HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 7, 2006 Augusta Richmond County Commissi
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
March 7, 2006
The Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:11 p.m., Tuesday,
March 7, 2006, the Hon. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
Present: Hons. Holland, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Hatney, Williams, Beard,
Cheek, Bowles and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by Dr. David Fleming, Pastor of Warren Baptist
Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States was recited.
PRESENTATION
A. Mr. Earl Thompkins, Chairman.
Presentation/approval of Mission Statement and discuss accomplishments in
2005/Strategic Plan for 2006 for ARC Citizens’ Small Business Advisory
Board.
Mr. Smith: Motion to approve.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
PRESENTATION
B. Augusta Canal Authority
Re: “Save our History”
Mr. Mayor: --to preserve local history. Please display this with pride and keep
up with the good work.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if I may, just a quick question on this subject. And I
think everybody involved is aware of how important the canal is. The question I have for
staff is did we ever get the maintenance agreement in place between the Canal Authority,
Utilities and Public Works?
Mr. Sherrouse: I’ll respond. No, we did not. The last meeting that was here,
either toward the end of last year or the first oft his year, which involved the ability of the
1
Public Works Department to provide an inmate crew to provide maintenance was not in
the budget for Public Works, so everything basically ground to a halt, couldn’t complete
the agreement without the funding to hire the personnel to hire the inmate crew. I did—is
[unintelligible] here? I don’t see him. But I did come up with an alternative to doing
that. I talked with Max Hicks and we came up with the idea of splitting the cost of the
crew three ways between the Utilities Department, the Canal Authority, and Public
Works, a third, a third, a third, and I forwarded that on to Dennis but I’ve not heard back
from him. Seems to me that would be a cost effective way of getting the thing off dead
center and getting the crew hired and starting to do the work on the maintenance on the
canal without burdening any particular department with all the cost. So that’s where we
stand so if we can move that along I think we can resolve the issue of the agreement.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you very much. And it’s my interest that we do resolve that
and get it in place and get it working, Mr. Mayor. I would like to pass it on to the
chairman of Engineering Services to—and ask that that be placed on the agenda for the
next meeting and perhaps take it in hand to see it through, because that’s so important to
maintain in that valuable resource.
The Clerk:
PRESENTATION
C. Proclamation - proclaiming March as Red Cross month in Augusta, Georgia.
Ms. Kathleen Kosmoski, Executive Director
Ms. Mary Porter Vann, Director, Financial Development
American Red Cross of Augusta
The Clerk: In recognition of American Red Cross month, 2006:
Whereas, for more than 125 years the American Red Cross has been the place
where citizens join together and the generosity and compassion of the American people
find purpose; in celebrating American Red Cross month we are celebrating the
humanitarian and volunteer spirit here in Augusta, Georgia and all across America; and
Whereas, hurricanes Katrina and Rita were the two most devastating storms in the
history of the United States, with the American Red Cross providing more than two
million overnight stays in some 900 shelters and emergency funds for more than 54,000
people. Locally the Augusta chapter responded to the relief effort by serving over 2,700
evacuees and by sending 20 volunteers to the affected the area; and
Whereas, the Augusta chapter responded to over 190 disasters in our eleven
county area this past year and trained over 290 individuals in disaster preparedness; often
this response is to events that do not make headlines, such as single family fires,
disrupted lives across Augusta, Georgia. Our Red Cross and its [unintelligible] of more
than 1300 volunteers are among the first on the scene, providing food, shelter, grief
counseling and more; and
Whereas, our community turns to the American Red Cross of Augusta for many
of the things that make Augusta stronger and safer, programs such as CPR Saturdays are
offered to the Augusta community to teach individuals important life saving skills. Over
2
5,000 people also turned to the Red Cross to learn first aid, CPR, baby sitter training, and
life guarding; and
Whereas, the Red Cross continues to provide support and comfort to our military
families by delivering emergency messages between soldiers and their families. Last
year they briefed 500 Reserve and National Guard troops and their families on how to
access Red Cross services and connect loved ones separated by war and conflict; and
Now, therefore, I, Deke Copenhaver, Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby
proclaim the month of March, 2006 as American Red Cross month in Augusta, Georgia
and urge all citizens to volunteer their time and give generously to the American Red
Cross and its local offices;
In witness thereof I have unto set my hand and caused the seal of Augusta,
th
Georgia to be affixed this 7 day of March, 2006.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITION
D. Employee of the Month Award
Mr. Brian Alan Cameron, Firefighter/EMT
Augusta Fire Department
January Employee of the Month
The Clerk: We would ask Mr. Brian Alan Cameron to please come forward and
join the Mayor here, along with Chief Willis and other members of the Fire Department.
[reading] Dear Mayor Copenhaver: The Employee Recognition Committee has selected
Brian Alan Cameron as the January, 2006 Employee of the Month for the City of
Augusta. Mr. Cameron has been an employee with the City of Augusta for four years as
a firefighter/EMT assigned to Station 9. Mr. Cameron was nominated by his supervisor,
Mr. Sean M. Johnson. Mr. Cameron was nominated for his efforts during a call to a
structure fire on Windsong Way. Upon arriving on the scene, the crew was notified that
there were animals and possibly one occupant inside. Firefighter Cameron entered the
residence and located a dog. The dog was taken outside and revived by rescue breathing
administered by Firefighter Cameron. A second dog was also located by Lt. Johnson,
who brought the dog out to Firefighter Cameron who began treating the pet. Firefighter
Cameron used his medical training to provide care on these family pets. He revived them
to a stable condition and they were transported to a veterinarian by neighbors. The
Committee felt that based on Mr. Cameron’s actions to save the lives of someone’s pets
speaks volumes for the extent he would perform for a person. Based on this, his
supervisor’s recommendation, and Mr. Cameron’s dedicated and loyal service to the City
of Augusta, he should be awarded the Employee of the Month. We would appreciate you
in joining us in awarding Mr. Cameron Employee of the Month for the month of January.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We will move along to the delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION
3
E. Mr. Charles Masters, President of Augusta Professional Firefighters
Re: Offensive Statements made by Certain Commissioners
Mr. Mayor: And if you could keep it to five minutes, please.
Mr. Masters: I’m Charles Masters, President of Augusta Richmond County
Professional Firefighters, along with the executive board. Mr. Mayor, Commissioners,
we represent over 200 men and women that serve our community in the fire service.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today on this important issue. After
th
sitting through the February 13 Administrative Services meeting and the February 22,
2006 Commission meeting, and listening to absurd statements made by certain
Commissioners about Public Safety employees, I must make a stand for the men and
women I serve. Mr. Mayor, we not only take great offense to, but are also sickened by
the statement “I’m tired of hearing about 9-11” and “that happened in New York City.”
And these are just a few reasons why. Tell the firefighter at Engine Co. No. 11 that has
lost function in one of his hands due to third degree burns while in the line of duty that it
shouldn’t hurt, he lives in Augusta, not New York City. Tell the firefighter in Engine Co.
13 that is off duty today with pins in his leg due to a building collapse on Fayetteville
Drive while in the line of duty that it shouldn’t bother him, he lives in Augusta, not New
York City. Tell the firefighter at Engine Co. 6 that just had neck surgery, who will never
be the same due to injuries that happened while fighting a fire on Molly Pond Road, that
it doesn’t matter because he lives in Augusta, and not New York City. Tell the firefighter
at Engine Co. 9, who was burned while saving a woman from burning house on
Wrightsboro Road and was hospitalized in the burn unit at Doctors Hospital and
underwent six months of physical therapy that his effort was basically in vain due to the
fact that it happened in Augusta and not New York City. Not including the numerous
injuries and/or deaths that occur within the Sheriff’s Department. All the injuries are
recent and these are just a few of many we have. Please take time to read the list of
qualifications I handed out that a doctor has to sign off on in order for one to be
employed by the Augusta Fire Department. Not one other employee outside of the Public
Safety Department has to meet such qualifications in order to perform their job. If all
employees are deemed the same, as stated previous meetings, we should all work the
same shift, get the same holidays, make the same money, and job requirements should be
the same. The hiring process for a Public Safety employee takes approximately one year,
compared to one week for an 8-5 employee. This is not about the $16 you’re trying to
increase for Public Safety employees [unintelligible] Family Y. This is about the
irresponsible statements being made by certain Commissioners we vote into office and
who set policy and make decisions affecting the city we live in. The men and women
who serve our community deserve better than that. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Masters.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
4
Mr. Colclough: I think the gentleman was referring to me about making a
statement in those meetings and I think the gentleman need to understand that the
statement I made, during the course of 9-11, was that it was not a derogatory statement.
It was a statement that—and let me first say I represent 2700 employees in this city. Not
only firefighters, but also people in the Sheriff’s Department and other people in the city.
My intention is that everybody, regardless of what your job title is, because you choose
that job, be treated the same. Now, you come in saying you take offense. If you
represent that many people I would [unintelligible] if you were down here trying to get a
better retirement system for your people, better health care for your people—I’m from
New York City, I worked in one of those buildings that was blown up, I lost friends in
those buildings and I have been one of the champions sitting on this board for Public
Safety. Now, if you think I’m lying, the Sheriff is sitting back there. The statement I
made, yes, I am tired of people using that tragedy as a marketing tool. That was my
statement. No offense for any Public Safety individual. It’s for people that use that
terminology as a marketing statement. And if it comes up today, my vote will still be the
same, as no. Okay. But for Public Safety, I’m been one of the most champions sitting on
this board for Public Safety. And for you to say that people are making derogatory
statements—I’ve often said that firefighters—I’ve done many things [unintelligible] and
I’ve always told firefighters you’re the bravest people I know because I would not go in a
burning building. That is my statement to you. But for somebody to come in this
chamber and expect for me to divide this organization, it will not happen. Now, you
make take offense all you like, but if you’re up here saying that my people need cheaper
health care, my people need a better retirement system, I’d be standing on top of this desk
for you. Okay. That’s my statement.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Masters: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: I think the presentation’s been done. Thank y’all.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, if you want to [unintelligible] Public Safety, let the
Sheriff come up here and talk. [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: I’ll recognize Mr. Strength.
Mr. Strength: Of course, I didn’t know I was going to be up here but I definitely
don’t mind being up here telling everybody on Commission and everybody in this
audience the support that the Sheriff’s Office has gotten from Commissioner Colclough
ever since I’ve known him. He has endorsed any and everything that we have needed.
I’ve called on him many, many times and not one time over the many years that I have
worked with him has he turned down or not tried to help us with what we needed for the
Sheriff’s Office. And of course the statement was made, did not know about the
statement, didn’t know what the statement was, but I definitely know how he has
supported Public Safety in the many years I’ve known him.
5
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We’ll move on to the addendum agenda.
The Clerk: Our addendum agenda,
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Regarding item 37.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
1. Discussion the sale of city-owned properties. (Requested by Mayor
Copenhaver)
2. Motion to approve a contract between the Georgia Office of Homeland
Security – Georgia Emergency Management Agency, State of Georgia and ARC
Emergency Planning Committee.
The Clerk: That’s our addendum agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion then to add these to the agenda?
Mr. Cheek: Move to add.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, item 2—I got no problem with either one of these but
I can’t approve a contract between the agency that been named—I don’t know what the
contract says, hadn’t had any information on it. I would love—I wish it had of came
before Mr. Brigham’s, Jerry Brigham’s committee, Public Safety, and we at least had a
chance to look at it. I’m sure everything is order but if I sit here and say that I browse
through it and understand it and vote for it, I wouldn’t be telling you the truth. I would
rather this come back through the committee like it should have, unless there is some
reason. We going to lose another grant, we going to get up against the wall, we going to
fall out [unintelligible] if we don’t do this today. I see Chief Willis back there and if
somebody can address that, Mr. Mayor, tell me we need to do it today for whatever
reason, I can, I probably can support it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I’d like to recognize Chief Willis.
Mr. Willis: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams, this is a grant that we get each year for the
LEPC that helps us put all drills and exercises. They send this down to us for the local
emergency planning committee. They just sent it in this year. In past years it was
handled a little different.
Mr. Williams: Is there a deadline, Mr. Mayor?
6
th
Mr. Mayor: I believe there is. Chief, is it the 15?
th
Mr. Willis: The 15 of March.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I can understand, again, we do that quite often so that’s a
norm. I can support it. I let it go on, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion to add. Do we have a second?
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: I’ve got the same concerns. Are we [unintelligible] deadline but it’s
time we stopped being handed stuff of this magnitude and expect us to vote on it and
assume the fiduciary responsibility. The law says that regardless of whether you read it
or not, if you vote on it, you take responsibility for its contents. You all couldn’t get this
to us no earlier?
Mr. Willis: This just came down to me.
Mr. Hatney: Came down from where?
Mr. Willis: From GEMA. They sent it in to us—
Mr. Hatney: You tell them we need stuff a little earlier.
Mr. Willis: We have expressed those concerns.
Mr. Hatney: Asking us to vote on something we haven’t seen.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Commissioners will now vote by the
usual sign.
Mr. Williams: That’s just to add it on, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Just to add it on.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: We want to move on to the consent agenda.
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 28. Items 1
through 28. Also for your consider, the Administrative Services Committee met
today in their 1:00 o’clock meeting, offered item 29, item 31, item 35, and 32 as part
of the consent agenda.
7
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
29. Approve 2006 Cost-of-Living Allowance for retirees.
31. Review/approve Plan of Action from the ARC Community Partnership for
Children and Families, Inc. regarding Hurricane Katrina evacuees in the Augusta
area.
32. Status report regarding changes made in AHEDD Finance Procedures.
35. Motion to approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of Augusta,
Georgia, expressing support for full funding of State and Local Efforts to Clean Up
Hazardous and Solid Waste Sites, Properly Address Waste-related Activities, and
Control Erosion and Sedimentation; and Strongly Urging that All proceeds
Generated through Statutorily-Dedicated Fees for Critical State and Local
Environmental Initiatives Be Appropriated Only to Those Uses for Which the
Funds were Created. (Referred from February 13 Administrative Services
Committee)
Mr. Mayor: That’s 29, 31, 35, and 32?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to also recommend or suggest that we take item 2
from the addendum agenda and move it to the consent agenda.
2. Motion to approve a contract between the Georgia Office of Homeland
Security – Georgia Emergency Management Agency, State of Georgia and ARC
Emergency Planning Committee.
Mr. Speaker: Item what?
The Clerk: Item 2 from the addendum agenda, the contract between Emergency
Management and Augusta, Georgia. Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am? Ms. Clerk?
The Clerk: May I read the alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: Please.
The Clerk: For the benefit of any objectors of any—well, we may not have it.
They’re all—yes.
PUBLIC SERVICES
2. Motion to approve a request by Christopher Bentley for a Sunday sales
license to be used in connection with The Snug Tavern & Grill located at 240 Davis
8
Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by
Public Services Committee February 27, 2006)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to that alcohol license petition?
Mr. Mayor: I don’t believe we have any objectors.
The Clerk: No objectors, no.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any further additions or subtractions from the consent
agenda? Can I get a motion to—
Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you. I have to get Ms. Bonner to wake me up every now
and then. I think she knows that she and I are always the ones rescheduling meetings,
and item number 38, I would like for us to move that to the consent agenda, rescheduling
th
the April 4 meeting, which is the week of the golf tournament, to a meeting on March
th
29, which would be that Wednesday prior to.
PETITOINS AND COMMUNICATIONS
th
38. Motion to approve the rescheduling of the April 4 regular Commission
meeting to March 29 at 1:00 p.m.
Mr. Mayor: What about item 39?
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
39. Motion to approve Tender Sprout Christian Learning Center, Inc. to be a
direct recipient of grant funds from the Children and Youth Coordinating Council.
Mr. Grantham: I don’t have a problem with that.
Mr. Williams: We can move that to consent, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. So adding 38 and 39.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, another—item 44.
44. Consider action taken by legislative members regarding elected officials’ pay
raises. (Requested by Commissioner Don Grantham}
Mr. Grantham: I had asked for a hold position as far as our agenda in regard to
that particular item. And that consisted of the five elected officials as we have been
discussing and talking about now for three or four weeks. It’s my understanding that the
9
legislative members of the House have approved a bill that has been entered into records
as a substitute for House Bill 831 that pertains to these particular positions. However, I
don’t think it would be wise for us to take this particular item on the agenda and vote on
it until the Senate passes it, so I’m going to ask that this be withdrawn and deferred until
our next meeting. I’m glad to see that we do have some action from our legislative
members and at least we’re halfway down the road for these individuals.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just two comments on both of these items. 38 should not ever come
up as a scheduled meeting for the week of Masters Week. I believe we passed an
ordinance stating that we would not have meetings on Masters Week, that the City
leaders would be about promoting the City. So I guess I’d like to check the status to
make sure that we did in fact pass an ordinance to that effect.
The Clerk: No, there wasn’t an ordinance, Mr. Cheek. It was done in regular
Commission meeting but the Code book says that the Commission will meet the first
Tuesday of each month. Until that is an ordinance it will have to appear on the agenda.
Mr. Cheek: So we would need an ordinance to specify Masters Week?
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: I’d like to see us work on that because this certainly is something
that’s an additional vote that we don’t need to take, for that week. And then secondly, on
item 44, the only thing I’m going to say, and this came about in my absence, it’s dealing
with pay raises and I would be remiss if I did not mention this. When the pay raises came
up and the issue came up before this body, the Administrator asked the entire body, with
the solicitor standing to him, does that mean everybody? Now, I don’t know where the
confusion came about because I’ve heard that we wanted to chastise the Administrator
for whatever confusion took place. But I wanted to bring it to the attention of this body
that he asked us, all of us sitting here, does that mean everybody, and we all nodded our
heads or sat silent. So I for one don’t want to see blame placed on the man for that
decision when he did something that he was instructed to do by this body because we
were too confused to say anything. As far as attempting to place blame on him, this all
took place in my absence and I’m sorry, I would have addressed it at that point in time,
but I do remember the fact that we all agreed, and any reprimand or any discussion about
Fred not doing his job is misplaced blame. If there was any confusion, the blame lies
within this body, not on our administrator. Mr. Mayor, those are my comments. Thank
you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The motion was made, and I think I
made the motion, that Mr. Russell get a letter in his file, along with the employee in HR.
Now, the confusion came in when it was stated that everybody—and he asked the
10
question whether it inclusive of everybody. Well, if that was the case, everybody didn’t
get the raise, so there was some confusion. I support Mr. Russell 100% but if you can’t
take care, if you can’t handle the upper level, how can you handle the lower level? Now,
the young man in HR who did what he was instructed to do through whatever error was
made had a letter in his file. We made a motion, we voted on it. You ain’t got to like it,
Mr. Russell, my friend, he’s my administrator, we disagree, but we work together. That’s
part of it. Now, you talking about having a history or some guidelines to go on—when
you do your evaluations and whatever you supposed to done that we have not done in the
last two years, well, since Mr. Russell been here, unless [unintelligible] I didn’t make the
meeting. But all of those things are [unintelligible], Mr. Mayor. A letter does not mean
anything. We—well, it don’t mean much. Trust me. But it was supposed to been done.
We voted on it and it have not got done yet. I called the Mayor several times to ask him
who was supposed to initiate and do those processes. I think Mr. Russell will agree, right
it still right. We voted on it, it supposed to been done, but because I guess some people
didn’t think it should be done, it hadn’t been done. Now, we can’t take it out cause it
ain’t never been put in. But it was a motion made and second and six votes carried it
through. So it wasn’t never put in in the first place and it should have been.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Williams. And let me just say, gentlemen and
Ms. Beard, lady, there is a place under legal meeting to discuss personnel issues and it is
my personal stance that we should discuss personnel issues in that legal meeting but I
will go ahead and recognize Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: In that case, Mr. Mayor, this is a discussion on action taken by this
body which brings it back to the public for discussion. And I’ll say this, and I will
discuss this later on, is this Commission has a long history of doing a lot of good things,
but we also have a long history of passing on to staff vague and unclear guidance when
we give them directives. We will pass a motion, and I’m guilty of it just like everybody
else is, that’s not clear and specific; they go act on their best intentions and come back
and get beat on this floor because they did not—they weren’t psychic friends with all
eleven of us sitting up here. And that is the problem that I see, is that we need to have
specific guidance and that the Administrator made every effort to get specificity in that
directive from us and then acted on the best information he had at the point. It comes
back to us not being specific in the language of the motion as to the positions that we
expected to be paid and not paid, and those are the types of things that I hope that we’ll
work to correct and not expect staff to be able to read all of our minds and then make all
of us happy. They need six votes and specific instruction, not vague instructions passed
by the entire body.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Russell, did you want to speak to—
Mr. Russell: Yes, I appreciate Mr. Cheek’s comments, as I do Commissioner
Williams’. I fully believe that we’re ready to move forward off this issue. I once again
take responsibility for the mistake that I made, in the implementation of the policy, even,
and recognize the fact that I could have done a better job of that. We’ve got a lot of
important issues facing us, we’ve got a lot of important discussion we’ve got to have. I
11
think it’s time to move past this. I am a big boy, I’ve been told I’ve made mistakes
before, I’ll be making a lot more mistakes if you give me the opportunity, and we’ll be
continuing to move forward with those kinds of issues. I appreciate the opportunity to be
able to make those mistakes, to be chastised appropriately, and to continue to move
forward. While Commissioner Williams and I do disagree on occasion, I think we’re
both look forward to steps towards a better Augusta, and that’s what it’s all about. Let’s
move on, please.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Russell. [unintelligible] but I believe that we have a
motion and a second? We didn’t get a second for the consent agenda.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
The Clerk: Mr. Grantham seconds the motion for the consent agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA:
PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Motion to approve assignment and Contract Approval for Airport Catering
Concessionaire. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 13, 2006) (No
action taken in February 22 Commission meeting)
2. Motion to approve a request by Christopher Bentley for a Sunday sales
license to be used in connection with The Snug Tavern & Grill located at 240 Davis
Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by
Public Services Committee February 27, 2006)
3. Motion to approve a request by Laurie L. Pratt to transfer the Massage
Operators License used in connection with Serenity Day Spa from 504 Shartom
Drive to 106 Pleasant Home Road, Suite 2-D. District 7. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee February 27, 2006)
4. Motion to approve a request by Nancy K. Holtman to transfer the Massage
Operators license used in connection with Augusta Center 4 Massage from 211
Pleasant Home Rd. to 149 Davis Rd. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by
Public Services Committee February 27, 2006)
5. Motion to approve a request by Norma J. Simpson for a Therapeutic
Massage License to be used in connection with Norma J. Simpson Massage at 3106-
A Wrightsboro Rd. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee February 27, 2006)
6. Motion to approve a request by Ellen P. Weis for a Therapeutic Massage
License to be used in connection with Heavenly Handzzz at Rob Michaels located at
3015 Peach Orchard Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee February 27, 2006)
7. Motion to approve a request by Sheri R. Kirkendoll for a Massage Therapy
Operators License to be used in connection with Rob Michaels Salon located at 3015
Peach Orchard Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee February 27, 2006)
12
8. Motion to approve the assignment and Contract Approval for Airport
Restaurant Concessionaire. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 13,
2006) (No action taken in February 22 Commission meeting)
PUBLIC SAFETY
9. Motion to approve allowing Dr. Elam of Augusta Technology School to make
a presentation on the possibility of forming a partnership with the Augusta Fire
Department concerning the Augusta Fire Department’s Emergency Services
Training Center. (Approved by Public Safety Committee February 27, 2006)
10. Motion to approve awarding the Fire Department Medical Director bid to
the Medical College of Georgia. (Approved by the Public Safety Committee
February 27, 2006)
FINANCE
11. Motion to approve award of a contract to Edwards-Pitman Environmental,
Inc., in the amount of $13,000 for development of the Olde Town Design Guidelines
Manual. (Approved by Finance Committee February 27, 2006)
12. Motion to approve a budget Resolution and Amendment increasing revenues
and appropriations in the General Fund budget for Animal Services. (Approved by
Finance Committee February 27, 2006)
13. Motion to approve Excess Workers Compensation Insurance with Safety
National Casualty Corporation for a deposit premium of $147,883 with a $600,000
SIR (Self Insured Retention). (Approved by Finance Committee February 27, 2006)
14. Motion to approve the refund recommendations from the Board of Assessors
for 18 accounts. (Approved by Finance Committee February 27, 2006)
15. Motion to approve a request from Mr. Warren Hylton for a waiver of
penalty for taxes on property located at 1305 Interstate Parkway. (Map # 022-0-
126-01-0, Account #1246728) (Approved by Finance Committee February 27, 2006)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
16. Motion to approve an Option for Right-of-Way between Avondale Mills,
Inc., as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property located at 510
Cottage Street for a purchase price of $63,510.00 and to acquire subject property:
0.473 acres (20,595.15 sq. ft.) in fee and 0.039 acre (1,715.38 sq. ft.) of permanent
utility construction and maintenance easement. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee February 27, 2006)
17. Motion to approve option three (3) for the installation of a base for the James
Brown statue. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 27, 2006)
18. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Property # 128-0-079-00-0
3621 Karleen Road, which is owned by Pauline r. Johnson for 1,274 sq. feet for a
permanent easement and for 849 sq. feet for a temporary easement. AUD Project:
Horsepen Sanitary Sewer, Phase 2. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
February 27, 2006)
19. Motion to approve proposed Ordinance amending Augusta Code Section 5-
2-8 to repeal prohibition on resale or redistribution of water. (Approved by
Engineering Service Committee February 27, 2006)
13
20. Motion to approve expenditure of SPLOST IV funds in the amount of up to
$63,796 allocated for roof replacement at the Records Retention Center. Also,
award a contract for installation of high density modular shelving to Modern
Business Systems of Augusta in the amount of $36,029.91, increasing storage
capacity by 2,000 boxes. This firm was the lowest responsive bidder to RFP #06-
087. (Approved by Finance and Engineering Services Committees February 27,
2006)
21. Motion to deny a change order to RW Beck in an amount of $300,000 to fund
a public information program relating to solid waste management in Augusta-
Richmond County, highlighting the upcoming changes in collection. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee February 27, 2006)
22. Motion to approve entering into an agreement with New South Associates in
the amount of $99,079 for the mitigation of an African-American archaeological site
th
on the St. Sebastian Street Way/Greene Street/15 Street project, CPB # 327-04-
296812003. Funding is available in SPLOST Phase IV Project Engineering Account
324041110-5212115.202824003-5212115. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee February 27, 2006)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
23. Motion to approve the minutes of the Commission regular meeting held
February 22, 2006 and Special Called meeting held February 27, 206
APPOINTMENTS
24. Motion to approve the reappointment and appointment of the following
representing District 1: Ms. Mildred McDaniel, Coliseum Authority; Ms. Nancy
Barnes, AHED Citizens Advisory Council; Ms. Cassandra Brinson, Citizens Small
Business Council; Mr. Archie Shepard, Animal Control Board; Mr. William
Mitchell, Zoning Appeals Board; and Ms. Ella Washington, Library Board.
25. Motion to approve the following appointments and reappointment to the Tax
Assessor Board representing District 9: Ms. Gloria Frazier, Mr. Herman Fort, and
Mr. Tracy Williams.
26. Motion to approve the appointment of the following representing District 7:
Mr. Eugene Hunt, Planning Commission; Mr. Dewitt Dent, Zoning Appeals Board;
Mr. Richard Isdell, Coliseum Authority; Mr. Jack Steinberg, ARC Citizens
Minority Business Development Advisory Council; Ms. Crystal Eskola, Animal
Control Board; and Ms. Fran Stewart, Riverfront Review Board.
27. Motion to approve the appointment and reappointment of the following
representing District 3: Mr. Tom Fuller, Public Facilities; Mr. William Thomas,
Animal Control; Ms. Katie Jones, Bush Field; Mr. Thomas Robertson, Canal
Authority; Dr. Harold Engler, Daniel Field; Ms. Anna Avrett, Historic
Preservation; Mr. D. Clay Ward, AHEDD; Mr. Robert Smalley, Human Relations;
Mr. Harold Simon, Personnel Board; Mr. Jay Simon, Planning Commission; Mr.
Don Bradshaw, Riverfront Development; Mr. Henry Frischknecht, Tree
Commission; Mr. Nick Dickinson, Board of Zoning Appeals; and Mr. Harry Moore,
Coliseum Authority.
14
28. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. David M. Hicks to the Coliseum
Authority representing District 8.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
29. Approve 2006 Cost-of-Living Allowance for retirees.
31. Review/approve Plan of Action from the ARC Community Partnership for
Children and Families, Inc. regarding Hurricane Katrina evacuees in the Augusta
area.
32. Status report regarding changes made in AHEDD Finance Procedures.
35. Motion to approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of Augusta,
Georgia, expressing support for full funding of State and Local Efforts to Clean Up
Hazardous and Solid Waste Sites, Properly Address Waste-related Activities, and
Control Erosion and Sedimentation; and Strongly Urging that All proceeds
Generated through Statutorily-Dedicated Fees for Critical State and Local
Environmental Initiatives Be Appropriated Only to Those Uses for Which the
Funds were Created. (Referred from February 13 Administrative Services
Committee)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
th
38. Motion to approve the rescheduling of the April 4 regular Commission
th
meeting to March 29 at 1:00 p.m.
39. Motion to approve Tender Sprout Christian Learning Center, Inc. to be a
direct recipient of grant funds from the Children and Youth Coordinating Council.
ADDENDUM ITEM 2
45. Motion to approve a contract between the Georgia Office of Homeland
Security - Georgia Emergency Management Agency, State of Georgia and ARC
Emergency Planning Committee.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign, and Ms. Clerk, we
would need separate action to remove item number 44, would we not?
The Clerk: We could include that in the consent agenda for deletion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham, you made two motions?
Mr. Grantham: I made a motion that included 38 and 44.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: And 39; correct?
Mr. Grantham: Yeah.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
15
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move on to the regular agenda.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: We’re not going to have an opportunity to pull any items off the
consent? We just going to—
Mr. Mayor: I requested if there were any more additions to or subtractions from
the consent agenda.
Mr. Williams: Well, I thought the motion was to approve the consent agenda,
then you have an opportunity to pull items if necessary. I didn’t hear that. I might have
to move on the other side where Mr. Smith is. On this side I don’t hear too good, Mr.
Mayor. But I need to pull a couple of items.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have approved the additions to the consent agenda. Are
there subtractions? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, order of the day. We approved the consent agenda, I
believe, and I think we should move forward. I heard it down on this end.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I don’t want to be here all day, but I ain’t got nothing
else to do. Now if y’all want to have this meeting, we can have it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, I supposed there could be a motion to reconsider the consent
agenda and then—
Mr. Williams: No, sir, Mr. Shepard. We have not had an opportunity to pull. If
you check the rules, Mr. Mayor, you approve the agenda, consent agenda, then you get an
opportunity pull off or to place on. Now we was pulling off, everybody was pulling off,
y’all went to the motion to approve it. Nobody had an opportunity to pull off, nobody
wanted to pull anything off but I’m sitting right here with my agenda book marked.
Now, I don’t want to be here all day but we ain’t going to pull no fast one like that now.
The rules are you approve the agenda then you have an opportunity to pull off the agenda
if you need. Now, Mr. Parliamentarian can check the rules and tell us what the
procedures are.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
16
Mr. Shepard: Well, my ruling would be then if you wish to pull items from the
consent agenda, absent the unanimous consent of those here, Mr. Williams, you should
now make a motion to have the consent agenda reconsidered so that you could then pull
things off. Members of the Commission saying, other members of the Commission
saying that you had that opportunity, you saying you didn’t have that opportunity.
Mr. Williams: That’s right.
Mr. Shepard: And I—in my opinion you could do that or you could ask your
colleagues by unanimous consent to allow you to pull the items you want to pull. I think
those are your two alternatives.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just want to know what the process is. I don’t want
to change it. I want to know what the process has been in the seven years I’ve been here,
and that’s approving the agenda, the consent agenda, then you have an opportunity to pull
off. Now, I understand, Mr. Mayor, you’re a new Mayor and you’re not as familiar with
this process as some of us are, but I learned that over the years, that the process is that we
approve it, then you have an opportunity to pull those items that you have a problem with
or you have a issue that you want to discuss. Now, we going to go and reinvent the
wheel, we going to start over again doing something different, I just need to know that,
too.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I’ll say that I am a new Mayor and I have not been
here seven years, but I’m concerned with what is the rule of the law and had we not done
it correctly in the past or—I’m just concerned with the correct way and moving forward.
Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard:
And here again, it’s—I think when the—when you don’t indicate
any unreadiness, Mr. Williams, which I didn’t detect that you were unready on any item,
the consent agenda was passed and you didn’t object. And I have to rule that your
motion then, if your colleagues will not agree by unanimous consent to allow you to pull
then I think you should make a motion to
these items and allow you to speak,
reconsider the consent agenda so that it can be added to and pulled from
.
Ms. Beard: I’ll make that motion.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just for the record, the procedure is as follows: the
opportunities are given to add or remove from the consent agenda items, then it is voted
on. If you voted on it before and then remove items then you’re in essence removing
items that have been approved by the body, which is contradictory to the rule of order of
17
the house, operating rules of this Commission. That is the way it’s been since I’ve been
here and I’ve here the same amount of time as some of the other distinguished members
of this body. I clearly heard and understood you to say are there any items to be pulled;
there were no requests made at that time. And that brings us to where we are today. That
is not a change. In fact, to depart from that procedure, to approve and then pull items
would be a departure from the operating rules of this Commission and illegal.
Mr. Mayor: Let me just say that personally Mr. Russell had asked we move on
past the issue we were discussing prior. We are sitting here arguing about the consent
agenda. We’ve got big picture issues facing this city and we’re wasting time sitting here
arguing about the consent agenda.
Mr. Williams: And we’re really not arguing about the consent agenda, we’re
arguing about the process, Mr. Mayor. I think the tape will reveal everything we need to
know. It’s on that tape. I’ve got no doubt about that. That’s one good thing about what
was said and how it was done. And not only that one, but years and years of other tapes,
how we approve the consent and have an opportunity to pull from the consent agenda.
Now, those was added [unintelligible] added and we voted.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called for. We have a motion. The question
has been called for and we have a motion and second. Could you please re-read the
motion?
The Clerk: The motion to reconsider the consent agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Brigham, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Grantham and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Motion ties 5-5.
Mr. Mayor: I want y’all to realize this is the second time I’ve been able to vote
this year.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: I will vote to reconsider, in deference to Mr. Williams, I did not say
to pull and have an opportunity to discuss, so Marion, I’ll give you this one.
Mr. Williams: I appreciate you giving it to me, Mr. Mayor.
The Mayor votes yes.
Motion carries 6-5.
18
Mr. Williams: I’ve got two items. I’ve got two items, and both are related to the
airport, 1 and item 8, Mr. Mayor. We sent them back. They had a five year contract
period. We asked them to go and do a two year, maybe with three year at the most, two
year with one year option, and it’s still a five year issue on here, and I can’t support that.
I think that’s wrong. We asked them to come back to a two year with a option for one
year, which would be a total of three years, but not five.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, you wanted to pull 1 and 8 for discussion; correct?
Mr. Williams: That’s right.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any more items to be pulled for discussion? Do we have a
motion to pull those agenda items?
The Clerk: You don’t need it.
Mr. Mayor: Don’t need a motion? Okay.
The Clerk: I’ll read them.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: You need to vote on the consent agenda now as added to and
deleted from.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: So that we know what we’re voting on.
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 28, adding items
29, 31, 32, 35, 2 from the addendum agenda, item 38, item 39; and the deletion of
item 44; minus the items 1 and 8 to be pulled for further discussion.
CONSENT AGENDA:
PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Motion to approve assignment and Contract Approval for Airport Catering
Concessionaire. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 13, 2006) (No
action taken in February 22 Commission meeting)
2. Motion to approve a request by Christopher Bentley for a Sunday sales
license to be used in connection with The Snug Tavern & Grill located at 240 Davis
Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by
Public Services Committee February 27, 2006)
3. Motion to approve a request by Laurie L. Pratt to transfer the Massage
Operators License used in connection with Serenity Day Spa from 504 Shartom
19
Drive to 106 Pleasant Home Road, Suite 2-D. District 7. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee February 27, 2006)
4. Motion to approve a request by Nancy K. Holtman to transfer the Massage
Operators license used in connection with Augusta Center 4 Massage from 211
Pleasant Home Rd. to 149 Davis Rd. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by
Public Services Committee February 27, 2006)
5. Motion to approve a request by Norma J. Simpson for a Therapeutic
Massage License to be used in connection with Norma J. Simpson Massage at 3106-
A Wrightsboro Rd. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee February 27, 2006)
6. Motion to approve a request by Ellen P. Weis for a Therapeutic Massage
License to be used in connection with Heavenly Handzzz at Rob Michaels located at
3015 Peach Orchard Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee February 27, 2006)
7. Motion to approve a request by Sheri R. Kirkendoll for a Massage Therapy
Operators License to be used in connection with Rob Michaels Salon located at 3015
Peach Orchard Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee February 27, 2006)
8. Motion to approve the assignment and Contract Approval for Airport
Restaurant Concessionaire. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 13,
2006) (No action taken in February 22 Commission meeting)
PUBLIC SAFETY
9. Motion to approve allowing Dr. Elam of Augusta Technology School to make
a presentation on the possibility of forming a partnership with the Augusta Fire
Department concerning the Augusta Fire Department’s Emergency Services
Training Center. (Approved by Public Safety Committee February 27, 2006)
10. Motion to approve awarding the Fire Department Medical Director bid to
the Medical College of Georgia. (Approved by the Public Safety Committee
February 27, 2006)
FINANCE
11. Motion to approve award of a contract to Edwards-Pitman Environmental,
Inc., in the amount of $13,000 for development of the Olde Town Design Guidelines
Manual. (Approved by Finance Committee February 27, 2006)
12. Motion to approve a budget Resolution and Amendment increasing revenues
and appropriations in the General Fund budget for Animal Services. (Approved by
Finance Committee February 27, 2006)
13. Motion to approve Excess Workers Compensation Insurance with Safety
National Casualty Corporation for a deposit premium of $147,883 with a $600,000
SIR (Self Insured Retention). (Approved by Finance Committee February 27, 2006)
14. Motion to approve the refund recommendations from the Board of Assessors
for 18 accounts. (Approved by Finance Committee February 27, 2006)
15. Motion to approve a request from Mr. Warren Hylton for a waiver of
penalty for taxes on property located at 1305 Interstate Parkway. (Map # 022-0-
126-01-0, Account #1246728) (Approved by Finance Committee February 27, 2006)
20
ENGINEERING SERVICES
16. Motion to approve an Option for Right-of-Way between Avondale Mills,
Inc., as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property located at 510
Cottage Street for a purchase price of $63,510.00 and to acquire subject property:
0.473 acres (20,595.15 sq. ft.) in fee and 0.039 acre (1,715.38 sq. ft.) of permanent
utility construction and maintenance easement. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee February 27, 2006)
17. Motion to approve option three (3) for the installation of a base for the James
Brown statue. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 27, 2006)
18. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Property # 128-0-079-00-0
3621 Karleen Road, which is owned by Pauline r. Johnson for 1,274 sq. feet for a
permanent easement and for 849 sq. feet for a temporary easement. AUD Project:
Horsepen Sanitary Sewer, Phase 2. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
February 27, 2006)
19. Motion to approve proposed Ordinance amending Augusta Code Section 5-
2-8 to repeal prohibition on resale or redistribution of water. (Approved by
Engineering Service Committee February 27, 2006)
20. Motion to approve expenditure of SPLOST IV funds in the amount of up to
$63,796 allocated for roof replacement at the Records Retention Center. Also,
award a contract for installation of high density modular shelving to Modern
Business Systems of Augusta in the amount of $36,029.91, increasing storage
capacity by 2,000 boxes. This firm was the lowest responsive bidder to RFP #06-
087. (Approved by Finance and Engineering Services Committees February 27,
2006)
21. Motion to deny a change order to RW Beck in an amount of $300,000 to fund
a public information program relating to solid waste management in Augusta-
Richmond County, highlighting the upcoming changes in collection. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee February 27, 2006)
22. Motion to approve entering into an agreement with New South Associates in
the amount of $99,079 for the mitigation of an African-American archaeological site
th
on the St. Sebastian Street Way/Greene Street/15 Street project, CPB # 327-04-
296812003. Funding is available in SPLOST Phase IV Project Engineering Account
324041110-5212115.202824003-5212115. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee February 27, 2006)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
23. Motion to approve the minutes of the Commission regular meeting held
February 22, 2006 and Special Called meeting held February 27, 206
APPOINTMENTS
24. Motion to approve the reappointment and appointment of the following
representing District 1: Ms. Mildred McDaniel, Coliseum Authority; Ms. Nancy
Barnes, AHED Citizens Advisory Council; Ms. Cassandra Brinson, Citizens Small
Business Council; Mr. Archie Shepard, Animal Control Board; Mr. William
Mitchell, Zoning Appeals Board; and Ms. Ella Washington, Library Board.
21
25. Motion to approve the following appointments and reappointment to the Tax
Assessor Board representing District 9: Ms. Gloria Frazier, Mr. Herman Fort, and
Mr. Tracy Williams.
26. Motion to approve the appointment of the following representing District 7:
Mr. Eugene Hunt, Planning Commission; Mr. Dewitt Dent, Zoning Appeals Board;
Mr. Richard Isdell, Coliseum Authority; Mr. Jack Steinberg, ARC Citizens
Minority Business Development Advisory Council; Ms. Crystal Eskola, Animal
Control Board; and Ms. Fran Stewart, Riverfront Review Board.
27. Motion to approve the appointment and reappointment of the following
representing District 3: Mr. Tom Fuller, Public Facilities; Mr. William Thomas,
Animal Control; Ms. Katie Jones, Bush Field; Mr. Thomas Robertson, Canal
Authority; Dr. Harold Engler, Daniel Field; Ms. Anna Avrett, Historic
Preservation; Mr. D. Clay Ward, AHEDD; Mr. Robert Smalley, Human Relations;
Mr. Harold Simon, Personnel Board; Mr. Jay Simon, Planning Commission; Mr.
Don Bradshaw, Riverfront Development; Mr. Henry Frischknecht, Tree
Commission; Mr. Nick Dickinson, Board of Zoning Appeals; and Mr. Harry Moore,
Coliseum Authority.
28. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. David M. Hicks to the Coliseum
Authority representing District 8.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
29. Approve 2006 Cost-of-Living Allowance for retirees.
31. Review/approve Plan of Action from the ARC Community Partnership for
Children and Families, Inc. regarding Hurricane Katrina evacuees in the Augusta
area.
32. Status report regarding changes made in AHEDD Finance Procedures.
35. Motion to approve a Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of Augusta,
Georgia, expressing support for full funding of State and Local Efforts to Clean Up
Hazardous and Solid Waste Sites, Properly Address Waste-related Activities, and
Control Erosion and Sedimentation; and Strongly Urging that All proceeds
Generated through Statutorily-Dedicated Fees for Critical State and Local
Environmental Initiatives Be Appropriated Only to Those Uses for Which the
Funds were Created. (Referred from February 13 Administrative Services
Committee)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
th
38. Motion to approve the rescheduling of the April 4 regular Commission
th
meeting to March 29 at 1:00 p.m.
39. Motion to approve Tender Sprout Christian Learning Center, Inc. to be a
direct recipient of grant funds from the Children and Youth Coordinating Council.
ADDENDUM ITEM 2
45. Motion to approve a contract between the Georgia Office of Homeland
Security - Georgia Emergency Management Agency, State of Georgia and ARC
Emergency Planning Committee.
22
Mr. Mayor: Did I get a motion?
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk: It’s unanimous.
Mr. Mayor: It’s unanimous. Look, I’ve gotten to vote twice. I’m feeling good
today. Let’s move on to the regular agenda.
The Clerk: You want to do the items to discuss?
Mr. Mayor: Yeah, let’s do that first.
The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Williams, the companion items, can they be handled—
Mr. Williams: Yes, ma’am, they both can be handled together. It’s a five year
deal [unintelligible] three year deal with two one-year option on the other one, I believe.
Just make that a five year. We asked them to go back.
The Clerk: Can I read the caption for the record, sir?
Mr. Williams: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Motion to approve assignment and Contract Approval for Airport
Catering Concessionaire. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 13,
2006( (No action taken in February 22 Commission meeting)
PUBLIC SERVICES
8. Motion to approve the assignment and Contract Approval for Airport
Restaurant Concessionaire. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 13,
2006) (No action taken in February 22 Commission meeting)
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to recognize Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for giving us the opportunity to come.
we don’t have a problem in amending it to a
We’ve gone back and looked at it and
23
two-year contract with a one-year option. So if that’s suitable for the
Commissioners we’ll be glad to do that.
Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussions? Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank y’all
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
30. Approve Wellness Facility contract amendment with the Family Y.
(Referred from February 22 Commission meeting)
Mr. Mayor: I would like to go on record as stating that I have a conflict of
interest with this. I’m on the board of the Family Y so I will not participate in a vote or
discussion. Mr. McConnell?
Mr. McConnell: Thank you, Mayor. Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, let
me introduce myself to start with. My name is Dan McConnell. I am the president and
CEO of the Family Y here in town. Got probably the best job in town except for Mayor
Copenhaver, of course, and I’d like to simply go about a request that we can deal with
pretty quickly. We have over the last 3-1/2 years had a contract with Richmond County
to provide Family Y services for the employees that chose to do so. It’s 3-1/2 years now
into that contract and during that time period the Y has had two rate increases, normal
business increases for all the people that use the Y. First of those occurred less than a
year after we signed our original agreement with the City so we decided at that point not
to even approach any kind of changes in rates for this group. Two years later, which was
in January of last year, ’05, we had the second increase and at that time contacted the
City and asked for what—about the procedure that we go through to approve an increase.
We were told at that time that the latter part of ’05 to contact staff. We did that in
September in a letter that we were going to request this increase over the next sixty days,
leading up to the end of ’05, met with the staff and worked out an agreement that
basically went before you last month, which was to take a $6 increase, split it over two
years, see the first $3 increase to occur this year, and then three more dollars in ’07 to
really kind of catch us up to get this group in line with basically what all the other groups
[unintelligible] throughout the city. So we’re here before you today really just to ask for
24
a normal business increase. It’s in two parts, $3 this year, $3 next year. That’s what
we’re asking. I’ll take any questions.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. McConnell.
Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
The Clerk: We’ve voting on amending the contract for the Y, two years, $3 each,
increase. Did everybody vote yes?
Mr. Mayor: Everybody voted yes.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve had some rough sailing but we’re—
Ms. Pelaez: Excuse me, it’s actually $2 this year and $2 next year; not $3.
Mr. Mc.Connell: Mr. Mayor, if you look at the handout we gave last month and
this year, it’s actually $2 for the individual, $3 for the family, this year and next year.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. Next agenda item?
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
36. Presentation by Mr. Steve Gurley regarding his lease with the City of
Augusta for property located at 845 Laney Walker Boulevard.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Please keep it to five minutes.
Mr. Pearson: Mr. Mayor, members of the council, thank you for taking time to
listen to us. I’m not Steve Gurley. My name is Steve Pearson. I’m a member of CP&P
Properties, LLC and we were the last occupants of the coin laundry in the Laney Walker
project otherwise known as the Armstrong Galleria. Mr. Gurley put the laundry in in
May of 1994 and we bought it from him in May of 2005. And I would like to have these
passed out to you all. I’ve prepared something. I will read it to save some time and I will
take questions when we’re through. CP&P Properties, LLC, Ed Campbell,
[unintelligible] Patel and myself—they’re present in the room—are here to request that
you terminate the lease on the above property from the date we were forced to vacate in
May of 2005. Please allow me to make you an explanation. When CP&P purchased the
25
property from Steve Gurley, who at that time also ran a supermarket at the center, the
center was in reasonably good condition. And Mr. Gurley did a good job of policing the
property, keeping vagrants, drunks and dope dealers from hanging around, this in spite
of police on the premises as promised by the City at the beginning of the center. At the
beginning of the center there was a presence of the police department; that was
terminated later, due, we understand it, to lack of funds. By the way, several
unsuccessful attempts to obtain a lease by the board—by Mr. Patel, who is our presiding
manager of three coin laundries our properties have here in Augusta—we just weren’t
successful in doing that and so Mr. Gurley was kind enough to re-sign the lease on our
behalf. We didn’t ask him—well, we did ask him to do that. I’m sorry. He was trying to
protect us and protect his purchases because we couldn’t spend a lot of money. When
Mr. Gurley sold out everything took a quick slide downhill. He was no longer there to
police it and there were no police presence in spite of our calls to the City, and to the
Laney Walker Development Corporation, who managed the property. The center was
allowed to run down drastically. The grocery occupant did not keep the undesirables run
off. The whole area went to pot. And the laundry, so needed by so many good neighbors
in that area, began to deteriorate rapidly. Sales dropped by half in no time. Undesirables
were allowed to hang around outside the laundry there by keeping decent ladies and
families who live in the neighborhood away for fear of safety. We made many calls for
help to both police and the Laney Walker Development board. None were met with more
than token responses. Things continued to get worse until we were losing over $2,000 a
month, which we simply could not stand for long, as hard as we tried. It’s just about
bankrupted us. It took all the money we were taking in from our other laundries to meet
this $2,000 a month and still our bank balance continues to go down. Mostly likely, none
of this would have happened if the responsibility of the board had been fulfilled. I’m not
fussing about the board. I’m sure they had all they could do. But we were a victim of
circumstances. The supermarket, as we understand it, is not doing very well now either.
We are not asking the City for any compensation for our losses. I want you to please see
sheet number three for how many losses we had. We’re pretty close to $50,000
[unintelligible] vacate. So they were great. [unintelligible] but rather only that the lease
be voided as we request, with both parties dropping the entire unfortunate matter as of
today. Possibly the board can learn from this experience. The old saying is that one has
to spend money to make money and they didn’t spend much money once the center was
established. Incidentally, Mr. Campbell and I have been in the laundry business since the
early 70s so we’re experienced in it, we know what it takes to make a successful laundry,
and we put every effort we could because of our investment and because of the
neighborhood that needed this laundry so badly. It is a good spot for a laundry but it was
not maintained in such a way that we could run it. Vandalism was rampant, machines
were broken into. We went into our pockets many times that’s not even covered on this
sheet of paper, broken into machines. Finally we just had to leave. We went to Mr.
Shepard and asked him what to do. He was very kind and constructive in his
conversations with us. He suggested that we submit a check for two months’ rent, for
$1500, to you all and ask that you terminate the lease because of circumstances beyond
our control, probably beyond your control. Ladies and gentlemen, we don’t have any
more money. We started out with a bank balance of $17,000 when we bought this in
May of 2005. We now have a bank balance of less than $4,000. It all went to try to keep
26
this place open. If we stayed in it, we would have gone bankrupt, it would have been an
embarrassment for us, for our families. We had to leave. We didn’t want to. I don’t like
to give up. I’m a fighter. I was in the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps doesn’t turn
their back. This time we have to cut and run. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: I hate to cut you short. That’s your five minutes. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, first, I give my first question. Why didn’t this come to
committee and we had an opportunity to look at this and find out was there something
that we could do with the Sheriff’s Department, regardless of whether these gentlemen
stay there or not? We can’t just turn our backs on it. I mean something’s got to be done.
But I just want to know why this didn’t come to committee, that we could have had an
opportunity to at least talk with Sheriff Strength, who I think has left already, but it is a
serious problem and something that’s got to be done. We can’t just keep losing people,
losing businesses, thinking that there ain’t no hope. Now, the man just stated, Mr.
Mayor, they come out of their pockets [unintelligible] and I understand their frustration.
But it’s something wrong. This should have came through our committee. We should
have had somebody from the Administrator’s office, the Sheriff’s office, Marshal,
somewhere, to bring us some kind of report as to what needed to be done. I don’t know
what to do now. I mean I understand these gentlemen’s frustration but I don’t know
whether to just take the $1500 or the amount of money they bringing and just walk away
from it but it should have come to our committee so we know [unintelligible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, these
gentlemen were present at the Administrative Services Committee for which there was no
quorum last week, and so they did attempt to do that. They are from out of town and I
had it on the committee meeting that met at 1:00 o’clock today, Administrative Services;
however, these gentlemen were wanting to come down later in the afternoon and I failed
to tell them that Administrative Services was going to be meeting at 1:00 o’clock. But
they were here and ready to present their facts to the committee, and they’re here today.
So we can take this—I can give you some options in legal, Mr. Williams, but I wanted
them to be heard today and not be missed because of a [unintelligible] quorum.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Hang on one second. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Through the Chair, I’m trying to keep it through the Chair.
Mr. Mayor: Please keep it through the Chair.
Mr. Williams: The Attorney—the young man stated that he came to the Attorney
who was very helpful and gave some advice and the process or procedure that he needs to
take. This would have been serious enough to bring to this committee or somebody
27
before it got to this public forum and, and, and discussed. And I don’t mind discussing. I
don’t think your laundry is dirty [unintelligible] at. But I think we could have probably
been more progressive and probably had some more resources to deal with had we known
what to do or gave them some options, if it was not paying any rent for a while, in order
to do something. So now if the young man came to the attorney, he gave him some good
advice, he told them the procedures, he came to the meeting it wasn’t a quorum, and he
came today. So that still don’t alleviate the fact that the attorney should have brought this
to the committee so we could address it cause it’s a serious, serious issue and we would
been better equipped to elaborate on it, Mr. Mayor
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, could I ask the young man, specifically, sir, what are
you asking us to do? Simple form, please.
Mr. Pearson: To cancel the lease and terminate it.
Mr. Hatney: To let you out of it and let you go home?
Mr. Pearson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney: Okay.
Mr. Pearson: And the $1500 that Mr. Shepard suggested, the two months’ rent,
we expect to lose that.
Mr. Hatney: Have you already stopped operating your business?
Mr. Pearson: Sir?
Mr. Hatney: Have you already discontinued the operation of the business?
Mr. Pearson: Oh, we did that a long time ago, yes, sir. We lost a lot of money
when we had to sell the equipment.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, I move for acceptance of this.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, the only think I want to say is that this is a problem that’s
existing and this is in the Galleria—if we don’t get a handle on this we’re going to see the
grocery store and every other business leave there. And it goes back to something we’re
going to talk about later on. If the people don’t feel safe, if they’re having to deal with
thugs and drunks and other people hanging around businesses, they will not come. And
28
if we don’t get a handle on that across this city we’re going to see a lot of other important
places closed and people lose money in areas where people have legitimate needs for
grocery stories and laundries and so forth.
Mr. Pearson: Mr. Cheek [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: Through the Chair, please.
Mr. Pearson: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: That’s okay.
Mr. Pearson: Excuse me. Mr. Patel was afraid to go in and collect the money.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Pearson: He was in fear of his very life.
Mr. Speaker: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. We’ve got a motion and second to
try—Commissioners will now vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
37. Consider a request from Mrs. Arthur Holmes for a tax rebate on property at
2439 Peach Orchard Road. (No recommendation from Finance Committee
February 27, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am, please go ahead.
Ms. Holmes: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Mr. Mayor: If you could just kept it to five minutes, please, ma’am.
Ms. Holmes: I will. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me. My name is
Nancy Holmes and I live at 3698 Inverness Way. I’ve always been and wanted to be a
stay-at-home mom. That was the career I chose and enjoyed every minute of it. Until the
death of my husband Arthur, I had no dealings with his business or financing, if little.
When he died in January of ’02 I inherited the property located at 2439 Peach Orchard
Road. At that time the property was leased with an option to buy. The lease agreement
stated that the tenant would pay the property taxes, but failed to pay the ’03 and ’04,
which I had to pay. They were also unsuccessful in finding financing and moved out
29
around the first of January. At that time I registered it for sale with Jim Reeves of Reeves
Commercial Property and the sale price was $475,000. I acknowledge that I received the
assessment notice. I must admit I made a mistake. I was not used to looking at these
type of items and I had no idea that the value would change from $558,000 to
th
$1,445,000. So on October 6 I came down to pay all the taxes, realizing the taxes had
increased from $6,767 to $16,078. I went and spoke to Donna Murray. She told me that
there could be nothing done. So I went ahead and paid the taxes. But on the way home I
got to thinking, you know, my husband would not want me to just take this laying down.
You know, I have to make a stand and fight for what he would want me to do. So I went,
on the way home I called my attorney and he advised me to stop payment on the check.
Then again I contacted Donna and asked her if she could be of any assistance to me. She
said she couldn’t do anything. And that’s when I received a from Meg Birkinshaw
confirming this. I wrote Commissioner Williams asking for his help. He called and told
me the proper steps I should take, that I should present this to the Finance Committee,
th
and my appeal was presented to the Finance Committee last Monday, on the 27, and I
regret that I was unable to be here because I had gone to the Atlanta airport to take my
daughter and my little granddaughter—they were going back to England where her
husband is stationed in the military. A little history on the property. Arthur purchased it
in 1999 for $400,000. There has been absolutely no improvements made on the property.
I have to deal with constant vandalism. It’s just been a dumping ground for yard debris.
I’ve had to have abandoned cars removed. It’s just a financial burden. I have received
intent to fi fa notice and all I’m asking is that you relieve me of this tax burden the
difference between $7,014.58, which was estimated by North Williamson, and the current
bill that I have for $17,356.47. I just ask you to let me pay my fair share. [unintelligible]
help me with this. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Reeves? You’ve got about a minute and a half left on the
five.
Mr. Reeves: Thanks a lot. Jim Reeves, Jim Reeves Commercial Properties.
We’re not here to establish any particular value on this property. We’re just here to say
that back in 2004 it was at $558,000 and it jumped up to $1,445,000, which is 159%
increase in the value. I’ve got some information here that gives you a little bit of detail
on some properties up around that area. At the same time, like we say, we’ve got it under
contract now at $320,000. We are hoping that they will get financing. We feel like it
will be sold before the end of this month and we feel like there is some history on the
property. It’s dilapidated property and it’s gone down over the years. Any other
questions, we’ll be glad to answer.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Donna, you—go ahead.
Ms. Birkinshaw: We’ve already stated our position in the committee meeting.
Every taxpayer, every property owner who receives a changed value notice has 45 days
to appeal it. At that time they present whatever evidence they have that we are mistaken
in our value judgment. This did not happen. The law is clear. The Board of Assessors
does not have the authority to extend any deadline and that includes filing an appeal of an
30
assessment. We get very many requests of this nature during any time of revaluation that
we perform. For that reason we did not accept it. We cannot. There is also case law that
an opinion of value is not a reason to make a change of assessment. If it were a matter of
fact, as in we had three buildings located on the property where there’s only one, that
would be a correction of fact. What this matter—it boils down to—is an opinion of
value. And as I said there is case law, that the amount of assessment is not proper matter
for a basis of refund claim. If the property owner will file a return for the year 2006 we
will be glad to look at any documentation that she may have to substantiate her claim that
we’re wrong. Without her exercising her due right and recourse, we’re powerless.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, the only thing, I know these assessments, as were said,
are kind of an opinion of value or whatever. The thing that concerns me is this property
and mean others similarly situated in this city that have not been utilized for periods of
time, years sometimes, to see greater than 100% increase in the valuation when the
property’s obviously not being utilized seems very drastic and unfair. I know we’ve got
to make ends meet but that section of Peach Orchard Road is struggling as it is to get
occupants in these buildings. Many of them still remain empty or unserviced or
dilapidated. And again, it would be this Commissioner’s opinion of value of that
property is that we would like to see it occupied but certainly it should not see a tax
increase greater than 100% in less than a year, which seems to be burdensome, this
government putting a burden on people to cover its spending habits. I think it’s wrong
and I, for one, am not in favor of being a party to or allowing that kind of increase. I’ve
got numerous letters from the Hill and other places where people have seen in one year
such drastic increases. And certainly it may be the City’s problem that we haven’t done
the reassessments in a timely manner or haven’t done as good a job in the past but to have
a greater than 100% increase in property taxes is unreasonable, and it’s unreasonable for
this government to put that burden on its people.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had asked Ms. Birkinshaw to send me
the information that each of you received in your packet this past weekend that took up
the taxes, the interest and the penalties that were involved, and I had made some
comments last week and made a recommendation that certainly we could [inaudible] the
penalty and the interest, but after thinking about the situation and the assessment as far as
the new valuation goes, I thought this—I have not talked with anyone about it, but to me
I think we would be somewhat in order to ask the owner to—and since she is going to
appeal in the year 2006—but I’m asking the office has it been done in the past to where
someone has paid the taxes that was assessed at the year that was in question and then if
the assessment value has changed the next year, would there be a refund in order for that
rollback for the one year? Because that was when the property was re-evaluated between
the previous assessment and this assessment given now.
Ms. Birkinshaw: Not unless they—well, no.
31
Mr. Grantham: Okay, well, no, it hadn’t. And maybe we need to look at
establishing something like that. Because I think Mr. Cheek was on target when he
talked about why was this assessment made so drastically high when the assessment had
been previously in the $400,000 range and it more than doubled to where we are today.
Granted, I’m for our collection of taxes and for our getting as much on the digest as we
can, but we need to do it in a very qualified manner, and not that this was not qualified
when it was done, but due to Ms. Holmes not being aware of what was taking place, it’s
hard for me to sit up here and penalize those under those conditions because she did not
appeal. And that’s my reason for saying that I’d like to see her pay the taxes in full and
then appeal the assessment with an understanding that if that assessment is valuated
downward, as it would be, that a refund would be in order for her to collect against this
year’s taxes. That’s some thoughts I’ve hand in mind and wanted to pass that long to this
body to see if maybe you felt the same way
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Holmes and I talked on the phone.
She sent me a letter. The property does sit in District 2, off of Peach Orchard Road there,
and I really sympathize with what she’s dealing with. I think the realtor just stated that
his property is up for sale and maybe will be sold soon. Is that—
Mr. Reeves: We’ve got it under contract.
Mr. Williams: Under contract. And I agree with Don, the penalty and interest I
think we need to do something about that. I think that there should be something we
ought to be able to do. I’m remembering when we went out and we had the appraisers or
the assessors to go back out, talked about all the money that Augusta wasn’t collecting,
how much different it going to be, and sit in this same seat—Ms. Holmes, I share with
them that same dog going to come back to bite us that we sent out there. We send people
out there to reevaluate our property [unintelligible] and some of the values went up. But
I just need to know from Meg’s office or somebody what can we do to help relieve? And
if we can do something with the pending sale, when that come about, to keep from
putting a burden on Ms. Holmes now, can we do something in that respect to try and to
recoup those taxes, I guess, through the sale without putting a burden on her with her? I
agree about the penalty and interest. Now, you know, business is still business, Ms.
Holmes. I don’t have a lot of property to keep up with like that. But those things—and I
know you said you wasn’t familiar, your husband handled those things. But those things
was still there. I’d just like to know, Mr. Mayor, is there anything from Meg’s office that
we can do? What do you suggest? How do we handle this?
Ms. Birkinshaw: The Board of Assessors is barred by law in more than one place.
First of all, they can’t extend the deadline [unintelligible] difference of opinion, not fact.
Thirdly, we haven’t seen any documentation to back up anything that they say. But in
answer to your question [unintelligible] we cannot go back to 2005.
32
Mr. Mayor: There’s nothing you can do?
Ms. Birkinshaw: That this board can do.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Ms. Birkinshaw: [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Excuse me. Another comment. With the contract in hand and
with the sale of the property at $320,000 we could collect the taxes that would be for
2005. That property for 2006 is going to be assessed and taxed on $320,000, not a $1.4
million; is that correct? If it gets appealed it would be, would it not? How are we going
to maintain a valuation of assessment at $1.4 million when only a contract can be
obtained for $320,000?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Grantham, I don’t think you can maintain the valuation of $1.5
million and I would be hard pressed I think in Superior Court to defend the $1.5 million
despite the value from 2004-2005. And I think I have a suggested resolution to this
matter. The reason they are here is because the Board of Assessors can’t do anything.
Mr. Grantham: Exactly.
Mr. Shepard: Out of time. And it involves the refund statute. And I realize that
Ms. Holmes has represented herself today. If I could have just a moment I think I have a
compromise that would be acceptable to the board and her, if I could get about two
minutes. I did not have a chance to talk to them beforehand. I mean I could basically
explain where I would be going, is to take the ’04 value and have her pay taxes on that
in—the ’05, and have the ’06 value subject to being set by whatever closing is obtained.
If no closing is obtained, the ’04 value stands. It would just be a matter of working out a
compromise and then placing the appropriate lien against the property. The contract that
Mr. Reeves refers to is a contingent contract. It hasn’t sold. It’s contingent on financing.
So I don’t think we can use that value because that’s a value in the future. So I think that
those elements have been used as part of county policy in the past when the Board of
Assessors did not get the appropriate contact within the time. And here again, if the
valuation was less than—if the revaluation was less I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t feel it would
be so difficult to defend, but to go from $558,000 in one year to $1.5 million the next—
and I saw the pictures of the structure—it doesn’t look like it’s an appreciated property to
me, Mr. Grantham. But I would be happy to see if that would work.
Mr. Grantham: [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
33
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Attorney, what do you recommend?
Mr. Shepard: I recommend—
Mr. Mayor: I believe Mr. Grantham knows what he recommended and is about to
put it in the form of a motion.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I recommend the ’04 value be applied to ’05, that the ’05
value be placed on record so that when it gets closed it can be paid, and that the ’06
value, if you started the property appeal process, be determined by an arm’s length
sale.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: I’ll put that in the form of a motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Thank y’all so much.
Ms. Holmes: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item?
ATTORNEY
40. An Ordinance to amend the Code of Augusta-Richmond County by adopting
a new section to be known as Article 6, chapter 2, Section 64(d)(1), et seq.; to define
special alcohol license distance requirements with reference to structures not
originally built as a place of worship and located in the Downtown Business District;
to define the Downtown Business District for purposes of the special alcohol license
distance requirements, to provide for exceptions to this Ordinance for such
structures in use as of the effective date of this Ordinance; and to repeal all
Ordinances and parts of Ordinance in conflict herewith.
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion.
Mr. Bowles: Second.
34
Mr. Mayor: And second. Any further discussion? Mr. Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, can we defend this ordinance with distances in it if we
end up in court on it?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: We’ve created a special district, Mr. Brigham. I think we can
within the special district. We were attempting to address the problem of places of
worship being placed in locations which were not originally built there for and it was a
request for downtown. And I think because it’s in a special district it can be defended.
Mr. Mayor: We have a—Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Explain that again, Mr. Attorney.
Mr. Mayor: Through the Chair, please, sir. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Williams: I just want to know about—
Mr. Shepard: I was requested to consider an ordinance in this area. It was to be
targeted on the downtown area, which I defined it and the ordinance proposes to define it
th
north by the river, east by the western right-of-way line of 5 Street, south by the
th
northern right-of-way line of Greene, and west by the east right-of-way line of 15,
making a box, a special district box. And in that box, any place not originally built as a
house of worship—so if you had a storefront church that moved into a store, a former
store—that sort of facility would not be considered in running your distance calculations.
But I excepted any of those premises which had already been so utilized. In other words,
we had a—if you remember back, we had the Congregation of Chabad—I’m sorry, I
can’t remember the rest of it, but they are grandfathered in under this ordinance. Within
the special district I had the measurements made from the main entrance of the
applicant’s structure to the main entrance of a place of worship. I just tried to clarify
main to main rather than main to parking lot. So within this special district I think you
can have special rules. It was intended to facilitate the growth of the hospitality industry
in the downtown area and in that special district. Outside the special district the rules still
apply.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, any—just for my own point of clarification—any
existing church downtown is grandfathered in; this will not affect them?
Mr. Shepard: Correct. Correct.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
35
Mr. Hatney: I’ve got two questions, one being, Mr. Mayor, I keep hearing us
talking about just one Augusta, but we keep coming up with the same stuff. Now, I don’t
come downtown that often but I’ve bumped into panhandlers all over this town. If we’re
going to get hard on panhandlers, it should be throughout the whole city of Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney, we’re on number 40.
Mr. Hatney: Why didn’t you tell me that?
[Laughter]
Mr. Mayor: We’ll get to the panhandlers. We have a motion and a second on
agenda item number 40. Is there any further discussion on agenda item 40?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Hatney votes No.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Colclough abstain.
Mr. Bowles out.
Motion carries 6-1-2.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I ask the Chair for a ruling on the abstentions, please.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, would you please further state what you want me to rule
on?
Mr. Cheek: Well, if the Chair has the authority to rule the abstentions either in
order or out of order, depending on the nature of the abstention, and the ruling in dealing
with abstentions being conflicts of interest or any other, any other basic reason for
abstaining, the Chair should also be able to determine if it is to be counted for a yes or no
vote by the third, neutral voting category.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, I would say that by the, by the procedures I am aware of
governing the body to this point—let me first say that this issue is in court and I have
gone on record as saying I will abide by whatever decision the judge makes. It is my
understanding and was my understanding in coming into office that abstentions are
allowed. And that was just my understanding. I think that is why the court case exists in
the first place. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, it’s not to disallow abstentions, it’s to clarify the reason,
one, for the abstention, and if you read the language in the passage of the abstention for
any reason that occurred in 1996 it does not state that it should be counted as a third and
distinct neutral voting category, that it should—in fact, it doesn’t state a whole lot other
than people can abstain for any reason, which I don’t disagree with. But it should be
counted as a yes or a no vote in order to allow the Chair to conduct its business, and that
would be your position, Mr. Mayor, to break [unintelligible] and so forth, and that’s why
36
I asked for a ruling on the legitimacy of the abstentions, whether it would be counted as a
yes or a no vote.
Mr. Mayor: I will—it is my understanding in coming into office—and hang on,
Steve—that abstentions were allowed. I have gone down that line of thought with my
running these meetings, and you have noticed that anytime there has been a tie I’ve voted
to break the tie, which has occurred twice since I’ve taken office. But with regard to my
understanding of abstentions as they stand now, my understanding is they are not a yes or
a no vote, that they are—that they just do not count towards the majority.
Mr. Hatney: Point of order, please, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: Was this already voted on?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Hatney: Then the discussion piece should be over.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I asked the Clerk to refresh my memory on the vote, if it’s 6 yes, 1
no, 2 abstain, at the time Mr. Bowles was out of the room. So the motion was carried.
All you have to look for is six affirmative votes, and they are there on this action.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: It’s unnecessary to [unintelligible].
Mr. Cheek: I’ll defer the discussion until later, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I’ve got two brothers with law degrees and I think I need one worse
than they do right now. Let’s move on to agenda number 41.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY
41. An Ordinance to amend the Code of Augusta-Richmond County by adopting
a new section therein, to be known as Article 3, Chapter 9, Section 1, et seq.; so as to
define the offense of “Aggressive Panhandling” and to provide a penalty for the
violation of said Ordinance and to repeal all Ordinances and parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
37
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I don’t agree with panhandling but I certainly disagree
with the fine or incarceration of people who panhandle. There’s got to be something else
to be done. Some people are stretched out on drugs, some just stretched out and some
just don’t want to do any better. But if we pass this now, and we incarcerate those people
who are caught doing it—some going to be impossible to catch. But if we incarcerate
those who don’t have money, who is asking for money on the street, who is going to pay
the bill for the food that they are going to eat and the bed they going to stay in and even
the jail they going to be housed in? Who is going to handle that responsibility? I know
something need to be done, but I think you can cause even greater harm or greater burden
by trying to incarcerate those who stand in front of you and ask you for a dollar. And I
know it’s all over this town. We are, we are inflicted with some, but there are major
cities who has got an awful lot of that same thing to deal with. So I just don’t know what
the answer is. I can’t support incarceration. If they begging for money they sure ain’t
got nothing to pay no fine. That’s crazy to even talk about a fine for a man who
homeless. It don’t make good sense. How you going to pay a fine? [unintelligible] go to
jail and leave the fine part off. These are not people who are out here with 9:00 to 5:00.
We talk about jobs in Augusta, we talk about doing some things to help people, we
talking about programs. I can’t support that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I kind of agree with Mr. Williams. Our jails are
already full to capacity and if we fill them up more what the judge is going to do is put us
in a decree dissent order and then we’ll be forced to do something we don’t have the
money to do with right now. I agree something needs to be done with this but locking
them up is not going to help the situation. It might take them off the street but it’s going
to put more pressure on this body to build more jails much faster or be fined every day
we keep them in jail.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just to say that, I have to agree with Commissioner
Williams, that other big cities do have this problem. That’s why Atlanta, Washington,
D.C., Macon, Savannah, several other municipalities have passed this same ordinance to
deal with this. The issue-we’ve discussed this just recently, just a few minutes ago
concerning Armstrong Galleria and the fact that people are having trouble making a
business go because of the type of people hanging out and carrying on. This codifies
aggressive behavior which is running people away from Broad Street and the central
business district. While I agree with my colleague, Rev. Hatney, that certainly this is
something I’d like to see pushed all over the city, the bottom line is we can’t allow the
people who have drug habits and alcohol problems to run business away from our
business areas, which is exactly what is occurring. If people do not feel safe they will
not come spend their money or attend functions and participate in the city of Augusta.
They’re going to Atlanta where they have an ordinance in place that prohibits this type of
behavior. It is time for us to do this. The Downtown Advisory Board is asking us to pass
this ordinance. We can pass it for one year as a trial in the downtown business district
38
and either pass it again for the entire city or keep it in the area or turn it down. But this is
something that has been done and is being done in other cities to stem this type of
behavior and I for one am for the rights of all people. But a person does not have a right
to come up and interrupt my dinner or my stroll with my family and aggressively solicit
money, which is exactly what is going on downtown. I don’t care what kind of problems
they have, they’re invading my space and impacting the ability of my city to do business.
Now, other cities are doing this. It is constitutionally tested. That’s why I’m going to
make a motion that we approve and adopt this and move forward with it.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to say I think we need more police protection
down there. You don’t really feel very good when you’re out there if you’re a female and
you have a child with you and people are coming up asking for money. And that’s
happened to me. I also know we have some of the best soup kitchens anywhere and
places for them to sleep. As a matter of fact, they say that’s why we probably have more
of this than many other cities in the area. But it makes me very uncomfortable and so I
do think something needs to be done.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I just would like a point of information from the
Attorney of whether or not this is a violation of freedom of speech.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. The way it is drawn, no is the answer. The way it is
drawn-you hit upon an important point-is it a countywide ordinance? No, it’s not
because it survives because it’s not just begging, it’s more than that. It’s aggressive
panhandling. So we have tried to incorporate two protections in the ordinance. One is
the small area. We did not cover any other area other than basically Broad Street, from
thth
5 Street to 15 and the Augusta Common to the Reynolds Street right-of-way. And that
st
has been viewed as a protection against over-breadth when the 1 Amendment is
invoked. And here again, there has to be some sort of warning and it has to be a conduct
that’s not just a bland request for money, begging, it’s got to be more intimidating. So
we tried to write exactly that in it. Now, if you’re uncomfortable with this, as a matter of
policy, that’s not for me to say. That’s your choice to make.
Mr. Holland: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland and then Rev. Hatney.
Mr. Holland: Mr. Mayor, one of the things that I was concerned about-I just came
back from Florida and I walked in some areas down in Florida and I agree basically what
most of the Commissioners has said. And one of the things I did when I saw people like
this, I did one of two things. I either made a contribution to them or I ignored them and
39
kept walking. And that’s basically what we can do. [unintelligible] on these businesses
that we have in these areas, they could place signs out there that say no soliciting, no
panhandling in this particular area. Then of course we need to think about whether or not
we’ve gotten any police reports from these people that are out there on the street. If they
have been a number of police reports about these people out on the street that have been
panhandling then of course the police should have been out there a long time ago to take
care of this. Now, for us to take these people off the street and put them in jail is going to
do exactly what Mr. Colclough said. We’re going to overflow the jails. We don’t have
room at 401 now for the ones that we have in there. They’re sleeping on the floor. So
why are we going to take them and put them in jail? If we had us a strong, economic
development program here in Augusta we could take those people off the street, give
them jobs, and put them in different programs and we wouldn’t have to worry about them
coming up to us asking for money. So as a Commission what we need to do is work
harder and stronger and try to bring forth some programs to get these people off the
streets so they won’t be bothering us. So to put them in jail is not going to solve the
problem, because when you take one off the street another one is going to come right up
behind him. So jailing people is not the [unintelligible] Helping them is the
[unintelligible]. That’s my statement.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got some problems, twice. First, with the language,
but that can be worked on. But I still have a problem supporting anything of this nature
as if though it doesn’t happen all over town. It happens everywhere. And you say well,
you’re going to protect certain areas and leave the rest of it to go to hell, I have a problem
with that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I stated earlier what I felt about it, but I guess my
question would be if the jails are already overcrowded, right now as we speak we got
them sleeping on the floors, we got them-we got sick incarcerated people who are in with
people who are not sick because of the overcrowding, and we talking about new jail pods,
we said we wasn’t going to build no more out on Phinizy Road. We promised the people
out there that we was going to limit it to what was there now. We talking about adding to
that pod. This is going to be a continuation if we start this. Now, I agree we can’t just
say you’ve got the right-of-way, do what you want to. Commissioner Holland made a
good point. When you look people in the eye, when they walk up to you like that, they
going to get your attention, they going to stop you. If you will look right on past them,
these are not robbers and rapists and murderers and all this kind of stuff. These are
people who are trying to get another dollar to do whatever it is, whatever else they going
to do. In broad open daylight. They ain’t coming up to you at night. But if you walk on
by those people, then they not going to hold you, they’re not going to grab you. You
better watch them folk that walk the street with you that call themselves your friends,
them the ones you got to look out for. But what going to happen when-if this passes and
the jail system increase, do we have funds and money to take care of the public safety
40
side of that and to put up those people in the beds and other stuff that the Sheriff is going
to need downtown? If somebody can answer that question I might could vote for it.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek, and then I think everybody will have probably
weighed in on this.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to be very brief, but what I’m hearing on the
floor today sounds like when we start to deal with the Galleria and the fact that people
who have money won’t go spend it over there, that the best thing we can do is to
encourage people to lower their heads and walk on by people that are aggressively
soliciting money or doing drugs or standing on the sidewalk and that’s the solution. I just
want to remind everybody that we created a district downtown to try to grow downtown
and bring it out of economic collapse virtually with every-most of the stores closed,
created a lot of shops and restaurants and other things for people to come and spend their
money. Now, we’re defending people who have drug habits and alcohol problems who
are aggressively soliciting under the assumption that people are going to continue to
come to these businesses. Well, let me give you a hot news flash, that when the
businesses close the jobs go away. We ought to be about opening more doors and
growing more business and protecting the people that run those businesses and come
down to do business with the city of Augusta not be so wholeheartedly concerned about
the people we may have to lock up or may have to do community service or we may
encourage to go somewhere else that tolerates this behavior. Again, Atlanta passed this.
They saw the need and they’re cleaning up their streets. They don’t put up with this in
North Augusta. They don’t put up with this in Aiken or Columbia County. But we think
that we’re going to grow our economy by allowing people to aggressive panhandle on the
streets, Broad Street. Ladies and gentlemen, I’m here to tell you, check the head count on
the weekends apart from First Friday and the weeknights. People aren’t coming
downtown because they don’t feel safe. This is one of the reasons, and we need to
correct the problem. Sticking our head in the sand and thinking we need to do bigger,
better things is not going to get us there. If you want to grow your economy, you do it
one store, one small business at a time, do things to support those businesses, not support
the people who are killing those businesses. And if we don’t pass this we are supporting
the people who are killing the businesses and saying don’t come to Augusta, we’re going
to support the panhandlers, go someplace else where you can feel safe. That’s exactly
what’s happening here. And I don’t known if I got a second but I’m going to again
restate, I make a motion that we approve this and pass it because it’s essential to the
health of downtown Augusta.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: Has it got a second, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: No.
41
The Clerk: Commissioner Grantham did.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: One final question, Mr. Mayor. When the Sheriff come over
looking for money I want y’all to do the same thing you’re doing today, I want you to
kind of divvy up your [unintelligible] go ahead and give him your money because he will
be back because we are going to lock up a lot of folks. I’m going to support the measure
but when he comes over looking for some money I want to hear the same kind of
argument.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney and then let’s get thing to a vote.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, I still have the same objection to this, and that is I just
think it’s an insult to say that we only need to protect one little area. I’ve got some
problems with that. I heard somebody say you don’t have—everywhere [unintelligible]
you’ve got panhandlers. And if Augusta is plagued with it, and we all know it’s true,
then if you’re going to implement something like this it should cover the entire area.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Mr. Williams and this is the—
Mr. Williams: I know we’re [unintelligible], Mr. Mayor. I just need to know
from somebody, when the Sheriff come back—and we don’t have to arrest anybody, you
already overcrowded—we pass this and he come in tomorrow and say we got to have
more money, y’all done told us to pick up these vagrants off the street and whatever,
what’s going to happen to that? Where is the money going to come from? I need
somebody from Finance or somebody—the Attorney got his hand up, just need to answer
that question. Where is the money going to come from when we already stretched right
now? We don’t have it. And I’m not supporting vagrants, I’m not supporting
panhandlers, I’m not supporting people who don’t work. But I do know that we going to
create a snowball effect to go ahead and arrest people who ask you for money. Not rob
you, but ask you for money.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Ms. Beard, and then I’ll believe we’ll have heard from
everybody. Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I specifically stated that we need protection on the
riverfront and downtown. I didn’t say anything when we talked about the Galleria, but I
want to go on record as saying we need the protection there, too. And I’m saying that
because I had my headquarters and I could see—am I not supposed to say something?—
and I could see a difference between the first ones or the ones we had earlier and now.
And I’m also concerned about the rundown condition of the Galleria. I think it’s time
that we need to bring back forth and put whatever we need to bring it back, bring it up to
where it was. So I want you to know I’m concerned about both areas. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. I would welcome—Mr. Shepard?
42
st
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The ordinance, as I said, to address 1
Amendment concerns, needs to be narrowly drawn to districts. So it could be amended to
state a district wherever there is a problem, i.e., a second district could be established at
the Galleria.
Mr. Mayor: And I think we can—
Mr. Shepard: And that would have to be specific and it could be other districts in
other areas. It seems, it seems to be to be the appropriate thing to do would be to make it
countywide. But that trips the over-breadth argument and so what I have tried to do is by
taking this Broad Street district as a beginning, then suggestions could come forward
about other areas and we could make those other areas part of this ordinance.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I think we’ve had an abundant amount of conversation,
more than twice per person, and I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The question has been called for. Commissioners will—
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think today is a good day for education. And we
need to clarify some stuff. The question don’t mean you vote on the issue. The vote
mean—Mr. Parliamentarian, you might be able to help me—whether we ready to
continue to debate or not. Now, we done pulled that several times about calling for the
question and then we go and vote on it. But when you call for the question, all you
asking are we ready to continue debate or not. Then that vote is passed or not passed,
then we go to the, the, the, the agenda item. But these folks calling for the question, Mr.
Mayor, don’t mean that we going to vote on the issue. That mean you got to have two
votes there.
Mr. Mayor: I’ll just read this to you. [reading] Vote immediately—call the
question. A Commissioner may move to call the question, i.e., end discussion when it is
clear that further discussion is unnecessary or that discussion is becoming repetitive.
This motion shall not require a second and no discussion on the motion shall be allowed.
If there is no objection then it will be presumed there is unanimous consent. Should there
be an objection, an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commission council shall be
required.
Mr. Williams: Okay. That’s six votes. I just stated that. That same statement,
Mr. Mayor, just different words.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
Mr. Hatney:
I’d like to offer a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, that we look at this
as it is, to include the Galleria, for the first six months and then following that we
43
continue throughout this city. I don’t like the language but it’s out there and you can’t
I’d like to offer a substitute motion that we look at
just forgot it. It’s out there. So
this as it is, to include the Armstrong Galleria area and then come back with six
months with a report from the Police Department and go throughout the city with
this.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion and a second. Is there any further
discussion? We will vote on the substitute motion first. Commissioners will now vote by
the substitute sign.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS
42. Discussion of the abstention policy of the Commission. (Requested by
Commissioner Andy Cheek)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I will be as brief as I possibly can. Holding here the
7/3/96 minutes where we, Commissioner Todd made a motion to abstain for any reason,
which I feel is the right of a Commissioner to abstain for conflicts of interest or any other
reason, it does not specify in here creating a third and distinct category. The creation of a
third and distinct category has been used as a legislative tool to deny the tie, which
further reduces or eliminates the ability of the Mayor to vote to break a tie. In order for
something to change the voting structure of the consolidation bill it’s required that we go
back before the Legislative Delegation and the Justice Department and it requires a seven
vote majority in order to carry an issue that impacts the representative abilities of a
member of this Commission. Clearly the abstention policy in its current form does that.
It has been used to prohibit the Mayor from voting. The Mayor is the only at-large
elected official from the entire city. I am not saying that we need to eliminate
abstentions. That is a misnomer that has been put forth through this debate and this court
case that we’re in. What I’m saying is that abstentions need to be counted as a no vote.
The Chair has the right to rule on abstentions, according to rules of order. But from the
very beginning on 7/3/96 when we passed and changed the original consolidation bill, we
violated Section 15 of that bill which discusses the ability of any elected official to carry
44
out their duty. This diminishes the Chair, this diminishes the Mayor’s office and his
ability to vote to break a tie, because it institutes a legislative tool to prohibit a tie from
occurring by creating a third and distinct voting category of neutral. In other voting
bodies throughout this city, abstentions are counted as no votes or yes votes, but they are
counted as votes. That does not defer the right of an individual on this or any other board
from abstaining. You can still abstain but you’re not given the right to override the
ability of any other member on this board to have their right to have their vote taken and
counted, which is what this does. So Mr. Mayor, I’m going to ask that we do something
that we don’t often do on some of these things, to clarify this position on this abstention
policy, that this—and I will state for the record that this motion that was passed back on
7/3/96 did not have the legitimate number of votes to change the voting structure of this
body, nor did it go through judicial review as required, that we move forward with—I’m
going to make a motion that we move forward with having abstentions count as no votes
for future action, and that is simply the motion that would change and provide clarity to
this. I’m not trying to stop anybody from abstaining. This is a practice that has occurred
through time as a tradition but it is not spelled out in any of its language upon its adoption
what was meant by allowing people to abstain for any reason in that it did not create a
third and distinct voting category. As we all know, it requires six votes for this body to
take action on any item. That was approved in Atlanta and by the Justice Department.
To deviate from that requires seven votes, Mr. Mayor, under the home rule provision to
change the voting structure of this body. That was never done. And so, Mr. Mayor, I’m
going to make the motion that we, as stated earlier, we change the policy and clarify it to
where abstention votes count as no votes, everyone still has the right to abstain, but it will
be counted as a vote.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to ask one question. After this charade started
about this abstention, I done a lot of reading and nowhere have I found that the abstention
vote is ever counted as anything other than zero. I have not found where you can add it
to a yes or to-I have not found. I’m not saying it’s not out there but I have not found it.
And I wish those persons who have found this direct me in that way because I’ve read all
I could find about the abstention and all I could find was that it always equals zero.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Cheek mentioned about 2/3 of the
Commission and it would take 2/3 of the Commission to agree to change anything on
this, on this document that he’s speaking of. On this panel, on this board it’s got a yes,
abstention and a no. They might need to take the green and the yes off and the no off and
just put over abstention yes or no cause we can use that and we don’t have to have these
other two lights. We could have saved them buttons, we could have saved that
electricity, we could have saved all that. We just could have abstained and could have
been any way we wanted to go. But the, the, the process was voted on in 1996, again
adopted in 2003. And it stands. We ain’t got to like. It, it, it, it, it, it, it may play favor
to the Mayor not getting-breaking a tie, or it, it, it, it may work out what it is. Two times
45
today it worked out that way, Mr. Mayor. But I think when you ran for this office you
knew that the seat didn’t have a vote. Not only you, but every Mayor that ran since we
had consolidation knew that seat didn’t have a vote. And if you get one, the you ought to
use it. But now we going to sit here and start changing what we want to change or what
we like, or what we think ought to be, then I think we got some serious issues that we
need to deal with. We need to go ahead and get on with the rest of this business, Mr.
Mayor. I don’t think you got 2/3 of the Commission that want to sit here and change
anything today or any other time as far as I’m concerned on abstention or any part of this
legislation been put together for this consolidated government, that we was forced into,
some of us. Didn’t ask for it, didn’t want it, but it’s here. Now, you might not like it.
You can do one of two things. You can go along with it or move. Simple as that. Don’t
take no rocket scientist to figure that out.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek and then please, we have discussed this-let me just say,
we have discussed this over and over again. I’ve heard everybody’s arguments for and
against abstentions. I believe we all know where each other stands so let me just say that.
Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Section 15 states, and this is speaking of the consolidation bill,
provided however that no provision shall be made which diminishes or changes the
principle of representation of the citizens by district on the commission council or any
other entity, which would include the Mayor’s office. As-I don’t need seven votes today
because we didn’t have seven votes when we didn’t pass this. We had six votes. We’re
always talking about doing what’s right, and there’s been countless traditions and laws
passed in this country and thank God it’s been overturned that were wrong. This is a
tradition that was established under false pretenses. It is not clear in the establishment of
it and it in fact violates Section 15 which diminishes the principle of representation of the
Chair [unintelligible] office of Mayor. Now, to correct my colleague, the Mayor does
have a vote under the consolidation bill to break all ties. To change and create and voting
position by allowing a neutral position under abstentions diminishes that ability for him
to vote to break a tie. That is very clear. That is not my feelings. That’s [unintelligible]
by the documentation of the consolidation bill which again was approved by the
Legislature, the people, and the Justice Department. We violated Section 15 and we also
violated good rules of business when we didn’t specify exactly what we meant on 7/3/96.
Also, everyone here has read the minutes from that meeting and legal counsel said he had
not done a survey of the law to see if any changes to this would be legitimate but it was
voted for and passed anyway. Mr. Mayor, this is exactly-and this is of course
Commissioner Andy Cheek’s opinion, but this is exactly what’s wrong with the city, is
that we pass policy and it becomes tradition and then we say well, this is Augusta, we’re
different. We are different because we choose not to follow the laws that establish this
government, we choose to act willy-nilly with making changes to this legislation and
create traditions that diminish the rights of the people to be represented by the office of
the Mayor. Now, you know, I’ve heard this and I’ve heard my twin brother say this
many times. And I’m going to say the same thing, is we can let this stuff fly and I can
bring it up every week if I need to. These things are going to be dealt with and addressed
and they’re not opinions, Mr. Mayor. They’re based out in the legislation that created
46
this government. They don’t bear out that they’re in anywhere in these minutes does it
say that we’ll create a third and distinct category. There’s no specificity there as to what
the intent of the motion was, nor was it legally reviewed. It’s just time we correct this
and change it. It does not affect or impact anybody. And I don’t care if the Mayor’s
green. I don’t care. It’s not going to make a difference. This city is going to change and
have both white and black representation in different districts over time. That is a truth
that is going to happen. This is something we need to do for the future generation.
Whether we choose to do it or not, Mr. Mayor, is going to be on the radar screen. In fact,
this is one issue I can create an entire fleet of B52s to fly over every meeting if I need to.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Hold on. Let me say one-make one comment first. At newly elected
official training I think several of us were there in Athens several weekends ago, they
said the first thing we need to do as elected officials is need to learn to count. Whether
it’s three or five or six or whatever it takes to get business approved. And I just-my point
is if there is something that is put on the agenda that does not have a legitimate chance of
passing, we should not deal with it. I just feel like we ought to do the business prior to
coming into the meetings, to be relatively certain that something coming before the body
has a good chance of passing. I just wanted to make that point. Rev. Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: I won’t say nothing. I’m tired.
Ms. Beard: Ms. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: We did come up with a code of conduct that sort of addressed things
of this nature and it just appears we aren’t following it. It creates a problem for me to sit
here and have things come up every time we have a meeting, when the decision has been
made for the most part. Now, I’m wondering if there is something we can put in our rule
and regulations in reference to this, to say that something cannot go, come before this
body maybe not more than three times. You know, I honestly think it’s going to the
ridiculous.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, I started not to say anything cause y’all way past my
dinner hour.
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to get you home in time for dinner if at all possible.
Mr. Hatney: The difficulty that I have here is that our policy says that each
Commissioner should be allotted no more than two minutes on any one item. And I don’t
care what color you are, if we got policy in place we’re not following it, I don’t see why
we need to coming up with nothing else.
47
Ms. Beard: I agree.
Mr. Mayor: I agree. And I will continue-and Rev. Hatney, I’ll just say, it seems
as though procedures may not have been followed for a while in certain ways and we’re
getting back that way. But anyway, is there any further discussion on this issue? We
have a motion. We don’t have a second. Okay. No action taken. Motion died. Okay.
The next agenda item.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS
43. Discuss/approve study for the proposed Augusta Dragway. (Requested by
Commissioner Marion Williams)
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: [unintelligible] I [unintelligible] this past Friday talked to people in
the historic preservation field. Last Friday I was able to talk to the Georgia Department
of Natural Resources Historic Preservation Division and I talked to Ms. Christine Neal
concerning the cemeteries in this plot. And I just received copies of the information and I
think this needs to be reviewed by our Attorney before we get into any kind of study.
And I have a copy that I just got since we started this meeting to pass out to everybody.
That’s one, and this is the rest of it. It’s two different ones, Lena. And I make that in the
form of a motion that we wait until we get a legal opinion on this before we go any
further with it.
Mr. Mayor: Is that a substitute motion?
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, it’s my understanding that basically if we isolate and
protect these areas and give them proper respect by fencing and other amenities, which
they don’t enjoy now, I’m sure as the Confederate cemetery on my brother’s property has
been abandoned for about 80 years now, not in much care, that there can be amendments
made or care given and respect given to these areas without impacting the remainder of
this project. My concern is that we’ve identified yet another reason not to utilize this
property at all. Here again, I think it’s unreasonable for us to have a 1700 acre industrial
48
park and us plan on doing nothing with it. It just doesn’t make much sense. When we
get back to the original motion, should we get back to it, Mr. Mayor, I would like to
amend it to include authorizing the Administrator to spend up to $25,000 to do said study
and so forth to accomplish the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, now if we come back to that motion, you said that we need to
give him clear direction, so don’t put and so forth in that motion. Mr. Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, there has been some rumor and innuendo in the public
that some of the members of this Commission may have an economic interest in seeing
this project come to fruition, them or their family members. I think you need to rule
whether or not they should be excused from voting on this project.
Mr. Mayor: My simple point of view on that and my ruling would be that any
material interest or otherwise any fiduciary interest in any project that the City is going to
go forward with, that interest should be disclosed.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think the Commissioner should identify whatever
Commissioner he thinks that might have an interest. Because I hear a lot of the same
thing and I would like it to be brought out and let’s get it clear.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Williams, if I knew-Mr. Mayor, if I knew who had an interest I
would be happy to say.
Mr. Williams: Well, if you hear something you ought to say what you heard.
Mr. Mayor: Let me, my ruling on this would be that really from a legal
standpoint and the parliamentarian can correct me on this, if an elected official decides to
not disclose an interest in any kind of a transaction they place themselves at risk; is that
correct, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, yes. But the question is whether they’re authorized to vote.
And if they have a material economic interest they should not. They should disclose that
before the vote and abstain under the financial abstention rule. If they have a financial
interest.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I don’t think we have a problem there.
Mr. Mayor: Commission Bowles:
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I would just like for the motion to also think of another
location for this site. I keep hearing 1700 acres and I believe it’s only one of three such
49
size acres, plots of land in the state of Georgia, and it is classified as a mega-site. In
speaking with Walter Sprouse, if we can get that as a certified mega-site it would increase
our chances of getting something else built there. So while I am for the study I would
hope that the study does not just look at that one particular area. I am hoping that
somewhere more closely located to the airport would be advantageous.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: If I may, let me try to capture what I think you’ve asked me to do
here.
Mr. Mayor: But it has not yet been put in the form of a motion.
Mr. Russell: And what I hear you saying, ladies and gentlemen, is what you
would like for me to do would be to search out an individual or a company that has
experience in sports management or race management that would be able to come in,
give us an economic development impact study, a feasibility study, and a location study.
I don’t think I was limited to a specific location. What was I hearing was that what you
want to know is whether or not NIHRA race track or something similar would be feasible
and economically viable for the city of Augusta in some location in the city of Augusta
and I’m authorized to spend up to and not to exceed an amount of $25,000 to be funded
from contingency to do that study; is that what I’m hearing?
Mr. Mayor: Okay, and that would be-that has not yet been-we’ve got a substitute
motion on the floor and then we’ve got a motion and then if those, the substitute and the
motion don’t pass then we’ll come back and somebody will come back and put that in the
form of a motion. Commissioner Smith?
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor, are we-this motion, we going to spend $25,000 not
knowing whether it’s legal or not? Is that what the motion is saying?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I understand that part of the motion, Mr. Smith, would be to
examine the property for the specific concern you just brought forth, whether there are
burial plots there. And I just got this today myself. So I think Mr. Russell is trying to
capture the essence of the inquiry as to this problem. It’s also obviously a concern that
this one site not be studied to the exclusion of other sites. So I think it’s incumbent on
the Commission-you can’t have three motions. You’ve got to either amend the substitute
motion, which belongs to the body right now. I am correct, it was seconded, am I not,
Madame Clerk?
Mr. Speaker: That’s right.
Mr. Shepard: All right. So it’s seconded. So if there is unanimous consent to all
these amendments on the substitute motion, that would be a vehicle to task the
50
Administrator to this job. And I think he asked that there be a cap, a not-to-exceed cap of
$25,000 for professional expenses that he foresees being incurred. Is that correct?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: That was included by Commission Cheek.
The Clerk: That wasn’t in the substitute. That was an amendment to the original
motion.
Mr. Shepard: Well, if we wanted-I think you’ve got to dispose of one motion so
there could be two motions pending and then you can vote.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams and then-
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just heard that that could be a mega-site and how we
only have the one in the state, but if we talking about a burial place on it and we can’t put
a race track, what we going to put a mega-site there now? I mean we going to cover the
whole thing if you get a mega-site. So if we looking at-something don’t add up. I mean
if we have the potential of using 250 of the 1700 with still room-if it’s a mega-site, I’m
with Commissioner Bowles, I don’t care where it goes at. It really don’t make a
difference as long as we got the acreage that we need. But when you talking about a
mega-site and you going to bring a bigger project—we done had the property over 25
years, even brought water to it, cut a road down there, and it still—the trees are getting
taller right now as we speak, and ain’t did nothing with it in 25 years. And we talking
about monies, Mr. Bowles, that we need to keep this city economically alive and doing
some things and we still trying to find a reason not to do it. Now we going to find some
Indian graves out there. They was here first. I guarantee you if you find any graves out
there, you going to find some Indian graves. So it don’t make good sense, Mr. Mayor.
[unintelligible] Mr. Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: I need that substitute motion—I was out when they was made so I
don’t have a clue.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll clarify those. Mr. Cheek and then y’all, let’s vote on
something.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this—
Mr. Mayor: Give me a motion.
Mr. Cheek: We’ve got two motions.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got the substitute motion to vote on first and then the primary
motion.
51
Mr. Cheek: The comment I want to make is this is exactly where we should have
been and what was stated that we do the studies—we involve the CVB, and if I remember
correctly, verbatim minutes ought to reflect it—in January we instructed a 60 day period
where we would accomplish exactly where we are at today in making this decision. This
is again a business practice of the city to focus and idea and expand it, never reaching the
end and conclusion of doing anything. I, for one, am ready to move forward with
building the dad gum drag strip. I’m tired of messing around with this mess.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. And let me just clarify. The feasibility study, Mr.
Administrator, they would—if there are sites out there they would be uncovered in the
feasibility study; correct? They would be made aware of—
Mr. Russell: It’s my understanding that what you’re asking me to do is bring in
the appropriate expertise to determine if there is a location in our county or city that
would be economically feasible to build a drag strip of the proportions necessary to have
an appropriate economic impact upon our community. I did not hear you limiting me to a
site or a specific piece of land or something like that. If there are sites available that are
prohibited because of whatever, be they burial grounds or gold deposits or whatever, that
would be part of this and my job would be to bring forth the recommendation of a site
and with an appropriate facility that would provide an economic boost to our community.
Mr. Mayor: Commission Holland?
Mr. Holland: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. One of my concerns is that in reference to this
study, that if we go out there with this study and we find that the drag strip is not going to
create a problem with the cemetery, we know the noise is not going to create a problem
with the cemetery, so that won’t be a problem. So with this study we just need to go
ahead and see what’s out there and let Mr. Russell come back and share that information
with us. Now, if it’s a problem with the cemetery then we have to make some
adjustments in reference to that. You know it’s not going to hurt the cemetery.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Holland: But what we need to do, Mr. Mayor, let me finish—I very seldom
say too much because everybody like to monopolize these conversations. But when these
things come up like this I like to get my point over. What we’ve got to do here is step
outside the box. We’ve been talking about these even before I became elected to this
particular office and we need to step outside of the box here in Augusta and try to bring
some revenue to this city. Charlotte, North Carolina just opened up another raceway and
the people over there just bringing in money, bringing in money. We’re talking about
bringing in revenue and we don’t want to do anything. Other cities are moving like jet-
like speed and we’re moving at horse-and-buggy pace in trying to get some things
happening here in Augusta. So we need to wake up. We need to wake up because drag
strips like this and other productive developments will bring revenue to Augusta. So we
need to think outside of the box and try to bring some things here to this city so the
people will come here. Everywhere we go—you know when we go out of town
52
everybody’s asking us what are you bringing to Augusta? We don’t bring anything to
Augusta until next month when the Masters get here. So we need to think outside of the
box. We have different interests for different people. Some people like racing, some
people like golf, some people like other things. So why can’t we step outside of the box
and initiate a drag strip so these people, who are thousands and thousands of people in
Augusta enjoy racing, would bring more revenue here, and the noise is not going to hurt
the cemetery.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It’s beyond me to believe that we cannot
wait on a ruling from our Attorney before we’re going to spend $25,000. How long
would it take for a ruling?
Mr. Shepard: I can rule—
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I can rule by Monday at committee.
Mr. Smith: That’s all I’m asking.
Mr. Hatney: Question.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: Rule on what? I got two questions, Mr. Shepard. Rule on what?
What are we talking about?
Mr. Shepard: I believe Commissioner Smith asked me to consider the effect of
this burial plot low on the development. It may not—I haven’t gathered any facts on this
and I will—obviously what you do when you make a legal ruling, you determine the
facts, if the facts are that there are no cemeteries out there, obviously it wouldn’t apply.
But I’m informed that there are cemeteries out there and then this law requires you to
mitigate the damages to those graves. So that would be my ruling. I would say, you
know, yes or no. Does it apply? If it does, what we do with it. If it doesn’t apply, you
can ignore it. That’s the ruling I understand you want, Jimmy. If I’m wrong, please tell
me.
Mr. Smith: That’s correct.
Mr. Hatney: My concern with that is [unintelligible] they move hundreds of
graves because the government owned the property. A lot of things we can’t do but the
government can do. They moved four cities, thousands of graves. What I’m saying is
what I’m tired of is voting on the same thing every time I come. Now, we’ve already
53
asked for the study in January. I thought that should have been done. We asked for the
study.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a readiness by the body to vote?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, let’s vote.
Mr. Mayor: We will first vote on the substitute motion. Madame Clerk, could
you read back the substitute motion?
The Clerk: The substitute motion was to delay the study until a legal opinion is
received relative to the issues identified with the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign.
Ms. Beard, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams and Mr. Holland vote No.
Mr. Hatney and Mr. Colclough abstain.
Motion fails 3-5-2.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I wanted to put another substitute motion on the floor, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: To allow the Administrator to do what the first motion have
already stated and go ahead and proceed with building this facility if it’s so deemed
with the report coming back being favorable.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have the substitute motion, a second substitute motion and a
second. Madame Clerk, could you read—
The Clerk: The substitute motion was to approve the study and authorizing the
Administrator to spend up to $25,000 and if—to build the facility if the report comes
back favorable.
Mr. Mayor: That would be to build the facility on the site recommended by the
study?
Mr. Hatney: That’s not what was said.
Mr. Mayor: We discussed giving clear direction on these things.
54
Mr. Hatney: I was under the impression that he asked that he have the
opportunity, along with the mandate from here, to select the proper site, being guided by
those persons that he’s about to talk to. That’s what I understood. If I’m wrong, help me
out.
Mr. Mayor: Was that the point of your motion, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yeah. I can identify with that. It really doesn’t matter about the
site. I think we got a facility that can house this, this, this entity. We got 1700 acres of
land there and if we got another 1700 or another 250 acres somewhere that’s feasible, I
got no problem. That’s all we need for the facility is 250 acres. Now, if we got 1700 and
we still have [unintelligible] acreage left from that, if that site is good, whatever site, we
need to go ahead and do it. Now, we don’t need to get into a debate about the site. I
think that’s the best location. The study ought to come back and show that. Whatever it
is. And now is there another part of that that need to be included, Mr. Mayor? We need
to find that out, too. Is there a [unintelligible] that would need to be addressed? How
does that work?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Administrator, are you, are your directions clear as to how to
proceed, should this substitute motion pass?
Mr. Russell: I think-
Mr. Mayor: Obviously not.
Mr. Russell: I think it would be premature to direct me to build a, to build
something without further action by this group. I think I’m comfortable with everything
up to that point, sir. And I would not mind-you know, I’m making a recommendation, be
that a new site, that site, the feasibility, whatever I think is well within reason and could
be done fairly quickly. To authorize the building of the site or to building at this point I’d
be a little bit uncomfortable with that at this point and I apologize for that but I think
that’s-
Mr. Williams: Make an amendment, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Russell: I think it’s a little farther ahead than we need to be, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I make an amendment with the building part. Where we add to
that is that-
Mr. Russell: The financing-
55
Mr. Williams: Do the study and proceed with how the financing or the bonds or
whatever needs to be done with all those [unintelligible] out of the way and be able to
bring it back to this body.
Mr. Russell: For vote.
Mr. Williams: That’s right.
Mr. Russell: That I’m comfortable with, sir.
Mr. Mayor: You are clear?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: I believe this is a motion that’s already a motion of the body. I
believe it’s already been seconded. I think it would take a vote to change the conditions
that were made in the motion. Am I right or am I wrong?
Mr. Russell: It’s my understanding it’s a substitute motion.
Mr. Brigham: A substitute motion that had already been seconded, was it not?
Mr. Mayor: I do not-Ms. Clerk, had it been seconded?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Brigham: So I think the motion belongs to the body, is what it was ruled
earlier today.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Brigham: I believe the same rule would apply.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. So then let me get this clear. I’m trying to get all the players
straight in my head. We’ve got a substitute motion. We’ve got a substitute motion to
vote on submitted by Commissioner Williams. Then we still have a primary motion out
there to vote on. Okay, could you please read back the substitute motion by
Commissioner Williams, Ms. Clerk, and we will vote on that one if there’s readiness.
We’ll vote on the primary motion then-
56
The Clerk: Mr. Williams’ substitute motion was to authorize the study and the
Administrator to spend up to $25,000 to conduct the study and to follow procedures with
proceeding with financing of the facility and be brought back to the Commission for
approval.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Brigham and Mr. Smith vote No.
Motion carries 8-.2
Mr. Mayor: Okay, y’all please don’t make my agenda item so hard.
Mr. Cheek: [unintelligible]
ADDENDUM
46. Discuss the sale of city owned properties. (Requested by Mayor Copenhaver)
Mr. Mayor: This addendum agenda item I added last Friday. Basically having
come from a real estate background it has become painfully apparent to me that the City
owns a surplus of open land that I would categorize as non-performing assets. These
have been removed from the tax base, that are not producing tax revenue. Some of these-
many, many of these parcels I would consider to be marketable. I would like for this
body to consider making a motion to direct appropriate staff to inventory our ten more
th
marketable properties prior to our April 18 meeting and come back to the body with ten
recommendations; the body would then have the ability to proceed with voting to market-
not market these properties but to auction these properties. Basically what that would do
is it would take these non-performing assets off of our books and return them to the tax
base where they belong so they can produce tax revenue.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: I’d like to offer a motion that we postpone this and take it up in
legal, because we’re talking about property, and to discuss that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: You need a motion then to postpone this until after legal if
that is the will of the body.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: Would be real estate, could be talked about in legal.
Mr. Williams: So move.
57
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Holland: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Parliamentarian?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Attorney, whatever. I’d ask for a legal meeting for the
purposes stated in the agenda book.
ATTORNEY
33. Legal Meeting
A. Pending and Potential Litigation.
B. Personnel.
C. Real Estate.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion to move into the legal meeting for those
purposes?
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: We now stand in legal.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor: We call the meeting back to order. Calling it back to order. Calling
us back to order. Mr. Shepard?
48. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Shepard: I’d ask that a motion be made that we went into executive
session to discuss matters authorized by the Open Records Act, which included
personnel, acquisition of real estate, and pending and potential litigation.
58
Mr. Cheek: So moved.
Mr. Bowles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Commissioners will now vote by the
usual sign.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Hatney out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
ADDENDUM
47. Discuss the continued employment of Teresa Smith.
Mr. Shepard: In the area of the employment of Ms. Teresa Smith, I’d ask
that it be added and approved, that the payments to her via check be ended at the
end of the current pay period, which would be Friday. No further payments after
that date.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Commissioners will now vote by the
usual sign.
Mr. Hatney and Mr. Williams out.
Mr. Holland votes No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 6-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
34. Presentation by Patricia Strakosch regarding grievance dated August 12,
2005.
Mr. Shepard: My last add and approve item in the matter of Patricia
Strakosch and her claim, that the same be settled for an adjustment of her
compensation to be a 10% increase-Vanessa, is that correct-
Ms. Flournoy: Yes, sir.
59
Mr. Shepard: -as of the date her certification was received, which I believe
was February 16 of 2005 and that a release be obtained from her for any and all
claims.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Bowles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by
the usual sign.
The Clerk: That was in Recreation; right?
Mr. Hatney and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner, the final item is my addition to the-on the agenda
addendum. Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I think we have some appointments that we need to vote on, too.
Mr. Colclough: They were on consent agenda.
Ms. Beard: Oh, were they? Okay.
46. Discuss the sale of city owned properties. (Requested by Mayor Copenhaver)
Mr. Mayor: I would look for a motion to approve the Administrator
charging appropriate staff with proceeding with finding our ten most marketable
properties as defined as open properties, unencumbered by wetlands or flood plain
and that no longer serve a public purpose and the properties be brought back to this
th
body at our April 18 meeting for further action
.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Hatney and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Do I hear a motion to adjourn?
Mr. Cheek: So move.
60
Mr. Mayor: With no further business we stand adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on March 7, 2006.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
61