work.
Mr. Shepard: Correct.
Mr. Hatney: We’re doing permanent construction.
Mr. Shepard: Correct.
Mr. Mayor: Correct.
Mr. Shepard: And in order to do permanent construction, we have to have some
temporary disturbance of what remains of Mr. Giles’ property.
Mr. Hatney: Okay. So when this construction is finished, then that land will revert back
to Mr. Giles or whatever his name is?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney: But in the meantime, we’re paying him $255,800?
Mr. Shepard: Well, we’re getting it all in one package. We’re getting permanent--
Mr. Hatney: We’re getting spanked. That’s what that is.
Mr. Mayor: No. The DOT is.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, may I make my motion include--coming back, if I can. When
Cedric Cooper write this article, she ain’t going to--
62
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: --nothing about temporary, Mr. Mayor. She’s going to say we spend
$250,000 for a easement that we, that you could have bought and that’d be putting it James
Brown simple, you know what I’m talking about? And to put it out there. But regardless of that,
Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to know when that money comes back, we ought to know that it’s back
in to our budget or in our, our hands, not just approve this and say, I don’t know what, maybe we
owe some money now. I don’t know, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely. I’m in complete agreement with you, and I know your motion
included that. Let’s show it going out but let’s show it coming back in. Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, there is within this project just a set amount of money for a right
of way acquisition. Is this above that estimate? I mean, we’re going to get a certain amount
from the state DOT for the entire right of way acquisition. We’ve got to match some and do
some other things. Are we within budget I guess is what I’m asking?
Mr. Shepard: Well, on this particular item, yes, we are within budget. We wouldn’t have
written that we’ll be reimbursed by DOT on both of these.
Mr. Cheek: What I’m asking though is I don’t want to get to the construction stage at St.
Sebastian and need additional monies for additional right of way. Is this money within the
allocated budget for this parcel of property? Is this within the estimate that we had anticipated
for this parcel of property or are we high on that amount? Because there are several other parcels
to acquire in order for us to proceed with this construction.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: My understanding, it is within the budget but I’ll be happy to verify that
for you.
Mr. Cheek: There’s, like I said, if it’s within the say $1 million for the entire right of way
acquisition budget and then we’ve got ten other properties to acquire, I guess there’s--they
mapped this thing out years ago and there are set parcels of land and surely estimates for those
acquisition costs for those particular parcels. I just want to make sure we don’t run short because
this is a funded project with a $27 million impact for the City of Augusta.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: The financial impact does say the costs necessary for the purchase will be
covered under the project budget so I, that is within budget. I said I’d verify that.
Mr. Cheek: But cost necessary is a finite number not a infinite number and that’s my
concern.
63
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just to clear up some of these questions and I
was involved in some of this with Commissioner Hal Linnenkohl of DOT and he is aware of
these purchases that we’re having to make. This was a negotiated purchase between the State
people and Mr. Giles, and we’re a pass-through of course and there’s $15 million that was set up
under federal funds to do this project. Mr. Williams is here, Jim Williams, who is our person in
our procurement area as far as right of way is concerned, and this has been one that’s been in
question for quite some time, and with that in mind, I know Mr. Cheeks asked the question was
this within budget, and yes, it’s within budget, and Mr. Linnenkohl also indicated that as we
progress through the next year or two, in these project, in this project particularly St. Sebastian,
that there will have to be additional funding done by the State, and they are willing to do that
based on our request that we’re going to need.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: It may not help anyone else, Mr. Mayor, but in the future, if there is to be
money spent on temporary properties that will revert back to the owner, it would help me if there
are two different costs involved here. It may not help nobody else but it would sure help me,
then I wouldn’t have to ask the question. So if you got all of it lumped in one place and since
some of its temporary, that means that getting paid for it and then its going back to him which is
fine with me but the cost to me should be separated.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: One second. Prior to her leaving, I would like to recognize our Mayor of the
Day, Alisa Atkins, who has been a great sport to sit through this. We’re getting paid to do this
and we’ve been elected to do it and she came and did it just to learn a little bit about it so thank
you so much. Tell your friends.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor? Just let the record show the Mayor getting paid.
Mr. Hatney: Could we have our guest of the day say a word before she leaves?
Mr. Mayor: If she’d like to?
Mr. Hatney: She’d like to.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, okay. Okay.
64
Mr. Speaker: I’d like to say thank y’all very much for having her out today, and ya’ll
come see us over at the Board of Education.
Mr. Mayor: We will. Thank you.
Mr. Hatney: And let us know when ya’ll going to move Maintenance.
Mr. Mayor: Well, if you average it down to the hour, I’m not making much.
Mr. Cheek: But we’re making less.
Mr. Mayor: Point well taken.
Mr. Brown: Much less.
Mr. Bowles. Point well taken.
Mr. Hatney: You better leave that alone.
Mr. Mayor: Under the advise of my reverend, I’ll leave that alone.
The Clerk: Are they still negotiating, Mr.--or talking--
Mr. Shepard: No. Are we going--
The Clerk: Do we want to go to Item 41 until they’re finished?
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: Are you ready, Mr. Long? They’re ready.
Mr. Shepard: We’re ready?
The Clerk: We ready?
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: Do we take, are these companion or are we doing them separately?
Mr. Shepard: I think we should do them separately.
The Clerk: Okay.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
65
39. Motion to approve disability retirement of Mr. Robert Harrison under the 1977
Pension Plan. (Deleted from the July 18, 2006 agenda - Requested by Commissioner Jimmy
Smith)
40. Motion to approve disability retirement of Mr. Thomas A. Alley under the 1977
Pension Plan. (Deleted from the July 18, 2006 agenda - Requested by Commissioner Jimmy
Smith)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Long?
Mr. Long: Members of the Commission, I’m Jack Long, and I’m a lawyer in Augusta,
right across the street at 453 Greene Street. Mr. Robert Harrison’s son is here. He is in bad
health and can’t be here. He was a police officer with the City of Augusta and was on the
Sheriff’s Department for a number of years. I have a memorandum dated Tuesday, February
th
24, in which they recommended that he have disability retirement based on the fact that he had
had some severe heart attacks and things of that nature. For the last two years, year and a half,
we’ve been trying to get his disability retirement back here and I’m not really sure why Mayor
Young had it pulled off the calendar. That was before I got involved. However, since then, he
has gotten his Social Security disability dated May 26 of 2006, this year. There is no question
that the man had disability related to his job with a police, with the Sheriff’s Department. They
recommended back on and it was approved at the, I think it was placed on the Monday, March 4,
2004 meeting of the Administrative Services Committee and I don’t know why this thing never
got approved, but it has not been approved. He is disabled. It’s basically said in the analysis by
the Human Resources Department that I have Mr. Robert Harrison, Deputy, he was hired on
December 18, ’79, joined the ’77 Pension Plan. He meets all the requirements of disability
retirement under the 1977 Pension Plan. Mr. Harrison has been under a physician’s care since
1999. Disability retirement benefits would be $1,426.07 per month, wife only. Ya’ll
recommended at one time, I think in fact disabled. There’s been a Social Security determination
in the interim. I’m not really sure why he had not been paid, and then some question about if
he’s supposed to get workers’ comp first. That’s not a requirement of the ’77 plan and when you
have heart conditions like this gentleman and the next one have, workers’ comp is very difficult
to get. I would ask that the members of the Commission approve this. It will come out of the
’77 Pension Plan which is more than adequately funded. It would have and should have no
effect on your budgetary needs and would not take any money out of current revenue, and I
would ask Mr. Harrison’s disability retirement benefit be approved. It was recommended over
two years ago and for some reason, it just fell through the cracks.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Can someone from Risk Management address this issue? I see Sandy
over there. Can you address, can you help us out? I think Mr. Long is--
Ms. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Hamilton: Okay. Members of the--my name is Dan Hamilton and I work with Mr.
Shepard and have been involved in the pending litigation of this matter which is ongoing and the
next matter which is on your agenda. That’s Mr. Harrison and Mr. Alley’s case. Rather than get
66
into a public discourse about some of the reasons for the direction these claims have taken, I
would simply point out that they are currently pending, they do involve current pending
litigation. Both of these gentlemen have filed with the Board of Workers’ Compensation claims
for workers’ compensation benefits, and as a result, we would just generally at this point dispute
that the work related disability criteria have in fact been met appropriately and that that matter is
currently pending before a court system and that it could be disadvantageous to this body to
acknowledge in this forum and on the merits any entitlement or perfectness of a work related
disability. So I’ll preface any remarks with that. Ms. Wright is here. Mr. Burns is here from the
Human Resources Department, and I’d be happy to further discuss any aspect of these claims
with this body in a legal session context because of the pending nature of this litigation.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, as questions, I think it would be I would think appropriate, were
the actions filed with Workers’ Comp done so through the employer which would be the City for
work related injuries or were they actually done by the two, Mr. Harris and Mr. Alley, as a result
of inaction to qualify their injuries as on the job and therefore qualifying for Workers’ Comp?
Did they file it or did we file it?
Mr. Hamilton: The City did not, did not approach the Board of Workers’ Compensation
initially.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Hamilton: The claimants, Mr. Harris and Mr. Alley, filed their claims for workers’
compensation benefits.
Mr. Cheek: My concern is with these two employees and again I don’t, I do know some
of the details in the cases but the fact that employees who have disabilities documented through
the Social Security Administration apparently, who have fixed days of vacation and sick leave,
who become disabled on the job, apparently as a result of employment activities, run out of
vacation and sick leave at some point in time with that, and without some source of income
would then be forced to either come back to work and risk their lives or be put in a position of
where they have no income except Social Security or some other aid program if there’s not some
workers’ comp in place to cover those costs while this is being mitigated. So my concern is that
we delayed this, these claims, they were forced to go to workman’s comp and now we’re saying
that we should wait until workman’s comp settles which could be months or even longer,
depending on the litigation. It’s my understanding and we’re putting these guys at a hardship
who have apparently served the City faithfully for a number of years.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Our backup material says do not approve work
related disability retirement. Is there a reason for this that you can tell us or is this something
that you’ve got, is in litigation and you can’t talk about?
67
Mr. Hamilton: It is in litigation and my preference would be to discuss this with greater
confidentiality due to the pending nature of this litigation.
Mr. Long: [inaudible] First of all, the workers’--
Mr. Mayor: Any further--
Mr. Long: --the workers’ comp [inaudible]. If you have a heart related, workers’ comp
has to be a certain [inaudible]. In other words, if you have a pain that you can’t trace it to a
certain type of injury, it’s not defensible. The disability claims under your ’77 act don’t say it
has to be a sudden immediate [inaudible]. If I could get, I only have one copy, if I could just
pass this down, this is y'all’s recommendation in 2004 for this man to pay his, this is from the
Personnel Office of the City of Augusta to recommend the man and not [inaudible]. If you’ll
pass that down, and have all the documents and stuff. I didn’t represent the man in workers’
comp and it was referred to me by another attorney but for the life of me, these people got to die?
I mean, I think that’s what Mr. Cheeks said. I mean, this guy served for twenty-five years. He’s
a police officer. All the medical stuff is attached to what ya’ll recommending in 2004. It ain’t
coming out of the--the ’77 Pension Plan. I know that some members don’t want to, they’re
worried about everybody trying to say they’re having a heart attack and want to a quick disability
claim and get ya’ll a bunch of [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Long? I’m--
Mr. Long: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Reverend Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: One question, please. Am I hearing that Items 39 and 40 are both under
litigation? Well, then how did they get on the agenda if they’s on, it’s in litigation? We
shouldn’t be talking about it no way.
Mr. Long: Reverend Hatney? They--
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Long?
Mr. Long: They are, they were on in workers’ comp and there’s nothing happening. I
didn’t represent them in workers’ comp. Workers’ comp and the disability under the ’77 Pension
Plan are two entirely different matters. You can be disabled let’s say on an insurance policy
under a plan and not disabled under workers’ compensation.
Mr. Hatney: I understand that, sir, but if they are under litigation--
Mr. Long: They are not.
Mr. Hatney: --we shouldn’t be talking none of this out here.
68
Mr. Long: They’re, both of them are on hold. There’s nothing happening with any
workers’ comp, sir. This has been going on for over two years.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this, this kind of brings me back to my point. Without the
disability from Social Security, these guys don’t have any income at this point in time because
apparently this is in litigation there. It’s been basically a position taken by the City that this isn’t
work related and a position taken by the, these two gentlemen that this is work, stress related or
whatever but in the meantime, we’ve made a recommendation in ’04 it sounds like to approve
this. I know why it’s being delayed is because there’s some concern about precedent but there’s
also medical documentation that can establish that prolonged stress or whatever the causal factor
less smoking or drinking and other things but the bottom line is these guys have faithfully served
us. The City’s chosen to fight them making this claim and want to deny them retirement under
disability. They’re in peril of their lives from their medical conditions and we are going to kick
this back to what may take another year or two and basically leave these guys without a source of
income and I for one can’t conscience that.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I want to support this, this effort but I just, I need to hear from
my attorney that except for Steve [inaudible] work good today, why we, at this juncture, if we
approve this, will that damage anything, if it’s going to come out of the ’77 Pension Plan and it’s
going to get him off center and I hear your attorney who says that we’re in litigation but from
you, Steve, I need to know how, which way to, you know, what direction to go in. Can we vote
now and do something that’s going to do what? Will that cause us more money from--
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Excuse me. The ’77 Pension Act is subsidized by, it’s not self-funding and
the recommendation of Risk Management was not to turn them away with no compensation. It
was instead to approve a non-work related disability and there is, as Mr. Long correctly points
out, there is a difference in that, and if they got the non-work related disability, it’s 230, as
shown on the back of your materials, it’s $230.24 per month. If the Commission chooses to treat
it as an employment related disability, it’s over $1,340 so the, the litigation in workers’
compensation may well be effected by you choosing work related disability for this gentleman
here. I’m, it has been, it’s my understanding that has been used against the City in the past, and
it would be a, it would be a factor that I think would be introduced in their workers’
compensation cases so absent that, Mr. Williams, I’m, I’m only recommending as far as these
claims, both of them go, we should approve them for non-work disability today but I would add
that, that it not go any further than that. Unless the consciousness of the Commission is that you
should, both individuals should be paid in the work related disability.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: I already got you twice. Commissioner Brown?
69
Mr. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m very concerned, of course I was not here in
2004 but I’m very concerned as to how it is possible that this was approved in 2004, and we still
have this person who worked for our City for over twenty-five years still waiting on any kind of
payment at all, and I just, I don’t understand how that, how that happened.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: And Risk Management is here. The work connection was controverted and
that it was, it was not, not agreed upon that it was work related.
Mr. Brown: Courtesy.
Mr. Mayor: Continue.
Mr. Brown: If it was not agreed upon that it was work related, then what portion of it
was approved is my question.
Mr. Shepard: I was not privy to that document when it was passed. If I could take a look
at it?
Mr. Mayor: My, my guess would be that it was approved by a Committee and that it,
denied by the Commission but I’m--
Mr. Hamilton: If it’s helpful--
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hamilton?
Mr. Hamilton: Mr. Brown, my understanding and the Department Heads are here, is that
in ’04, there was a recommendation to this body which was subsequently withdrawn. This body,
this body to my knowledge has never approved so to speak the payment of this particular benefit,
if that helps.
Mr. Brown: So who did approve?
Mr. Cheeks: Nobody.
Mr. Hamilton: There has been, there was a, there was a recommendation that flowed I
believe from the Human Resources Department and I’m not sure of the level of communication
between that department at that time and the Risk Management office.
Mr. Brown: All right.
Mr. Hamilton: And so before this body ultimately voted, the recommendation, the
recommendation was withdrawn. That’s my understanding.
70
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland?
Mr. Holland: Yes, sir. I just want, is anybody from the Human Resources Department
here who can verify some of this information or just share some information with us in reference
to this? Like Commissioner Brown, in 2004, I mean, I wasn’t here either but it’s something that
need to be brought out in reference to these two individuals.
Mr. Hamilton: Mr. Burns is here now but, but again, I would caution this body before,
before delving much more deeply into this, these issues, I would just remind this group that we
are, we are in litigation and that these questions might more appropriately be responded to in a
legal session because it does concern pending litigation.
Mr. Cheeks: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Holland: Okay. Okay. I understand. Okay.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. [inaudible]?
Mr. Speaker: Ms. Bonner’s gone to check the records of what happened back then. Can
we take a short recess while we wait on her?
Mr. Cheek: We could table it and move on to other items?
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: And get at the--
Mr. Mayor: She’s back.
Mr. Speaker: That was short.
Mr. Mayor: Would it be appropriate of Mr. Shepard to move this into legal?
Mr. Shepard: We can talk about it in legal. A quick suggestion would be to table the
matter and we’ll, I’ve just been brought some additional material. We’ll look at that during legal
and bring it back.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: If it’s, if it’s the same meeting?
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Can I get a motion to that effect?
The Clerk: Both items?
71
Mr. Shepard: Both items.
Mr. Brown: I so move.
Mr. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just want to remind this attorney that we’re giving him a
break. He don’t give us.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
41. Address Thompson Building and Wrecking Protest as it relates to a bid bond
requirement not submitted with the original proposal as required by the specifications set
forth in the Request for Proposal.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, please state your name and address for the record.
Mr. Mullins: Yes. It’s Robert Mullins, 111 Lakemont Drive, Augusta, Georgia. I’m
here as legal counsel for Thompson Building and Wrecking Company. I have with me Mr.
Hiram Thompson. We’re here today based on the rejection of Thompson’s bid to demolish the
former candy factory. That determination to reject his bid, or Thompson’s bid, was based on
language that has been provided us by Procurement that states “bidders will please note that the
number of copies requested, all supporting documents, including financial statements and
references, and such other attachments that may be required by the bid invitation or material
conditions of the bid.” It is our contention that Procurement has mistakenly misapplied the
language that states material conditions. We’re here to request that Mr. Thompson’s—and
Thompson Building Wrecking Company’s—bid be put back into consideration. And I’d like for
Mr. Thompson to speak for just a minute about the facts of this case and then I’d like to go back
to why we’re requesting this reconsideration. It’s based on the language of the invitation to bid;
it’s based on the law; and it’s based on public policy.
Mr. Mayor: And we need to keep it to five minutes, gentlemen, please, sir. Mr.
Thompson?
Mr. Thompson: I’m Hiram Thompson. I own Thompson Building Wrecking Company.
th
My address is 4156 Bent Tree Lane, Martinez. Our company is based down here on 11 Street,
th
a couple of blocks away, 631 11 Street. The situation is that we submitted our bid to demolish
the candy factory and we were trying to—in fact, thought we were in compliance with all the
addendums that came forward. Addendum 6 is where we have the problem and we had already
72
secured our bid bond actually weeks prior to the final bid. I have an original copy of the bid
bond right here that’s signed in blue ink and it has the corporate seals on it from the bonding
company. In the interim, after receiving Addendum 6, we submitted Addendum 6 to our
bonding company and the way our bonding company interpreted it was that the Procurement
Department was now requesting a letter stating whether our company or any of the bidders were,
are capable to bond the project. So when we submitted the Addendum 6 to our bond company,
they prepared a letter for us and the letter states that we are perfectly capable of bonding the
project. So instead of inserting the bid bond that the specifications really originally requested,
we interpreted Addendum 6 as requiring the letter. So we have both documents here, both the
letter and the bid bond, verifying the fact that we are perfectly capable of bonding the project,
both. And then we followed up with that. I submitted a letter to Ms. Sams’ office and the letter
from our bonding agent here in Augusta, Dawson-Taylor Company. It explains precisely what
the confusion was. They interpret it as wanting the letter instead of the bid bond and so we
interpreted that the Addendum 6 wanted the letter instead of the bid bond. We can supply both
and we would have supplied both had we interpreted the Addendum according to the way Ms.
Sams had prepared it. All we’re asking here before this body is that you—that our bid be placed
back as an acceptable bid and that if we’re the low bidder that fine, we’ve got letters, we’ve got
documents, we’ve got a track record saying that we can provide the bonding as required by the
specifications. All we want to do is we can prove that today by virtue of having the original bid
bond here in hand. And so therefore all we’re asking is that we be placed back as I originally
stated and given consideration and allowed to bid the project.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: What we did a few years ago, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission,
was—and Ms. Sams is here and I’d ask her to come up so she can verify this—we had a policy
change so that we could have material conditions of the bid defined. And that indicates the
number of copies, the number of supporting exhibits. All that was defined to be material. And
that was an idea that she supported in order to minimize, really, bid protests of this nature. And
Geri, I think if you’d comment—
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams, could you please come up?
Mr. Shepard: Since we’ve changed those rules to make materiality to include the
definition of materiality, to include attachments and supporting documents, I think we’ve had a
fairly good policy or track record. And we did that basically to help Procurement and to have a
clearer standard for her to follow. Now, they have protested, and any relief from that has to
come from the appropriate committee. There was no committee that met but I interpret that as
with the full body now. It’s material in my opinion, because that’s the way we defined it back
when we made those changes I think a few years ago. I know what—I was furnished this
morning a decision of the Supreme Court which came out of Columbia County that indicates that
such can be—such technicalities can be waived. But I think our policy has fairly well served us
since we changed this a few years ago and I have, I have every confidence that Ms. Sams
followed our procedures here and she rejected a package which was without the bid bond. Here
again, the appeal lies here. If there is substantial compliance the Commission here could find it.
What we have eliminated is the department head making that substantial compliance decision.
73
It’s sort of a bright line test at her level. It’s either there or it’s not. Do you agree with what I’ve
said?
Ms. Sams: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: And if the Commission feels that—they feel that we should relieve them of
that requirement because of this circumstance, this is the arena where you come to do that. I
would tell Mr. Mullins that I still don’t think his case is exactly on point, but the Supreme Court
is, I think, leaning toward distinguishing between material parts of the invitation for bid and
technical parts of it, technical being number of copies and appropriate supporting information.
So I do, I have been furnished that case, 2006 case. We wrote the language in 2004.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Back about a year ago we had something similar to
this happen in this room concerning, I believe, it was R.W. Allen, McKnight Construction, and
there was a technicality. But the low bidder, which they was going to throw out, was about
$70,000 less than the one we were going to accept. And we accepted his bid to save this county
$70,000. That may not be the exact figure but I know it’s something. But my question is, what
is the numbers, who is low bidder, and why don’t we have that before us today?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams?
Ms. Sams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. The reason you do not have it
before you today, Mr. Commissioner, is the fact that this is an RFP, and according to the laws of
Augusta Richmond County, during this process the bids are sealed until the evaluation process
has been completed. That process was put on hold in according to Augusta Richmond County
Code that says that it places the Procurement Office in a state of stay until this issue is resolved.
At this point, by the Thompson Company being in non-compliance, his bid could not be
considered. So I’m waiting on this Commission, this body to make a decision as to whether or
not they want that bid to be considered even though the bid bond was not included in that
process. And the other issue that we have, if you look at the letter that is provided to you in your
supporting documentation, and we’ve heard a lot of talk about Addendum 6—Addendum 6 never
referenced the bid bond. It did in fact reference the payment and material bond. The bid bond is
required by all entities for Augusta Richmond County on construction projects. We also reduced
that bid bond but not in accordance to what the letter said, for the sake of DBE, because
everybody—when you reduce a bond everybody gets an opportunity to save 5%. If you look at
th
my letter dated July 5, Addendum No. 6, it says “change from”—and it says the item number
and it says “performance bond, labor and material payment bond.” It never referenced the bid
bond. And it says “change to” and it changes from a letter for the performance bond and labor
and material bond to [unintelligible] for a bond to be submitted. And that is—if you review the
addendum that’s in your book. The other thing I’d like to call to your attention is the
supplementary instructions to the bidder. If you look at that, item number 7, it says “bid
securities.” We did not change that. This was on page 2 of the bid specification. And if look at
number 8, that was the area in which we changed. Also, in accordance to the specification in
74
that same bid, if you look at page 3, submittals that’s mandatory, number 8, says bid bond. That
was never an exception.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Sams, are you saying that we followed the
guidelines, that everybody who bid it came in, and Mr. Thompson I think came to committee and
we have all said he done a great job with the work he did, but all of the supporting documents
that you needed to be turned in did not get turned in; is that what you’re saying?
Ms. Sams: They were not turned in at that appropriate time. And Mr. Commissioner, I’d
like to add that I did in fact receive seven bids. And of the seven, this was the only one that did
not turn in the bid bond. And I have some of the vendors, some of the companies present here
today, in fact, are waiting to see how you are going to proceed, who turned in that bid bond.
Mr. Williams:
I think this Commission wants to do what’s right and what’s fair. I think
that we smart and studious enough to know that that’s a process and that process was followed,
that, you know, we done all we supposed to do. As the Procurement person I’m looking to you
to make sure that I’s are dotted and T’s are crossed. And that’s what I’m hearing. I said in
committee that that just one of those things that slip through sometimes. Sometimes those kind
of things happen. But if we done the process and we went by the guidelines and that was
followed, I think from the attorney that said we made some changes back in 2004, those was the
I’m going to recommend that we go ahead and deny this request by
guidelines since then.
Thompson, Mr. Mayor, and go ahead and allow the Purchasing Department to go ahead
and upon up the other bids and aware whoever won the bids on that. And that’s my
motion.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland?
Mr. Holland: Yes, sir. For the sake of sounding redundant like the little boy in school,
Mr. Williams said exactly what I wanted to say but in view of the fact that we’ve allowed Mrs.
Sams and her department to handle this proposal and we know how astute and how meticulous
they are in working with these kinds of proposals, we don’t want to open a Pandora’s box with
any other companies coming in here. So when you are non-compliant, you’re simply non-
compliant. It’s just like a referee calling a 15-yard penalty on one play and then trying to come
back and trying to change it. He can’t do that. And so we can’t make any changes here. So
since we’ve had seven people to submit bids and six of them concur with what was supposed to
been done, and then we have this department who is working for us, we have to remain
consistent about what we are doing. And I believe each Commissioner on this, up here have
talked about consistency. So we need to remain consistent and follow the guidelines and make
sure our departments are doing what they’re doing. And it appears at this particular time that
Ms. Sams and her department has done exactly what they’re supposed to do in finding this
company non-compliant. And I feel that they have done a good job with us. However, this is
75
just one of those times that they’re just non-compliant, and I agree with Mr. Williams, we need
to deny this.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown?
Mr. Brown: I’d just also like to say that we also have a project manager who has worked
on this particular thing, who also came to our committee meeting, and I think it would be good if
we could hear from him as well.
Mr. Mayor: Augusta come forward.
Ms. Sams: Mr. Mayor, while Mr.—
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams?
Ms. Sams: While Mr. Munger is coming, I think it would be appropriate for me to make
a part of the record that this is not a low bid situation. This is an RFP. So there are other factors
that are going to be involved in this process. And I don’t want my Commissioners to get
confused that if in case someone come back and say my bid was the low bid, that is not the
driving factor in this case. Thank you.
Mr. Mullins: May I be heard?
Mr. Mayor: You’ve been given your allotted five minutes and so at the will of the
Commission to extend that. Mr. Munger?
Mr. Munger: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I just would reiterate what
everyone else has said in terms of Mr. Shepard, what Ms. Sams has said. It’s an unfortunate
oversight and I think we need to be consistent and stick with the rules. I think it was pretty clear
that the bid bond was—what was a mandatory material requirement of the submission. In my
opinion we should not allow the bid, unfortunately.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had a question I wanted to ask. When
Addendum 6 was sent out, was Addendum 6 to be included along with the bid bond, and did all
of the other people who sent in their bid or their RFP comply with the letter and with the bid
bond?
Mr. Munger: Yes, sir. Everyone else seemed to understand Addendum 6.
Mr. Grantham: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: We have—Mr. Brigham?
76
Mr. Brigham: I think—we’ve let our staff do all the talking and I think in fairness
we need to let Mr. Thompson’s attorney have one more shot at us since we’ve heard
from—
Mr. Mayor: If you’d like to make that—
Mr. Brigham: I’ll make that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Brown: Second.
Mr. Mayor:And just to clarify this motion, it’s to
We have a motion and second.
extend the presentation time by five minutes?
Mr. Brigham: That will be fine.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: That will come to a vote or that come to a unanimous consent? I’m
asking the question.
Mr. Mayor: It’s six votes. If no further discussion, Commissioners will now vote by the
usual sign.
Mr. Hatney, Mr. Williams and Mr. Holland vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: You’re back on the clock.
Mr. Mullins: Thank you. I appreciate it very much. The problem as pointed out by the
City’s attorney is that this direction or directive that was given the Procurement Department back
in—I think he said 2004—is contrary to the law and unconstitutional pursuant to recent case law
that the Supreme Court decided in 2006. And that’s a case that arose out of Columbia County.
And the technicality there—the facts of the case are real interesting so let me just lay that out
very quickly. In that case the low bidder was McKnight Construction. Brown brought suit to try
to enjoin the award of the bid to McKnight, based on the fact that McKnight failed to submit a
list of contractors, or subcontractors which was required by the bid documents itself. Well, the
Court looked at that and said that’s something that can be waived, it’s a technicality. Therefore,
since McKnight’s bid was low, even though he did not comply with the bid requirements and
submitted his list of subcontractors late, he was awarded the contract. And the Supreme Court
upheld that. And here we have the same thing, except this is even less of a technicality, or more
of a technicality in this case, in that my client actually supplied a letter that stated he had the bid.
The bid was not in the package but he had a letter stating he had a bid. In the case, the Supreme
Court case, they—the—McKnight didn’t even supply the list of contractors. There was no
compliance whatsoever but they were allowed to come back on the technicality and prevail. In
77
this case, Thompson actually had a litter indicating that the bid was in place. Therefore, we
respectfully request and believe it to be pursuant to the current law which does not allow the
directive that’s been provided the City in 2004 that Mr. Thompson’s bid be reconsidered.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I had several discussions with Mr. Mullins. I appreciate that. The case
there said that there was no, no direction in the invitation for bids that there be a list of
subcontractors. Here we have clearly stated that these are material conditions. So I would
distinguish the recent case on that basis and you have, you don’t have a clear indication that this
would be any lower bid than the others, whereas you did, and this is a bid—our situation is a
request for proposals which will then be scored once this is opened. We don’t have a clear low
bid situation. We negotiate the money after the proposals are opened. But the question simply is
do we put Mr. Mullins’ client, Thompson Wrecking Company, back in the bidders or not. He’s
made his appeal. In my opinion we have defined those conditions as material. Columbia
County, Columbia County Board of Education could have also done that, but they did not.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, when Mr. Thompson called we
did review the process. I met with Ms. Sams. We talked about it. We have followed our
process. We have done what we were supposed to do according to our process. In light of the
new law it doesn’t seem to be germane at this particular point in time to our attorney or to me.
My recommendation would be that we disallow the bid and go ahead and move forward with the
project.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Hatney: What’s the motion?
Mr. Mayor: To deny.
Mr. Hatney: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham and Mr. Smith vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item?
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY
78
42. Motion to approve bid award of Bid Item #06-131 to Continental Construction as
low bid for the renovation of Fire Station #3. (Approved by Public Safety Committee July
10, 2006 - no action vote by the Commission July 18, 2006 requested by Chief Willis)
Mr. Mayor: Chief Willis?
Mr. Willis: Good evening, Commissioners. I asked for this to be put back on so I had a
meeting with Ms. Gentry on this situation here and I think they have a recommendation at this
time that we could consider and look at.
Ms. Williams: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Ms. Gentry was not able to be
here today. However, she asked me to update you regarding her meeting with Mr. Horton who is
President of the Continental Construction Company. At the last Commission meeting, the good
faith information was not provided in a timely manner. However, she has met with Mr. Horton
and explained the Augusta-Richmond County Good Faith Effort Policy as well as the DB
Program. Mr. Horton has provided detailed information of his solicitation process. He provided
the documentation of the various methods he used to solicit the vendors. The selection process
was based on low bid responses which equates to 3% DBE subcontracting opportunity and 28%
local subcontracting, and the rest of the work will be done by them.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner--
Mr. Grantham: Motion to approve.
Mr. Brown: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: I need to hear a little bit more. I heard that but it’s kind of, kind of got by
me a little bit and I’m just trying to figure out because and, and I think we’ll need to have a
conversation with Ms. Gentry so it ought to be approved in here rather than somebody coming
out, telling us how much participation. Now, there, there are, that’s faith entries, what was that
word?
Ms. Williams: Good Faith Effort.
Mr. Williams: Good Faith Effort?
Ms. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: I mean, Good Faith Effort don’t mean nothing here. We’re trying to do
some things differently. We asked these construction companies, these vendors that doing
bidding with the City to come to the table so we’re can include, not only just local businesses but
disadvantaged business, women owned business. You said something about 3%. I, can you just
share that with me a minute?
79
Ms. Williams: Ms. Gentry does have documentation but she’s not here today and she
will be willing to provide documentation to show what his solicitation process is.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we deny this until Ms. Gentry get back
and give us some hard copy efforts on what is being taken place. We been telling people to get
inclusive. People done said they hadn’t been doing it before and they’re not going to do it now.
My motion is to deny this until Ms. Gentry gets back and give us those figures that we know that
she’s supposed to be, tell her to come before and then that way we can bring this back in and
approve it. That’s my motion.
Mr. Grantham: We already have a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bowles?
Mr. Grantham: We already have a motion to approve. Is that a substitute motion?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: My motion was to deny. So it just--
Mr. Grantham: There’s already a motion--
Mr. Mayor: There’s a motion to approve already so it would be a substitute motion to--
Mr. Williams: Well, my motion is deny, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to ask the Attorney again what our liability
will be since we are basing a decision based off of DB participation when we don’t have a
disparity study and we’re basically coming up with numbers without any basis and what our
legal liabilities will be.
Mr. Shepard: I--
Mr. Bowles: Since we want to be consistent.
Mr. Shepard: I believe that my opinion of last week was that it would be a better position
to have said study in hand and we didn’t and certainly that’s not changed at all this week, Mr.
Bowles, so I’m--
Mr. Williams: What was his answer? I didn’t hear nothing. What--
Mr. Shepard: Well, I know it. I [inaudible]. I think that, that the--
Mr. Mayor: Does it create significant liability?
80
Mr. Shepard: It could.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown?
Mr. Brown: I’d just like to say that this was an item that we discussed at our last
Commission meeting. I was opposed at that time, as my friend who’s in the audience, Mr. Tom
Grant, knows that I’m very interested in DBE participation. I have for that reason been in
contact with the DBE office and have learned that this particular contract is one that they are
interested in us approving based on the fact that there is information that has since been provided
that they feel like they can support and work with and I just think that it’s something that we
should approve at this time.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion to approve and a second. Is there any further
discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Holland vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
43. Approve award of construction in the amount of $1,774,450.00 to Vastec Group Inc.
for the Highway 56 - 24inch Water Main Extension Project. Bid Item No. 06-138.
Mr. Mayor: You’re on.
Mr. Cheek: Good afternoon. This is agenda item for the award of 11,000 feet of 24 inch
filter line water main and appurtenances. The low bidder was Vastec, a 100% DBE firm and
local and we recommend the award and our consulting engineer recommends the award to them
for the project.
Mr. Williams: So moved, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
The Clerk: Mr. Holland? Okay.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Magnanimous.
81
The Clerk:
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
44. Motion to approve the renewal of the Lease Agreement between Augusta, Ga. And
the Augusta Youth Center.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, that’s a [inaudible] private, public partnership that we have with
the Youth Center. They’re making use of one of our old fire stations, keeping it available to
youth in the community at no real cost to us. We’d appreciate your approval of this.
Ms. Beard: Move for approval.
Mr. Bowles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Thank you, Mr. Russell. I’m very aware of what they do so that’s a great thing.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
45. Consider request for change of designation of Main Street Augusta a Georgia Main
Street/Better Hometown City to the Office of Downtown Development Affiliate Program.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Woodard? If you could state your name and address for the record?
Ms. Woodard: I’m Margaret Woodard, 262 Broad Street, Apartment B, Augusta,
Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. In June, the Main Street
Board voted to drop to this affiliate level for two reasons. No. 1, we were probably, there was a
high probability that we were going to fail our assessment for 2005, and therefore would have
been asked to leave the Main Street Program. DDA came to us and offered this alternative. It
gives us a year to regroup. We still have to do the same amount of work. We still have to do our
monthly reports but it excuses us for the year 2004 so we can move forward. And so, this gives
us an opportunity to look at possibly merging the Boards of the two groups with DDA and Main
Street. The only drawback is we cannot use the name or logo with Main Street Augusta, and I’m
asking for this approval today. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ll speak to this with great concern. I’ve made mention of the
movement to do away with Main Street Augusta at some point in the past when we’re going
through some other issues. My concern with this is is DDA has historically not followed through
82
with any of the initiatives necessary to energize the small businesses in the Broad Street area.
The reason they were six months behind is because DDA chose the path of not having an interim
executive director to assist with the continued efforts of Main Street Augusta. I’m very
concerned about the overall outcome of this is to role Main Street Augusta into DDA which has
a dismal record of following through in its committee process which the committees are held
oftentimes without verbatim minutes or records being kept, to carry through with the business of
the Farmers Market and many other things that are important to this City. Main Street is the
spokes board for the small business sector. I have not seen our current director who I’m very
pleased with follow through with either our citizens advisory board or Main Street Augusta and
so I’m not going to speak out of school but I’ve seen in the past, past directorship of DDA go in
and basically tell our advisory board what they couldn’t do for an hour and a half, and also be
hesitant to have our Farmers Market open when we had the Tour de Georgia occur early and
many other things that could have been done to market our City. I for one would speak to the
fact that over the past three years if you look at accomplishments, Main Street has been more
beneficial to this community than DDA has, and I hope that will change but I’m very concerned
about us losing our Main Street and our, basically our spokes group for our small businesses
which in fact we’ve seen very low performance or participation in this because of the fact that
nothing seems to get done in this area. I hope our new director can correct this. I’ll adhere to the
will of the body in this particular case but the reason we’re in the position to not meet the
requirements is because of actions taken by DDA and the lack of management of Main Street
which occurred before this current director got there but I’m very concerned about losing the
Main Street Program which folks is primarily on the business district in the downtown area.
There’s been some conversations about the size of our City and how we do away with Main
Street programs. The size of our City is one issue but the Main Street Program, if you take the
central business district out of that, conforms to the population requirements and usually the
geographic requirements for Main Street Program. There is no other show in town. DDA has
not followed through with meeting the type of requirements for Main Street, and I’m very
concerned that the overall outcome of this is to eliminate the Main Street Board--
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: --and to roll those funds over to manage and run DDA which they’re
currently split at this time.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think this is one step in a long process where we
have a lot of outdated boards that duplicate tasks and basically two people overseeing one area.
If we don’t like what the Board at the DDA is doing, we have no further to look than the mirror.
We’re the ones that appoint the people to the Board so if we don’t like what the Board’s doing,
take them off. We’ve got a new director since December who’s invigorated a lot of people in a
I’d just like to make a motion to approve this
lot more interest downtown, and and just if
you’re unhappy with the Board members, we just need to replace them because we’re the ones
that appoint them.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
83
Mr. Bowles: So I make a motion to approve.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to say this, and I’m going to say this about DDA and
every other board in this City. We, several, two years ago asked for the Economic Development
Summit for a list of goals and objectives. We need to review not only this Board’s goals and
objectives from that period of time which at that time they sent us a blank sheet of paper. With
what they have on the list now, and if you saw the list that we got before, credit was taken for a
lot of things that were not initiated by DDA but other boards in this City, and I agree with
Commissioner Bowles. It’s time to start looking at consolidating some of these boards and
eliminating some of them because of performance issue but I would like to see if this issue
passes today, a comparison between the goals of ’04 and the accomplishments of ’05 less
excuses, and then the projections for and accomplishments of ’06 compared to the goals of ’04
and ’05 and then a projection for ’07. And I guarantee you what you’re going to see is a lot of
promises and credit taken for other boards’ activities. The first spark of hope has occurred when
we got this new director. And I want to salvage that but I don’t, I’m just tired of the boards not
performing and being answerable to us and it’s time to review and hold some people’s feet to the
fire.
Mr. Mayor: Well, and I would say a common theme that I continue to hear from the
body and from myself is accountability so I agree with you. Commissioner Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to say Margaret hasn’t been here very long but she
certainly has been working very hard and she’s very enthusiastic about what she’s doing and I
feel we are all ready to move forward.
Mr. Mayor: I agree with you completely and huge kudos from the Mayor’s Office as
well. You’re doing a great job. Is there--
Mr. Grantham: No question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Mr. Williams: [Inaudible] call for any questions now [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Well, no. There wasn’t any further discussion. Nobody had their hand up.
Mr. Williams: I understand. [Inaudible] make sure you go by the rules though.
[inaudible]
84
Mr. Mayor: I know. You’re my sergeant at arms.
Mr. Smith: Can we go ahead and vote now?
Mr. Mayor: Jimmy?
The Clerk: Mr. Smith and Mr. Brown? Thank you.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
46. Consider a request from the Richmond County Mosquito Control for additional
funding in the amount of $35, 916.00 for the 2006 program year.
Ms. Beard: I so move and it’s less than it was last year.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I’m in support of this fund and these funds I should
say but I think we’re throwing good money after bad. We have let a mosquito--
Mr. Speaker: Trap.
Mr. Williams: Trap. It’s a good word. We done let our mosquito population really
thrive and flourish throughout the City of Augusta. We talked about the Code Enforcement
going by checking on tires. We had this same incident come up before. We got it where an old
tire has got to be covered but a new tire can remain open in the rain as if a mosquito knows
different from an old tire and a new tire that holds water.
Mr. Smith: They’re smart.
Mr. Williams: Well, and that’s right, and they’re smarter than people are. We’re going
to spend money $35,900 to combat a situation that we are growing. We are committing to let
them have their way so to speak, and it’s only effecting a certain part of this community. But
one good thing about the mosquito, Sylvia, they don’t just fly around one area. When they leave
the incubator, when it comes out of the water, they go everywhere and they affect everybody.
We know they carry disease. We know that people have been stricken with sickness because of
the infection. So we need to be smarter. Ain’t no sense in throwing good money after bad.
Now, we can ride by all day long. There certain parts of this community got tires in a building.
Other parts of the community laying on the ground and they stacked up. And if you go by there
today they going to be full of water. Anybody who wants to go I got some transportation. I can
take you. But it just don’t make sense to spend this kind of money when we not doing anything
to prevent that and allow people to continue to do that. These ain’t homes with tires. These are
businesses with tires and the used tires got to be covered but a new tire can be open, Mr. Mayor.
85
I’m in support. We going to have to do something. We think this hot weather just here for
nothing? But you wait, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Mr. Hatney: I second that motion while y’all are talking.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, the question to staff is we mandated several years ago that
Utilities, Public Works and Recreation be allocated sprayers or larvicide tablets to make
application to standing water. Are we still doing that?
Mr. Russell: We are.
Mr. Cheek: Too, I want to make mention of the fact that several years ago the annual
estimate cost was about $375,000 to cover a comprehensive and aggressive mosquito control
program. It was only funded roughly at about half that. Additional efforts to quadruple the force
by adding our city staff was taken by this Commission to help the initiative, but it’s still vastly
under funded. In light of fuel costs and other rising costs since this, this amount is in order with
the program. But the only way we are going to be able to combat and overcome mosquitoes is
two-fold: go to a year-round program or thumb our nose at the EPA and start using DDT again.
So in any event—
Mr. Mayor: Strike that from the record.
Mr. Cheek: Well, actually they are thinking about using DDT in Third World countries
because this was a premature effort and the effect are not as bad as they thought.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, am in support of this program and I think
looking at $35,000—we get this request every year. I mean it’s not like it’s something new.
And I don’t know why we can’t budget the amount, the proper amount to begin with to know
what the needs are going to be and put that in there. Secondly, is—you know, as far as I’m
concerned, coming in and asking for money, but I don’t have any backup as to where this money
is needed. Now, do we have a schedule of where this, these trucks or whatever is going around,
and if so, I’d like to see that schedule and what area is being fumigated for mosquitoes. I think
that’s important.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: I do not have a schedule but I can share with you the day they came in to
ask me to put this on the agenda. My neighborhood was sprayed the night before. I don’t know
if that had any relationship to anything or not.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t know.
86
Mr. Russell: I just wanted to make that part of the record, just to make sure. I don’t
disagree with the need for the program. They have done a good job of cutting down to 17%. I
have looked at the issues they’ve got there and I would recommend instead of the 35,916 we give
them—they are charging money for insurance. Self-insured. And some other items there that I
would suggest we reduce that to $20,000.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I agree with Commissioner Williams on the businesses being a
lot of the problems, but home owners have to take some sort of accountability themselves. You
know, whether you’ve got ground covering your yard [unintelligible] shade ivy in your yard that
increases the growth of these mosquitoes—I’m just curious what magical hat the Administrator
is going to pull this $35,000 out of.
Mr. Russell: We have approximately—not approximately, we have $357,000 in general
fund contingency. Our recommendation if it’s passed that the $35,000 level, it would come from
there.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I want to respond to Mr. Bowles. I agree with the property
owners taking initiative to do something, but what about the ditches that the city is responsible
for and all those areas that the property owners can’t do anything about? It’s in the front yard
and the back yard that’s holding water. I used to get upset with children who walked in the
street, but then when I looked around there is no sidewalk for them to get on so they have to
walk there cause they’re not going to walk in the ditches and they’re certainly not going to walk
in the water. So it’s an ongoing problem, something that we need to address. And it ain’t just in
one area. It’s all over this county like that and we need to do something about it. We don’t need
to sit here and let that go.
Mr. Grantham: I still want a schedule, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have—
Mr. Russell: We’ll provide you a schedule.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Russell: I assume the funding source will be contingency?
Ms. Beard: The 20,000 or the 35,000?
Mr. Russell: Thirty-five is what you’re voting on.
Mr. Bowles votes No.
87
Motion carries 9-1.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS
47. Discuss the relocation of office space for Ms. Melinda Moody in Augusta Recreation
Department. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Marion Williams
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I got some photographs that I’ve got and want to
pass around to show all the Commissioners. I’m going to start with my left this time and pass
them around. Some of those, the office that Ms. Moody has been in, I talked with HR, I talked
with the Administrator, I talked with the Assistant Administrator, and asked them to talk to Mr.
Beck about moving this employee, who is a manager, to a decent place to have a office. She is a
manager. The other managers is in the [unintelligible] as to where their office is. This is a
female who been with this government for some 25 years, who have been discriminated against I
got no doubt from what we have been seeing and what we have heard, and I asked HR, I asked
the Administrator, both the Assistants as well, to go ahead and do something right away. Once
we know about a condition, it’s incumbent on us to go ahead and do something as soon as
possible, if not sooner. Now, I think she’s been moved. And I think that’s all that was done,
was just the move. It is not in a conducive place. Now, you got one female manager who has
been targeted—it’s a good word—to put in a place where she’s got to walk I don’t know how far
to the restroom, have no computer [unintelligible], things have not been right for a long time.
And I’d like to know from the Administrator where is that person located today?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Williams, members of the Commission, I did receive a phone call from
Commissioner Williams on Thursday, I believe, in reference to moving Ms. Moody’s office
because of conditions. I did go out and visit the office myself to take a look at that early the next
week, on Monday I believe of that week. The conditions there were not untypical for an office
in—she manages a maintenance crew. Other offices like that are similar circumstance. Her
office was not in the best of repair. The building itself was not in the best of condition. A lot of
the issues that I saw were maintenance issues themselves. After conferring with HR and the
other Deputy Administrator we did ask Mr. Beck, upon referring—after talking to Ms. Moody
about moving her—we asked her if she wanted to move. Part of what’s going on is they have
built a new complex, in the process of doing that. Looks like that’s about 5 to 6 to 7 weeks
away, or 8 weeks probably on the outside. But because of the nature of the building itself we
asked her if she’d like to move. She agreed to and she was moved into the administrative office
in an upstairs office at that particular point in time. That’s where we’re at.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I could—
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams.
88
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor, she is just one female manager. Why is it
that this one female manager is in those conditions that you just described where the other male
managers are not? Now, their office is nothing like the office that she was in. They have not had
to deal with the restraints and the situation that this female employee has. Now, discrimination
just discrimination. I don’t care how you look at it. And I think it’s our duty as elected officials
that when we know—go back to Title VII now, the Civil Rights Act have—every person deserve
to be treated fairly. Mr. Russell, you and I talked last [unintelligible] but we talked even before
that about Ms. Moody, of trying to get her moved into a situation. And every time there is a
reason why. The move you talking about eight weeks off one time was three weeks. Now it’s
done grown to eight weeks. Why can’t this person who has been—and those pictures will
identify what she deal with versus what the other employees deal with. Why can’t she be put in
one of those office where the men are and one of the men go in that office? I just need an answer
on that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Simply because she’s the maintenance supervisor, in my mind, and that’s
where the maintenance supervisor needs to be located, is close to the maintenance shop. The
new office will be that shop.
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] the other maintenance supervisors didn’t have to go
through this. Now, you going to bring out another keg of worms. I just want this person moved.
Mr. Russell: You asked for—
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible]
Mr. Russell: You asked for my opinion, sir, and that’s what I can give you. That’s the
best I can do.
Mr. Williams: Okay, that’s opinion. But you didn’t tell me why this person who is a
manager, Mr. Mayor, who’s got all rights and privileges any other manager ought to have the
same opportunities, the same job connection, the same benefits any other manager have. This is,
this is somebody who has put in 25 years as a manager and they have tolerated putting up with
whatever they had to put up with to be there. And I think it’s unfair and I think we are being
unfair. And you are, too, Mr. Russell, as Administrator, to sit there and not demand that Mr.
Beck either move one of the men in there. If it’s so good, let one of them go in there. And then
put here in the position where one of those men are. Now if every woman was in that condition
you’d say that’s general, that’s for everybody. Because she a maintenance manager don’t mean
she got to be in the [unintelligible]. Because you a ditch digger you got to stay in the digger?
Mr. Russell: [unintelligible]
Mr. Williams: No, sir. No, sir. I’m going to disagree with you.
Mr. Russell: We can agree to disagree.
89
Mr. Williams: That’s right. Mr. Mayor, if she is a manager she ought to have the
supervisory condition that any other supervisor have and tell her employees what she wants
done. She doesn’t have to be in the ditch with them. And you brought a good point, Mr.
Russell. They done put her in the ditch. They done made her a maintenance person versus a
manager because they couldn’t [unintelligible] they done made it hard for her. And all that’s
going to be proven. But you need to [unintelligible] see those pictures, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t want to stop here. I don’t know how
many of you have been down to the Traffic Division office. You know, if you want to go down
there after it rains you can stand in water knee deep and they’ve got a sump pump in there
pumping stuff out. Offices that we’ve got are just deplorable, some of the conditions that we
have. We had an opportunity here at our last meeting to look at purchasing a building next door
to this building to be able to house offices and be able to put different into. But what did we do?
We’d rather sit here and argue about where people should go instead of buying something that is
advantageous for this government for the people to have space to go into. So my point is let’s
not just pick on one department, let’s go ahead and get them all and let’s make sure that we cover
them all when we do. So Mr. Administrator or Mr. Mayor, I’d like for the Administrator to
come back with a report from the Traffic Division and bring pictures and show what’s going on
and go in some of these other departments and find out. We’re the ones to blame. Not these
department heads and not the people that are having to sit in these office. We’re not providing
the proper offices for them.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a question. Is there not, Mr. Russell, a
building being built at this time to take care of the one that—the lady that we’re talking about?
Mr. Russell: We are constructing a new maintenance shop and she does have an office in
that facility. So there is a maintenance office in that facility. It would be given to that individual
occupying that slot.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m very concerned about the whole process of
what we’re doing and the way that we’re doing it, which I think I something we probably should
address later, but I think that it’s only fair for us to hear from Mr. Beck about what’s happening
in his department. Everybody else is talking about what’s happening. I’d like to hear from him
about this particular item we’re discussing.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beck?
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the facility that this particular
employee is in is probably 50 years old. It’s the original maintenance shop of Recreation &
90
Parks. It’s the facility that when the former director appointed this individual as the maintenance
manager she was assigned to this particular shop area. I allowed this particular shop area to be
renovated in 1998 to help the conditions and then you, the Commission, and the voters approved
in a referendum to build new maintenance shop facilities but the monies were not allocated until
2005. We started construction, started design and construction as soon as we could to build new
facilities. They’ve been needed for a long time. Not just office space, but storage space, space
for the rest of the men. There’s 20 other employees that are affected with this particular facility.
The new facility that’s, that will be completed within the month, that is the date, within the
month, does have new offices located which will have all the amenities that any office has within
our system, will have HVAC, will have new furniture put in, as we do with any new project, and
this employee who has been per the instructions of Mr. Russell, has been given another office to
utilize or to relocate to in this temporary situation until the new office is ready. The new office
where the operations do come out of is the proper location for this employee to manage those
people from. And that is, that is my report on that. If you have any other questions I’d be glad
to answer them.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland?
Mr. Holland: All that sounds very good, Mr. Mayor, but my concern is the fact that why
did it have to get to this point? Why did it have to get to this point for her to have to come and
share that information with us to let us know that she was working in those kind of deplorable
conditions? I went over there and I saw it. I worked with the Recreation Department and I have
seen this consistently happen. I think it’s very disrespectful when you’re discussing something
with an employee and they turn and walk away from you. And this is the third time that you
have done that, Mr. Beck. Now, in reference to this situation with the young lady, the conditions
have been deplorable, not only with her, but with other people that have been working with that
department. But I’m glad at this particular time that we are getting an opportunity to make a
move to try and rectify some of these positions and rectify some of these offices for some of
these people, because there is a great deal of favoritism that has been shown, which will be
proven [unintelligible] not go into that any deeper. But I am glad that this change is being made.
But it did not have to come this far before this committee in order for her to have to be changed
after being an employee with this government for 25 years and working in those deplorable
conditions with those men and have to walk a half a block or a block almost to go to a restroom
and not have the kind of facilities that one should have. So I’m glad that she’s being moved, but
I’m just upset about the fact that it has taken so long for her to have to go through these kinds of
deplorable conditions and have these changes being made.
Mr. Mayor: Can I make a recommendation with regards to this. There is a Parks &
Recreation Substitute-committee that I believe, Mr. Williams, you’re the Chair of that
committee, that meets tomorrow. I know that that committee will come back to this body with
recommendations but it seems like this is an extension of what’s going on on that committee and
I don’t see us getting to any resolution on this issue right now. So I would just consider the fact
that maybe we wait until the committee comes back with recommendations. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to be as brief as I can. No one of us has been elected
judge and jury. This body is entitled to a full report from the committee before allegations are
91
hurled out on this floor at employees. I’ll have to agree with one of my colleagues, is if we have
to wait until we get a complaint to go look at a facility and find out how deplorable it is, I think
we need to re-institute the tour of the facilities to see how bad it is at Traffic and some of the
other facilities, the simple fact that we as a body cannot afford to staff and have office spaces all
over this city. We just can’t afford it. I, for one, think this came to the floor today and I’m going
to say a couple of things right now and I express my concern about the fact that the department
head was disallowed from coming to these committee meetings, unlike any other in past history,
that perhaps the outcome based board that we hope that we would have is not coming forward
and therefore the frustration has brought us to this floor. And if there is ever an attempt to
recompense this board or some of the employees of this county for past determinations I will
assure that some of the things that we’re seeing on the floor today are not as bad as the actions
taken in the past or perceived to have been taken in the past by members of this board, but we
certainly stoop to a whole new low with the behavior we’re seeing in the accusations and the
things non-germane to the subjects that we’re supposed to be talking about. Are we to be
managing who gets put in what office? Since when did that become part of the Commission job
description? Mr. Mayor, a lot of things that are coming out on this floor are just as I brought up
to this committee should have been considered and conducted in legal session, because we have
good employees across the board and now we’re seeing their names brought into public in a bad
light and accusations of discrimination and other things that are hurled towards them that I feel
are unwarranted. And again, Mr. Mayor, I think that we’re here today because the committee’s
not seeing or members of the committee are not seeing the outcome that they had hoped to have
universally shared as a recompense and therefore are bringing their frustrations to the floor and
now the accusations have gone from the committee to the floor for the entire public.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, point of [unintelligible], please, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: The reason I wanted information, I wanted to know that Ms. Moody had
to move out of this condition. I didn’t want to bring none of this to the floor but I asked the
Administrator, Commissioner Holland asked the Administrator, and probably a couple of more
Commissioners asked the Administrator to not to ask Mr. Beck but tell Mr. Beck to move her
because she’s been discriminated against. And any man with two eyes or maybe one eye in the
back of his head can see that this lady been discriminated against and that’s not fair. What we
know about that, we ought to address that. Now, you ain’t got to like it, but it’s right and it’s fair
and we going address it. Now, we hadn’t made any statements or any allegations about anybody.
We’re trying to do a complete study, a complete sub-committee work on this thing to make sure.
Now, I’m sorry. If you don’t like it, tough. But that the way it is and that’s the way it’s going
be. Now, you been accused, Mr. Cheek, several times of micromanaging. Whether you have or
not, I can’t say. But at one time you was just as adamant about—
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, through the Chair, please.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Mayor. At one time he was just as adamant about doing
what’s right. Now, whatever hit him in the head and he woke up the next morning and he
changed his mind, I ain’t got nothing to do with that. I trying to do what is right and any
92
employee that we is being discriminated against, have to deal with a situation like this, we need
to address it.
Mr. Mayor: We have the—
Mr. Williams: For the Administrator just to move her in the same type office the rest of
these men [unintelligible] entitled.
Mr. Mayor:
Mr. Williams, she has been moved. We’re not getting anywhere on this
I would look for a motion to receive this as
issue. This is why this committee is in place.
information so that the committee can do their job tomorrow and we don’t argue this in a
public forum.
Ms. Beard: So move.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Cheek: [unintelligible] further discussion, Mr. Mayor, for one minute, please.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I will recognize you once.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to be brief.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Anybody that admits on this board that they directed the work activities of
that gentleman without full consent of the body is in violation of the law. The delineation of
responsibilities law that we passed here said that no Commissioner has the authority to direct the
day-to-day work of any employee in this city. Therefore, if anybody did do that, which I just
heard had occurred, they’re in violation of local ordinance and law and that is the kind of
behavior that is micro-managing apart from finding the facts and bringing it to this body for this
body to vote as a whole. There is a delineation [unintelligible] those terms.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland, then we have a motion and second and let’s move
on.
Mr. Holland: Yes, sir, let me make this point. I think it was a alluded to the fact that
information that comes before this body, and now it’s going before the public. If you look at
Channel 12 for the last three or four days, Jonathon has been doing a special report on this
particular project and on this particular—all of this information. So coming in here discussing
what we’ve discussed today is nothing new. Channel 12 and Channel 26 and Channel 8 or
whatever, they have been discussing this. So let us not walk out of here thinking that we’ve done
something wrong by discussing what we’ve discussed today.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second on the floor, but let me just comment on
that. It’s not personal policy, and I think it should be all of our policy from the legal standpoint
93
not to discuss personnel issues with the press, nor pending litigation. And I just think that that
compromises [unintelligible] but there is a motion and second.
Mr. Hatney: Let me correct that, sir. We did not discuss the personnel issues. The
gentleman did that on his own so I don’t think anybody here discussed any personnel issues with
the TV commentator. He did a report on his own.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. And it was such a
small-looking agenda.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS
48. Consider approval of a Resolution requesting Georgia Department of
Transportation not to build the proposed barrier on Moore Road at Highway 56.
(Requested by Commissioner Jimmy Smith)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Highway 56 and Bobby Jones, where the
construction has been going on for about three years, the hardware store--Mr. Broome has been
almost out of order for all that length of time. And now since they are going to close to finishing
up, they are wanting to put a concrete barrier down the middle of Moore Road, which is right
next to his business. If you standing in Highway 56 looking at this business, Moore Road is right
beside it, which is a road that’s hardly ever traveled. But when you go in and you make a
purchase, like I did recently of soybeans, and then you drive out of his driveway around to the
back where his warehouse is and get your product, now if they put this concrete barrier in there
you can’t do that. They are asking that you go back up Highway 56 to the Huddle House and
turn in and come back around the back way to it. That’s one suggestion. And one of the others
was that he, on the other side of his building where he has a lot of equipment that he rents, make
a road down the other side of the building, which is not in his best interest. I took the sheriff out
and he looked at it and he assured us that we did not need a concrete barrier in the middle of that
road. If you’re standing in the road looking at his building, on the right side of Moore Road is a
package store. And everybody that pulls out of there, if they had a concrete barrier, would be in
the wrong lane. And it would be more dangerous than leaving it open. What we are asking, and
I’ve talked to DOT about it—we’ve had them out there, the engineers, several different times.
They’re not sure who designed this but they said if we would bring it to the Commission and get
a resolution for it not to be installed there they felt like it could be eliminated. And I really feel
that that’s what needs to be done. And today the owner of the place is here in case he would like
to make some comment on it.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
94
Mr. Cheek:
This is not a sound barrier. This is actually in the roadway. I can answer
who engineered it. Apparently nobody did. I think it’s five years instead of three on the project.
I concur that the traffic mess that DOT often creates for us. Any time you have them with you I
I urge
urge you to take them down to Peach Orchard and Bobby Jones to that mess down there.
approval.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: May I include that our Attorney write this resolution?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney? Mr. Shepard:
Mr. Shepard: With the consent of the Commission, there is one item on the table. We
have to pick it back up the next session, but it’s adjournment of this session, or another session. I
will put them back on. And so I sense that there is—
Mr. Mayor: A certain restlessness in the troops?
Mr. Shepard: I sense that there may not be unanimous consent to what we have coming
out of the body so I would defer my legal until another time, if that’s the will of the body.
Mr. Mayor: Is that the will of the body? Okay.
Mr. Shepard: We’ll search for a time that doesn’t inconvenience anyone in reference to
[unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: Perfectly fine. So any more business to come before the body? We stand
adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena Bonner
Clerk of Commission
95
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
August 1, 2006.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
96