HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommission Meeting November 20, 2007
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
NOVEMBER 20, 2007
Augusta Richmond county Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., November 20, 2007, the
Hon. Betty Beard, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Holland, Smith, Harper, Grantham, Hatney, Williams, Cheek, Bowles
and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Absent: Hon. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor.
The invocation was given by the Reverend E.T. Martin, Pastor Springfield Baptist
Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
Mayor Pro Tem: At this time we will have our recognitions.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITIONS
Employee of the Month
A. Mr. Roy Ladson Williams, Jr., Augusta Fire Department October Employee of the
Month.
The Clerk: I will read the letter from the Employee Recognition Committee who had
selected Mr. Williams. Mayor Copenhaver. The Employee Recognition Committee has selected
Roy Ladson Williams Jr. has the October Employee of the Month for the City of Augusta. Mr.
Williams has been an employee with the City of Augusta for three years. He is currently a
firefighter assigned to Station 6 with the Augusta Fire Department. Laddy was nominated by
LT. Chad Johnson. Mr. Williams went beyond the call of duty by organizing a fundraiser to
benefit the families of the nine fallen firefighters of Charleston that died in the line of duty in
June of this year. Laddy raised over $25,000 and was awarded a proclamation proclaiming
October 11, 2007 as Laddy Williams Day. He is an outstanding role model. The committee felt
that based on this nomination and Mr. Williams dedicated and loyal service to the City of
Augusta we would appreciate you joining us in awarding Roy Ladson Williams Jr. Employee of
the Month for the month of October during the commission meeting on November 20, 2007.
(APPLAUSE)
Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams, I want to personally congratulate you for all you have
done for the city and for other communities and we want you to know we really appreciate it and
uh, I can look at you and tell you will be a wonderful role model for many others. And I know
Chief Willis would like to say something.
Mr. Willis: Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Yes, we’re certainly proud of Laddy and what
he stands for in our fire services. And being there and showing his support not only to us but for
1
others throughout our nation. For the big heart that he has I know that he is going to continue to
be a tremendous worker for us and for the City of Augusta. And we certainly appreciate him and
we’re certainly glad that we have him in our fire service. Congratulations, Laddy.
(APPLAUSE)
Mr. Cheek: On behalf of the people of Augusta and the Public Safety Committee and the
commission I just want to thank you for your leadership in being a role model and spreading the
will of Augusta to our firefighters in need across this country.
(APPLAUSE)
Mr. Williams: I’d like to thank my, everybody in my crew that’s back here. I know that
the paper and all you guys recognize me a lot but they really helped and Chief Willis none of it
would’ve happened without all their help and I really want to thank Chief Willis and everybody
for letting me have the opportunity to do what I did to help out the way I did and the City of
Augusta. I just want to say thank you so much. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Russell: If I can Madam, Lady Pro Tem what Laddy did what really didn’t get
mentioned was he started out in California on a bicycle and rode all the way from California
back to Charleston on a bicycle stopping at fire stations throughout the country and other places
raising money. And 3,000 and some miles and I don’t know how many pedals that converts into
there but a lot of time a lot of hard work and we’re very proud of him. And I’d just like to
mention that. (APPLAUSE)
Mayor Pro Tem: And now delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
B. Ms. Ginger Newlin. RE: Augusta Children’s Chorale requesting financial support of
the ACC upcoming trip to Carnegie Hall.
Ms. Newlin: Good afternoon Ms. Beard and commissioners. My name is Ginger Newlin
and I’m here today representing the Augusta Children’s Chorale. The Augusta Children’s
Chorale has received the prestigious honor of having been selected to participate in the National
Children’s Choir Festival in New York City culminating in a performance at Carnegie Hall on
March 2, 2008. The festival is under the direction of world renowned Henry Lake. This is a
tremendous honor but it gets even better. The Augusta Children’s Chorale has also been selected
to be the featured choir at the festival. The greater portion of the performance will be by the
Mass Choir composed of children’s choirs from across the nation. Only one of these choirs will
be invited to sing by itself under the baton of its own director. That choir under the superb
direction of Augusta’s own Linda Lesley Bradbury will be the Augusta Children’s Chorale.
Imagine, out children, these children of Augusta will be performing where the greatest
symphonies, singers and musicians of the world have performed. The Augusta Children’s
th
Chorale is celebrating its 17 season. It was born in 1991 when children were needed for an
Augusta opera performance. Their impact was so great a seed was planted. The desire and
demand for advanced vocal training, performance opportunities and a deeper level of
2
appreciation for an enjoyment of music composed, resulted in establishing and continuing the
program. The group is currently composed of 42 singers from the Augusta area ranging in ages
from 8-16 years old. They meet weekly during the school year in a disciplined rehearsal and
give us several Saturdays a year for more rehearsals. The children are coached in proper
performance etiquette and represent Augusta beautifully everywhere they go. The Augusta
Children’s Chorale is known across the United States and the world beyond. They have been
invited to sing in Italy, Germany, France, Hawaii, Prague, Vienna and Salzburg. Last year alone
they were invited to sing with the Children in Harmony Festival in Disney World and Governor
Sonny Perdue at his wife’s request invited them to sing at his inaugural prayer breakfast in
January, which they did. Traveling to New York City is astronomically expensive. The children
themselves have sold everything from pansies to pizza to poinsettias. Their parents are bearing a
significant part of the cost. We the parent organization are trying to offset some of these funds.
We have raised over $4,000 but we still need $4,000 to cover these costs. This is why I’m
coming to you today. We need your help and would greatly appreciate any help that the Augusta
commission would offer to sponsor this event. Ms. Beard and commissioners these children are
our ambassadors. They put us on the map and they do so beautifully. They are bright, well
behaved talented children who will make we their parents and all of Augusta proud on March
nd
2. Thank you for your time and for considering this request.
Mayor Pro Tem: I want to thank you for your report and at this point, Commissioner
Smith.
Mr. Smith:
Thank you, Ms. Beard. I think that we should certainly do our part and
I would like to make a
support this group all the way to Carnegie Hall. That’s quite a feat.
motion that we ask our Administrator to see if he can find a $1,000 to support this and I
make that in the form of a motion
.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Ms. Beard: Okay, we have a motion and second. Reverend Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: One comment. I have no problem with this. I’m going to vote for it. I just
trust that we will practice being fair all the way because last year it turned down another group
who wanted to travel. I’m going to vote for this but I thought we should’ve done the other one.
But I think we need to be consistent.
Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: It’s my unfortunate duty to tell you that while I certainly believe that this is
a wonderful organization and do great things and all the platitudes that they received are well
deserved I too feel that we’re walking a slippery slope as we begin to help fund these particular
issues. We do that occasionally and at this particular point in time our reserve funds are at a
point where we cannot afford to give them $1,000 in the contingency at this particular point. If
they are leaving in March it might be something we can revisit after the first of the year but at
this point it would be my recommendation that we unfortunately deny their request.
3
Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Ms. Newlin I wondered if y’all approached the Arts Council for any
funding or the CVB for funding?
Ms. Newlin: The business manager. We have approached, we received grants from the
Arts Council and from, we have corporate sponsorships we have individual sponsorships as well
and we applied for (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the grants that we’ve applied for and received.
Mr. Grantham: Madam Pro Tem?
Mayor Pro Tem: Yes.
Mr. Grantham: Madam Pro Tem, I think that the efforts here behind what they have
already shown approving this is certainly worthy of us trying to find $1,000. We seem to be able
to find a million on various occasions and if it’s within the discretionary fund of the Mayor or
within the funds of the commissioners then I think we need to find this $1,000 somewhere and if
it’s giving up a trip for us on one of these occasions we go on or cutting our expenses to a point
to send forty some odd kids to New York to represent our city then I support the effort of looking
for this $1,000. And even at that I’d be one of the first to make a personal contribution as well.
So I applaud the motion and I call the question.
Mayor Pro Tem: And would you like to make that a part of the motion?
Mr. Grantham: Yes.
Mayor Pro Tem: All right would you please vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Bowles and Mr. Holland vote No.
Motion caries 7-2.
Mayor Pro Tem: And my vote is yes.
The Clerk: With Ms. Beard also voting yes.
(Discussion on whether Ms. Beard can vote)
Ms. Newlin: Thank you very much.
Mayor Pro Tem: The addendum please.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
11. Approve the addition of twelve positions to the AUD organizational structure for the
purpose of operating and maintaining the Fort Gordon water and sewer system.
12. Approve Disability Retirement of Mr. William Dixon under the 1977 Pension Plan.
4
ENGINEERING SERVICES
21. Approve the addition of twelve positions to the AUD organizational structure for the
purpose of operating and maintaining the Fort Gordon water and sewer system.
The Clerk: We will now consider the addendum agenda. We have a request for two
deletions from the agenda. The first one is item number 12, which was requested by Mr. Dixon
and also item, 11 and 21, which is basically the same item. This was requested by the utilities
department and these items are to be replaced by the following the addendum item which would
be an addition to the agenda. That item is to approve the addition of twelve positions to the
Augusta Utilities Department organizational structure for the purpose of operating and
maintaining the Fort Gordon water and sewer system with the first named position being that of
Assistant Director Fort Gordon Operations. And item 2 is and addendum is to receive as
rd
information a presentation of the 3 quarter financial report.
Mr. Grantham: So moved.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mayor Pro Tem: Let’s please vote at this time. And we’re voting what, in reference to
the entire thing?
The Clerk: Yes, ma’am.
Mr. Hatney: Before I vote can I ask a question, please?
Mayor Pro Tem: Yes.
Mr. Hatney: What is the difference in the item 1 that you’re going to replace item 11. I
think it’s all right. 21 what is the difference because you’re still talking about 12 employees.
What is the difference?
Mr. Hicks: May I speak to that. The real difference, Commissioner Hatney, is that under
the item 11 and 21, we also proposed job descriptions for the other eleven positions and we had
the top position being that as Superintendent. But after meetings with Fort Gordon personnel
and considering the uniqueness and scope of that job then we wanted to change it to be an
Assistant Director to be the top position and then seek to bring that person on board and then
have that person help in developing the other eleven position descriptions to bring to you at
another date. So that’s the primary change is to just have you vote today on let’s make that top
position be an Assistant Director and that’s the only one you’d be approving today.
Mr. Hatney: The rest of them have to come back.
Mr. Hicks: The rest of them have to come back.
5
Mr. Holland: Ms. Beard? The job as the Assistant Director you say first named person
position being named that as Assistant Director. Will this position be advertised?
Mr. Hicks: It will. It will be advertised so that folks can apply for it. Another words I
had inquired could it just be an appointed position for sake of brevity and let’s get it on but I was
instructed no it can’t be. So that’s all right. We’ll advertise this we will then consider and
interview the applicants and then make the selection.
Mr. Holland: Okay.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk: The consent agenda?
rd
Mayor Pro Tem: What about number two. Did we do that in reference to the 3 quarter
financial report? (INAUDIBLE) Oh, okay. All right. Very good. Yes, we’ll move on to the
consent agenda.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1-5. And for the benefit of any
objectors I’ll read the petitions under the planning portion of the agenda and if there are any
objectors would you please just raise your hand to signify your objection.
1. To approve a petition for a Special Exception to establish a Church with day care activities on
property located at 2428 Tobacco Road.
2. Is to approve a petition with the condition that no additional manufactured homes may be
placed on the property for a change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone A
(Agriculture) affecting property located at 4040 Belair Road.
3. Is a petition for approve with conditions for a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry)
to Zone HI (Heavy Industry) affecting property located at 3027 River Watch Parkway.
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to any of these items?
Mr. Russell: None noted, Madam Clerk.
Mayor Pro Tem: Nancy, should we look at um, the package stores, items 6 and 7?
The Clerk: I can read those, Mayor, yes.
Mr. Russell: Madam Mayor Pro Tem, it would be appropriate at this point to ask if there
are any additions or deletions to the consent agenda and let the chairmen of those respective
committees put those items on the table.
Mayor Pro Tem: Oh, okay, I’m sorry. Do we have any deletions ---
Mr. Grantham: Any additions.
6
Mayor Pro Tem: --- do we have any additions for the consent agenda. Mr. Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Madam Chairman, Madam Beard, Mayor Pro Tem I’d like to add the
rd
addition to item number 2 under additions for the financial for the 3 quarter to the consent
along with item number 15 and 16 if that pleases the commission.
Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Mr. Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Madam Pro Tem. I’d like to add under Public Services item
number 6 and 7 and I’ve been informed that those petitioners are here and they’ve met the
requirements necessary so with that in order if we could add those to that as well.
Mr. Holland: Madam Chairman, item 13 under Administrative Services.
Mayor Pro Tem: Do we have any other additions?
Mr. Grantham: I’ve got one more Madam Pro Tem. Item number 9.
Mayor Pro Tem: Rev. Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Yes, let me ask Ms. Bailey a question. On 14 this is just one position right.
Ms. Bailey: Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Hatney: I’d like to, thank you. It’s just one.
Ms. Bailey: Yes.
Mr. Hatney: I’d like to add that also to the consent if it’s all right.
Mayor Pro Tem: What is that number again?
Mr. Hatney: Fourteen.
Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Do we have any other additions? Okay, may I have a motion
and second to approve the consent agenda?
Mr. Williams: Madam Pro Tem, I’m sorry. I apologize for being late; I explained to the
Clerk that I had a funeral to attend. But before can I get those numbers please before we finalize
them?
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1-5 with the addition of item 6, 7, 9, 13,
14, 15, 16 and the addendum item number 2. Ms. Beard, would you like me to read the alcohol?
Mayor Pro Tem: Yes.
7
The Clerk: For the benefit of any objectors under the Public Services portion of the
agenda I will read the two applications for alcohol licenses. And if there are any objectors would
you please raise your hand to signify your objection.
Item 6. Is a request for a retail package Beer and Wine license to be used in connection with Ria
and Krish, LLC DBA as Ja Ho Market located at 1770 Kissingbower Road.
Item 7. Is a request for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer and Wine license to be used in
connection with Broad Street Market located at 1282 Broad Street. There will be Sunday sales.
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to either one of these applications?
Mr. Russell: None noted, Madam Clerk.
Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, are we ready to approve the consent agenda? Then may I have a
motion and second.
Mr. Cheek: So moved.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
1. Z-07-99 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Transformation United Methodist Church requesting
a Special Exception to establish a Church with day care activities per Section 26-1 (A) of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property
containing 4.54 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 2428 Tobacco
Road. (Tax Map 154 Parcel 001-05) DISTRICT 6
2. Z-07-100 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve with the condition that no additional manufactured homes may be
placed on the property; a petition by Vernon Neely Jr., on behalf of Adrian Neely,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone A (Agriculture)
affecting property containing approximately 3.2 acres and was formerly 4040 Belair Road.
(Part of Tax Map 038 Parcel 023) DISTRICT 3
3. Z-07-101 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) the only access to this property be
from Westside Court 2) within 5 years or when the use ceases, whichever happens soonest,
the petitioner/owner will petition for a down zoning of this property at their expense; a
petition by Vic Mills and Pam Baldwin, on behalf of Southeastern Family Homes,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone HI (Heavy Industry)
affecting property containing approximately 4.93 acres and is known under the present
numbering system as 3027 River Watch Parkway. (Tax Map 007 Parcel 008-05)
DISTRICT 7
4. FINAL PLAT – GWINNS LANE (aka CYPRESS LANE) – S-715 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a
petition by H. Lawson Graham & Associates, on behalf of John Speers and Mason
8
McKnight, requesting final plat approval for Gwinns Lane. This residential subdivision is
located on Gwinns Lane at the terminus and contains 9 lots.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
5. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held on
November 8, 2007.
PUBLIC SERVICES
6. New Ownership Application: A.N. 07-51: A request by Kirktikaben Patel for a retail
package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Ria and Krish, LLC DGA Ja
Ho Market located at 1770 Kissingbower Road. District 2. Super District 9.
7. New Application: A.N. 07-52: A request by Shrinath Parimi for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Broad Street
Market located at 1282 Broad Street. There will be Sunday Sales. District 1. Super District
9.
9. Motion to approve Bid Item #07-171, park site furnishings/equipment to the low
responsive bidder meeting all specifications, ATD American Company for $16,857.66.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
13. Approve early retirement of Ms. Victoria Jenkins under the 1949 Pension Plan.
14. Approve reclassification of position in the Board of Elections Office.
FINANCE
15. Approve reclassification of position in the Board of Elections Office.
16. Approve the purchase of one Explorer for the Utilities Department-Administration
Division for $21,282.00 (Lowest bid offer on bid 07-175).
Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, at this point let’s please vote.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
Motion carries 9-1. [Items 6 and 7].
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-5, 9, 13-16]
Mr. Hatney: Madam Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney: Abstain on all alcohol, please.
Mayor Pro Tem: Madam Clerk, we’re now at the regular agenda, is that correct? Could
we begin with item 24?
The Clerk:
9
SUBCOMMITTEE
Judicial Subcommittee
24. Motion to approve Architectural Contract with Turner Associates Architects &
Planners, Inc. for architectural services for the Judicial Center, with Associate Architects
Ricci Greene and Woodhurst Partnership.
Mr. Kuhlke: Madame Pro Tem, Commissioners the commission has previously approved
Turner and Associates along with the Associate Architect Ricci Greene and Woodhurst
Partnership as the architect for the Judicial Center. This consortium of architects completed the
pre-design work and the Judicial Center program has been approved by this commission. This
architectural contract will carry the architectural services through the completion of construction,
which may include shelling in certain portions of the building depending on the cost and
availability of funds. So I come to as Chairman of the Judicial Subcommittee to ask you to
approve the contract with the architect at a fee of $4,151,300.00 and an allowance for
reimbursable expenses of $350,000.00.
Mayor Pro Tem: Do we have questions at this time?
Mr. Grantham: Motion to approve.
Mr. Brigham: Second.
Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, please vote at this time. I’m sorry, Reverend Hatney.
Mr. Williams: Yes, I need to ask a couple of questions before we take this vote on this
firm. Now I, now we approved last week, last commission meeting that we would bring one
back to this body for us to look at. But who else was in the running I guess, Bill? Who else was
I guess bid on this?
Mr. Kuhlke: Nobody, Mr. Williams. We, y’all approved Turner and Associates to be the
architects. Early on we had to go through the pre-design phase, which we did. We’ve got one
more meeting to wrap that part of it up. During that period of time the committee negotiated the
fee with the architect to go forward with the design of the facility. As you and I both know this
has been going on for a number of years and we’ve just gotten to this point where we can go with
the design of the building.
Mr. Williams: Well, and I think ---
Mr. Kuhlke: I think what you may be referring to is we talked to you at our last meeting
about the CM approach as far as the delivery. That we’ve got to come back to y’all after we
have received bids on it.
Mr. Williams: Well, and I know that this firm has already done some work with us, Bill,
and you’re right it’s been ongoing but we done paid a lot of money ---
10
Mr. Kuhlke: We have.
Mr. Williams: --- already and I’m leery about voting now on this until I, I wanted to
know who else was afforded the opportunity to at least come in and that was our trouble in the
beginning. Now I remember saying well we already got started it’s going to take a long time to
go back and crank up again. So I’m a little bit shaky on this one. You say the price was four
million how much was it to ---
Mr. Kuhlke: It’s $4,151,300 plus reimbursable allowances of $350,000.
Mr. Williams: And we didn’t look at no comparisons to see whether or not that was
good, bad or indifferent.
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, we did that several years ago to select Turner and Associates. But
going through the program and developing the program and we don’t, we wouldn’t recommend
to you to switch horses in the middle of the stream. This is something that you’d have to start
over.
Mr. Williams: Well, no, I’m going to disagree. You know me and you talk about
building and you do a lot of that. I just been around you and I know that we’re not in the middle
of the stream yet. We’re fixing to get to the middle of the stream. Now we may be in the water
but we’re not in the middle yet, Bill, and I think that if we’re forever talking about this, this is the
time to do that. You know it is now we’ve talked about this earlier we came back with the same
firm, for the same excuse we was going to get in the middle of the stream is what we was told.
And we kept going forward, we kept going forward. Now here we are with another price tag.
This is in addition to the money we already spent, already.
Mr. Kuhlke: That’s right.
Mr. Williams: I mean this is additional money. And I think we need to very careful. I
think we need to hold up on this one. I think we need to look at it a little bit closer. Not that
they’re not the ones, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that we need to make sure if we’re going to
take this vote today. Then we’re coming back with the CM contract we talked about. That
hasn’t been brought back to us yet, right?
Mr. Kuhlke: No, sir.
Mr. Williams: That’s going to have to be brought back.
Mr. Kuhlke: But that’s just part of the process, Marion, it’s a, you know we have gone
through this thing and you can go back to where we initially started, you know what all we went
through with that. And then we didn’t have the funds to move ahead so it didn’t make sense to
design something two years ahead if you’re going out to get prices on it. If we’d done that we’d
have been in a lot of trouble. So you know the only way to do what you’re talking about doing is
basically starting over. And I’m not sure that’s what anybody wants to do.
11
Mr. Williams: Madam Pro Tem, if I can continue. I did the same thing with the Mayor.
I like to have another rebuttal with Mr. Kuhlke if I can.
Mayor Pro Tem: Go right ahead.
Mr. Williams: Bill, and I understand what you’re saying but we don’t want to confuse
the people when we say starting over. When you say starting over that’s like starting off from
scratch and that’s not what we’re doing.
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, it is.
Mr. Williams: No, no I disagree now. We can do that. We can agree to disagree. I
disagree that don’t mean I’m right now.
Mr. Kuhlke: We’ve done that before, haven’t we.
Mr. Williams: That’s right we’ve done that several times. But I’m saying to you now
that before we take this vote man we need to know. I mean I’m careful of the CM contract. I
didn’t support that last week because I think if we do that I think that’s going to eliminate local
participation from this government or from anybody in this from doing. We’re talking about a
$62 million project we’re going to build and if we go the route we’re going we’re going to
eliminate a lot of businesses that’s local that can do this work. And we won’t have no say or
anything up on this board. I mean it’ll be just out there. Dr. Hatney had a question. That’s all I
got, Mayor Pro Tem. I can’t support this. I can’t do this thing.
Mr. Hatney: I’ve got one observation and one question. First one being I do believe that
some time ago you may have mentioned that we already spent more than $2 million dollars on
this project and no drawings and no design nothing was in place at that time.
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, we spent about $500,000 with the architect the last go around partly
due to studying six different sites on where the facility would go. So that was part of the
problem.
Mr. Hatney: Okay, I heard that. I understood that.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Hatney: But my question is, my concern is there, that $500,000 spent with the
architect but that’s a part of the, of the more than $2 million spent. I guess that includes
purchasing the property and all?
Mr. Kuhlke: It did.
Mr. Hatney: Right now we’ve spent more than $2 million dollars, right?
12
Mr. Kuhlke: We have.
Mr. Hatney: Okay, the other question I have I got and I’ve got a concern about is that
when I first got on this organization I thought I heard it mentioned that that the Augusta Mayor
commission had contracted with a management company called Heery.
Mr. Kuhlke: True.
Mr. Hatney: And my question to that is what juncture do they start managing this if
they’ve been hired to manage our SPLOST projects? How can we be selective in what they
doing?
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, they’ve been involved in the process with us. They’ve sat in on every
meeting that we’ve had. They are a project-managing firm and so they’ve had their input at the
meetings that we’ve had. It appears to me and we had some discussion on this yesterday is that
the Heery group will probably get more involved in the project working for Mr. Russell and you
as a commission once we get into the construction part of it. At that point if it gets beyond the
capabilities of the Judicial Committee and it goes to a more technical phase of the project and
that’s when I think you’ll see them heavily involved.
Mr. Hatney: Okay, don’t misinterpret this because I’m not trying to be difficult. Are we
sure we’re already going to move forward with this committee?
Mr. Kuhlke: That’s up to you.
Mr. Hatney: Because I see some strange stuff going on. I’m not being peculiar it’s what
I’m seeing. It’s kind of frightening.
Mayor Pro Tem: I’m sorry.
Mr. Hatney: If we have a management company I just don’t know when they’re
supposed to start doing their job.
Mayor Pro Tem: I would like to add to what he said that we did meet yesterday and Mr.
Kuhlke as chairman of the committee will be watering down his participation in this project.
And as it becomes more technical and probably be going now, Heery will probably be the focal
point for us. Does that help? This is the way it was discussed. As a matter of fact we felt they
felt that they were at the point where we could just not use them at all. But they are talented
people and they are volunteering their services so we didn’t see a real problem there. We’re
paying Heery but these are people in the community who can assist us to be sure that we have
the type building we’re trying to build. Mr. Holland.
Mr. Holland: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Like my colleagues I’m somewhat
confused here too. As a matter of fact there was some apprehension on my part the last time we
voted on this and I’m somewhat reluctant. Since that time I’ve done some research and still have
me a little confused in reference to what we’re trying to do especially in reference to the process.
13
It appears to me that the process that you’re going through in trying to get these companies
involved it appears to me that it’s a little confusing and I’m not sure as to what is happening. If
we as a government entity has hired a company to over see these kinds of projects it would
appear to me as I look at our attachments that this particular company of Heery would be listed
on here to let us know as commissioners that the will be a part of this project. But as I look
through the attachment that we have here I don’t see them listed anywhere. But of course I see
your name Mr. Kuhlke listed in the back here on the attachment and that too is confusing to me
with you being a chairman of the committee and being a former commissioner. So with that said
and with that in mind I’m somewhat reluctant to go along with approving this at this particular
time until I can get some better information in reference to how we’re going to handle this
project. Because at this time I’m just, personally you know I’m just confused. And like I said
you know before when we voted on it I was somewhat reluctant at that time. So I’m still a little
confused but I believe Heery since they’re being paid and they’re being paid a lot of money so
I’m just hoping that we can get this straightened out so that this particular company which is a
program management company who’s supposed to be overseeing our SPLOST funds should
have an opportunity to do so.
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, you know that’s up to you as a commission. Maybe I can clarify.
The subcommittee that’s working on the Judicial Center was appointed by the commission.
Okay? Heery was hired by the commission for specific projects, not just the Judicial Center but
other SPLOST projects that you’ve got going on. And I think that needs to be determined. It
works more closely with the Administrator than I think with you probably individually. But I
think duties that are assigned to him and Heery is paid by the jobs that they work on. At this
point other than sitting in on the meetings we haven’t had the need for Heery to be involved
except when we had a request for them to take a look at some things. So they are under a
separate contract with you the commission to do what they are assigned to do. If you want to
assign them to this job or the Administrator wants to do it that’s fine with us. It doesn’t matter.
But at this point what we’re trying to do is to move ahead with the architectural contract so that
we can design the facility and get it built. And, Commissioner Holland, I mean I’ve been
working on this thing almost five years now and I think the people out there are ready to see
something happen and we’re ready to go. Once they finish this we go to construction.
Mr. Holland: Madam Chairman, may I just ask another? I can understand what you’re
saying. Has Heery been involved? Have they been asked to come in to any of the meetings that
you’ve had?
Mr. Kuhlke: Every one of them. They’ve been to every meeting.
Mr. Holland: Have they had some input?
Mr. Kuhlke: They’ve had some input.
Mr. Holland: Thank you.
Madam Pro Tem: Mr. Russell.
14
Mr. Russell: If I may and I was going to explain what Mr. Kuhlke has said though but
Heery is acting as your agent as program manager. They have a separate and distinct contract
that allows them not only to work with the courthouse but the rest of your SPLOST projects. My
concern about putting them in this specific project is that their contract when it runs out is
reviewed on a regular basis by you. You extended it last year at my recommendation and I think
they’re doing a good job. But to tie them into a specific contract for a specific ability I think is
counterproductive. I think what you’re looking for is a management firm they have a contract to
provide that service to tie them into this specific building it makes no sense to me whatsoever. I
think what we’re looking for is the ability to use their expertise which they put on the table to use
their advice when appropriate which they put on the table and give you the decisions that you
have to make on how to move forward. We’ve done that. We’re at a point now where that
committee and I’m the contact person listed in the contract for the builder to move forward with
selecting an architect. Heery will be involved in their management of the program as they go
forth and we will use them as we have in the library and the various other programs that are
there. To include them specifically in the contract is unnecessary I would believe. We just need
to make sure that we continue to use their services. And as you well know as you sit in on these
meetings, Madam Chairman, they are there at the table.
Madam Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I guess, Bill, I’ll probably surprise you today.
I have had a discussion with our Administrator I see the opportunity to move forward and I guess
as being the most vocally concerned opponent of the Judicial Center process to date I’d like to go
on record today in saying this is in fact our opportunity to move forward. If we don’t we’ll
spend an equal to or greater amount of money to start over again which in fact going out for and
RFP/RFQ, hiring a firm will add months if not years to the process. It will cost hundreds of
thousands if not a couple million dollars to move us to where we are today. So I am going to say
that no deal is perfect. For over four years now I have tried to explain project management
structure. If you look at the school board bond over site committee and the project management
firm that is a perfect model that we have not followed. But we are not there today. Where we’re
at today is to move forward with the Judicial Center. And do we have a motion on this? Okay,
well, I intend to support moving forward. Did you ever think you’d hear that?
Mayor Pro Tem: No.
Mr. Kuhlke: I’m glad to hear that, Andy.
Mr. Cheek: And I think that it has been said time to move forward with this. No
arrangement is going to be perfect. This is something in a day and a time to where we’ve got as
good a deal as we can get. I think it’s worked out pretty good and we can move forward at this
point.
Madam Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you. Mr. Smith had his hand up first.
15
Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: I just wanted to say that Mr. Kuhlke and his committee has spent five years
working on this. The integrity of his committee is above and beyond and I’m sure they’re tired
of coming before us and having so many changes. And did you say there was a motion and a
second on it?
Mayor Pro Tem: Yes.
Mr. Smith: I’d like to call for the question.
Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Madam Pro Tem. To clarify something, Bill, you’re not the
only one been working on this for five years now. A lot of us been working on this even past
District 1 to mention Ms. Beard and then transferred to myself. But I’m a little bit concerned.
Mr. Russell mentioned about Heery being hired and they were hired. They were hired to help
with our sales tax projects, not for one project but for all our projects. In fact they were hired for
sales tax that didn’t get passed and we kept them on and we’re still been paying them. But now
we’re going to get you know concerned about a project or what project. I’m just a little bit leery
because this is the same firm. This is the same group who started out with us who probably
could’ve been to this point when Commissioner Cheek was talking about the price and bringing
the price down. But now we’re talking about an additional $4 million dollars for the architect
firm costs. So this total of this project is not to exceed $62 million but the $4 million you’re
talking about now, my question is, is that included in the $62 million.
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: That’s included in the $62 million.
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: I’ve still got a serious issue, I can’t support it but ain’t no sense in
prolonging it. I just think we ought to be mindful of hiring a group. I don’t see anybody from
Heery here that can speak to this but I think we ought to be mindful of what we say we’re going
to do and do. We hired a firm to help with all our sales tax projects not just one or two of them
and if their contract was extended, Mr. Russell, then I guess it was extended because we felt the
need. But nevertheless they were hired to look at all our projects and to make sure that they
come back and report to this commission. Now the committee’s been reporting to the
commission. The committee’s always brought some information back. The folks that we’re
paying Heery had not come back to this commission and said one thing to me as a commissioner
on this board. I heard from the chairman who’s my good friend but I’m a little bit disappointed
when we hire, we pay a firm to do some things. They’ve been in on the meetings, they hadn’t
said yeah or nay, up or down what’s good or bad. So ---
16
Mr. Kuhlke: If I could say something, Madam Mayor Pro Tem. You know when I come
back to y’all, y’all appointed me and obviously you can take me off any time you want to. But
I’m working for you. I’m not in here as an adversary. So I come back to you and the only thing
we’re working on is the Judicial Center. We have nothing to do with any other capital projects
in the county.
Mr. Grantham: Call the question.
Madam Pro Tem: I believe we have a motion and a second on the floor. May we vote at
this time?
Mr. Williams, Dr. Hatney, Mr. Harper and Mr. Holland vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you, ma’am.
Mr. Hatney: Madam, can I ask him a question before he leaves? What does CMI mean?
I wasn’t here that day. What does that mean? I think you mentioned something about CMI.
What does that mean?
Mr. Kuhlke: You mean CM at Risk?
Mr. Holland: I think that’s what it was. What does that mean?
Mr. Kuhlke: That is a firm that you hire. You receive proposals from a number of firms
and then you evaluate those proposals and then you call those firms in for interviews. At that
point those firms present you with a proposal to do the CM Construction Management at Risk.
The risk comes in that once you bring a CM on board he works very closely with the architect in
developing the plans, doing value-engineering looking at different materials that you can use in
the building and so forth. Developing the schedule for construction. And at a certain percentage
of completion of the plans he will then give us a guaranteed maximum price to build that facility.
So that’s what that is and that will be the next thing we bring back to the commission to either
approve or disapprove.
Mr. Hatney: And after that junction then you bid for construction?
Mr. Kuhlke: You do. But to give you sort of a time frame we won’t get the, we won’t
get the guaranteed maximum price until the plans are about 60-70% complete which will be
about next September. But that’s what that is.
Mr. Hatney: Okay.
Mr. Kuhlke: And we have already received for your information, we’ve already received
their RFQ’s and we have scheduled for next Thursday interviews which will be all day long.
Following that sometime in December probably the last meeting in December we will probably
come back with a recommendation to you.
17
Mr. Williams: Madam Mayor Pro Tem, point of personal privilege, please.
Madam Pro Tem: Go right ahead Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Dr. Hatney, I want to try and help out a little bit with this CM that Bill
spoke on and I need to ask a question though. Once we chose that firm ---
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: --- then we as an elected board or this government would have nothing to
do with the bid process ---
Mr. Kuhlke: Well ---
Mr. Williams: --- because this firm whoever we pick will be in charge and will build the
facility because they were selected. We would not be able to have any say so except for the
price. Once we agree to that price. Is that right?
Mr. Kuhlke: They have to stay within our budget.
Mr. Williams: I understand that.
Mr. Kuhlke: And they take bids on everything that goes into that building.
Mr. Williams: I understand that too but I said we as an elected group, Purchasing nobody
else will have any say on any once we select that firm then we will be waiting on the building to
be presented to us along as they’re within the guidelines of the budget.
Mr. Kuhlke: The first thing they’ll come back to us with is a guaranteed maximum.
Now that, they’ve got to stay within the budget hopefully below what our budget is. That’s, at
that point is when Heery gets involved in it. But they will be basically you know ---
Mr. Williams: Bill, you’re missing me you know we do that all the time but try and catch
me today I ain’t got but a little bit of time left. But listen. I’m talking about as far as building,
using $63 million of sales tax money to build this facility. Once we select that CMS that they
will build the firm, they will build the building within the guidelines of the budget you know
going out for bids, we will have no as an elected group, we will have no say as to whether they
bid it locally or not locally or any, any, we will be out of that loop. Is that right?
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, no, I don’t think we’ll be out of that loop.
Mr. Williams: How do we demand that they hire a guy from the City of Augusta?
Mr. Kuhlke: Well.
18
Mr. Williams: How can we help that with the sales tax?
Mr. Kuhlke: Let me ask you a question, Marion.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Kuhlke: The Purchasing Department is involved in this process. And one of the
things the Purchasing Department puts out is preference to local suppliers and subcontractors.
Even to the point where we will pay 5% more to a local person that we will to somebody out of
town. So the Purchasing Department is in the loop already on this.
Mr. Williams: Okay, they’re in the loop but how do we have any guarantee? Can we say
that because Purchasing is in that, that firm and the way I understand it now, I’m just trying to
get some clarification. Dr Hatney asked the question.
Mr. Kuhlke: I don’t know that I can answer your question.
Mayor Pro Tem: And, Mr. Williams, we are going to have to move forward but before
you leave, Mr. Kuhlke ---
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes ma’am.
Mayor Pro Tem: --- Fred and I have been in all of these meetings and we know what you
have been doing and the job that you know that you’ve been doing. And we are excited to be
moving forward on this project and I just want to thank you ---
Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you very much.
Mayor Pro Tem: --- personally for what you’re doing.
Mr. Hatney: Madam Chair, if you don’t mind, please.
Mayor Pro Tem: And this will be the last one in reference to this.
Mr. Hatney: All day long I hadn’t said nothing else. Question.
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney: I’m still trembling because, are you saying to me that you’re going to select
a company that actually can do something with the architects that Heery can not do?
Mr. Kuhlke: It’s a different function all together. I think Heery’s job at a certain point
will be where there’s a lot of steps you have to go through on this. There are shop drawings,
there are invoices, there a submittals that you have to make. That’s back and forth to the city and
I think that’s where Heery will get involved in the project management part of it, working for the
city. But the CM is actually, would actually become the contractor on the job.
19
Mr. Hatney: That’s the question I was asking.
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir. He would be the contactor.
Mr. Hatney: You would already bypass the construction part because the contract would
already be there.
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, no, we’re not going to make that decision. When we bring it back to
you, when we bring a recommendation back to you it’s up to y’all if you want to go that route.
Mr. Hatney: I appreciate it, I’ve held you up too long. I’m just nervous about the whole
process. Thank you.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Madame Pro Tem: Madam Clerk, may we move forward.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
8. Discussion: A request by the Richmond County Sheriffs Department for a hearing to
consider the possible probation, suspension or revocation of the Alcohol Beverage License
held by Marion Rosier for Club Drams located at 3023 Washington Rd. for multiple
violation of the noise ordinance and disorderly and unsafe parking area. District 7. Super
District 10. (Requested by Commissioner Don Grantham)
Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, who would like to begin?
Mr. Grantham: Madam, that came under Public Services and we had discussed this
previously and asked the Club Dreams owner to come back along with our Director of License
and Inspections to review what had taken place and the various citations that had been issued and
what we could do to help resolve the problem, not only for the business but for the community as
well and I think Mr. Sherman as well as the business has a presentation they’d like to make to us.
Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman: Mayor Pro Tem and Commissioners. (INAUDIBLE) License and
Inspection and Sheriff’s Department (INAUDIBLE) on these conversations our recommendation
(INAUDIBLE) placed on probation.
Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, do you have a response?
Mr. Speaker: Madam Mayor. I agree with what was just stated by Mr. Sherman. We did
meet and discuss the matter. We think that there is a mutual way that this situation can be
remedied to everyone’s satisfaction. Whereas we think that the situation can be remedied
20
without the necessity of probation however as a matter of compromise and as a matter of getting
this situation resolved we will not oppose the probation but we think it can be accomplished
without it.
Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you.
Mr. Grantham: Madam Pro Tem?
Mayor Pro Tem: Yes.
Mr. Grantham:
Under the circumstances of their discussion and the willingness by the
motion that we adhere to the probation time to
people involved in company I’d like to make a
st
be December 31 and review given after that time frame and I put that in the form of a
motion.
Mr. Brigham: Second.
Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Holland.
Mr. Holland: Thank you, Madam Chairman. When I hear the word probation it means
that you have to be careful about what you’re doing while you’re on probation. So my concern
here is that between now and the time that this probation is over will there be any kind of
retaliation. Will there be any kind of harassment in reference to this club being placed on
probation? The club has been there for some time. The community came in after the club. So
my concern even though they would want to compromise and be placed on probation being
placed on probation means that you have to be very, very careful about what you do when you
do it and how you do it. So I don’t want them to be in a position whereby if something else
happens again that their entire license would be revoked. So I think that this is something that
needs to be taken under consideration and that’s my concern in reference to probation. I’ve been
on probation. My wife had me on probation for about two years. I couldn’t play golf. That’s
my concern about probation. I just want them to understand. And I’m hoping that there would
st
not be any kind of retaliation in reference to their probation between now and the 31 where
something would come up and they would lose their license entirely.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: May I?
Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Miss Pro Tem, but I’m like Commissioner Holland. I want to
know what’s actually going to be put in place. I think if there’s going to be an officer placed
there because if there’s nobody but the club and the community, if I lived in this community I
would call the next day. And then you say, well, you don’t follow your probation. There ought
to be somebody there, whether it be an officer or somebody placed inside to make sure, Rob, that
you know it’s been treated fair. Now I mean you got a business and you got a community and I
21
don’t know how in the world you’re going to be able to do that unless you’ve got some
mechanism in place that will respond and who’s ever there can say yeah, or somebody ought to
be outside, something’s got to be in place just to stay on probation. So that don’t say nothing
when you say probation.
Mr. Sherman: I think after talking with the attorney’s I think the basic problem is the
volume of the sound. And I think that they’re going to work hard to keep the volume down so
that it will not be heard outside of the building and disturb any neighbors and that the parking lot
will be monitored so that there are no problems. And I think based on our conversations they’ll
be able to make certain that that happens.
Mr. Williams: Okay, they’re willing to do that with nobody in place, door open and you
hear the noise.
Mr. Speaker: I don’t know whether there has in the course of our conversations there’s
been any particular specificity with regards to ask that might constitute a violation of probation.
I don’t know whether we’ve gotten exactly that specific in that part but I will say this. That in
addressing this question about probation the owners have informed me that I can tell you that in,
due to some structural changes that are occurring there at the place of American’s Best Value Inn
that they are planning to move by the end of the year. And that should negate the necessity for
probation.
Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Madam Chair, as I see it since I am the commissioner that represents that
district that is not a reason to remove the probation. That is the only reason that I agreed to it
only being through the end of the year. Seeing that this commission never puts anybody on a 30-
60 day probation it’s always been a six-month probation. That is our policy, gentlemen. Why
are we, we’re making a special exception only because we are of the knowledge that they were
intending on moving prior to the end of the year.
Mr. Speaker: And we appreciate that.
Mr. Brigham: And we’re trying to work with the club but also want to work with the
community and I don’t expect anybody to have to not sleep at night because of loud noise from
any kind of club. Mr. Williams don’t want it in his district I don’t want it in mine. It’s that
simple.
Mr. Williams: --- I’ve got some stuff ---
Mr. Brigham: I’ll give you some more, I’ve got some other stuff I can give you too
Marion.
Mr. Grantham: I think clarification needs to be made from the standpoint of probation.
And you just made a good point. You are being placed on probation for sound and noise only.
There is no other probation issues involved that has been brought before this commission. So
22
when someone was worried about whether they’re going to be harassed or whatever to me it’s
the sound that is of concern. That’s what you are addressing, that’s what you’re saying so
probation would just be based on any addition of sound or loud noises over the next 45-day
period of time. And to me if you get violation of serving minors that is not under probation.
You’ve got to come back before us at that time. You are strictly under probation for sound and
noise only. And that’s what we are taking at issue today.
Mr. Speaker: I understand.
Mr. Grantham: That’s the way I understand it to be.
Mayor Pro Tem: I believe we have a motion and second. If there are no other questions
may we vote?
Mr. Harper votes No.
Mr. Williams, Dr. Hatney and Mr. Holland abstain.
Motion carries 6-1-3.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
10. Discuss direction concerning Bethlehem Community and Housing Neighborhood.
(Requested by Commissioner Williams)
Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Ms. Beard, this is the same issue we brought forth before. Met with
Pastor Hill met with Pastor Durton I believe it is, Liberty Baptist Church hadn’t been able to
reach the pastor over to the House of Prayer. But we have set up some boundary lines to do
some things to get a process started. This is not anything to do with any funds. We had had a
group together to start to do some planning attract to rid the neighborhood of some of the
abandoned and dilapidated property that’s falling down. There’s termite infested that’s don’t
have a brick on it just maybe one or two, that’s in a really bad disarray. That direction was
changed and I see Mr. Wheeler there and I’d like to know from him I guess what can I tell these
pastors about that area that we was concerned with and that is Wrightsboro Road over to, I’m
sorry I think it was Wrightsboro Road to Augusta Avenue. Rob Sherman I know you’re here to
help me out. What are those boundary lines? We had an area we started to address, had some
volunteers to come forward to help us get a process started and I’d like to know where we are
with that.
Mr. Wheeler: Mayor Pro Tem, (INAUDIBLE) Commissioner Williams and other
members. I was able to, well first of all let me back up. I provided a written response to Mr.
Russell addressing both the map as well as highlighting for him a process that would engage
stakeholders in assessing and helping to determine the vision that we will use to move forward.
The map that I secured from Norman Michaels was a much smaller area and I think Mr. Russell
is going to provide you with that at this particular time. If you will look at the map,
23
Commissioner Williams, the heavily shaded or darkened bordered area is the area that was taken
from a map provided to me by Norman Michaels. That are is probably about 10% of the whole
100% area that I crafted out myself. So with the exception of about four blocks I included all of
the area that I say the committee, the working committee that y’all established I included all but
four blocks of that area in my area. I also highlighted if you’ll look on that process
establishment of a local steering committee which would include local leaders, residents,
property owners, business leaders, government officials as such. This local steering committee
will be a part of working with the consultant to make sure we craft out an area and highlight
where we will start.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Wheeler and I appreciate your craftiness in what you craft out. But
let me go back for a minute. Mr. Cheek is here and I think he would remember when we went
out and did a project Lyman Dover we moved some, not no monies but we moved an area that
we carved out to get the leg work, just get the leg work done. And when this was changed by
your office and added some additional homes, additional streets in there I’ve got no problem
with the additional stuff but the process that we had already got started I think we found out
about it through conversations. And those people that already took their time to try to get
something started wasn’t even notified. And I think that’s my disappointment when, when we
didn’t have the neighborhood to be an advocate of trying to help itself. Other people came in.
We met, Rob Sherman, Mr. Norman Michaels several pastors, met over there, sat down and went
over some things. When this was changed it looked like somebody would’ve had the insight to
say hey, well let’s include these people let them know what we’re doing and where we are. This
is a terrible situation. This is not brick apartments, these are wood structures that are falling
down and all of the planning and all of the studies we’re doing it’s not going to do anything until
we get the viable people that’s in there that’s concerned enough to keep this project rolling, to
keep this project moving forward.
Mr. Wheeler: Commissioner Williams, as I fore-stated that all of the people that you
have spoken or referenced when we get to the point of having committee meetings, committee
stakeholder discussions they well be invited and be a part of this process.
Mr. Williams: Well, my last statement, I just what we have voted on here don’t mean
jack because Mr. Wheeler’s got a plan that’s going to resolve this issue. But we went out and
did an area and wanted to do another area at the same time. We said we’ll use the same model
the same process. We didn’t do that for the other area but we’re going to take this area and
accomplish everything and make a big sweep. We’ll never took a big sweep, it’s like the Sheriff
taking a bite out of crime, one bite at a time I think he’ll never be able to eat the whole thing at
one time. But what we had done, Mr. Wheeler, was to get something started and that was
changed, that was, a new direction was given. Neither me nor or any other commissioner knew
about it until we got to a conversation when that came up. I asked the question who changed
that. And the people at the meeting with didn’t know anything about it. So I think
Commissioner Mays had that old saying, you can plan with folks, you can’t plan for folks. Right
now you’re trying to plan for some folks and I don’t think you can do that. And I think what we
had voted on, Commissioner Cheek got his hand up, but what we voted on should’ve been done
and not been changed by somebody else.
24
Mayor Pro Tem. Reverend Hatney, did you have your hand up?
Mr. Hatney: Go ahead. I think he had his hand up first.
Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: I don’t want to belabor this point but the plan was established with the
model, the Lyman/Dover plan (INAUDIBLE). There we go. Is that better?
Mr. Hatney: That’s better.
Mr. Cheek: A little better there. Had as its initial scope, the same square footage,
mileage, roads that it has now was stated at this commission in error that that scope had changed.
After hearing and seeing us go through several directors through the years I have been appalled
at the inaccuracies coming from this side of the lectern. I’ve been very impressed with our
current director. His one acceptance of what we had done to things that he and staff have added
to the Lyman Dover plan. The reason that we haven’t been able to complete the Lyman Dover
initiative and move forward are actions taken by this side of the lectern not that side. That plan
included involvement by everybody, surveys door to door. It included meetings on a monthly
basis within the community in partnership between ATD, Rocky Creek, the Hallelujah
Community and all the other players including the tenants, landlords and those at that time who
had their property in tax foreclosure. The same model will be followed here I am sure it will be
successful if this side of the lectern will be accurate in its presentance to the public. Either that
or read the factual information before they come to making commentary here and be supportive
of funding and staff as it moves forward on economic redevelopment which is essential to the
long term health of this city. I support you and I know that you guys will do this. I know you’ll
finish Lyman Dover if we will be able to transfer the monies that are there and do other things to
help you do your job.
Mayor Pro Tem: Reverend Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: One question. When you appoint or select or elect this committee is there a
possibility of those two ministers who are definitely involved be a part of the committee rather
than being invited. They’ve got more to lose in that area than all the rest of the public ---
Mr. Wheeler: Reverend Hatney, I don’t ---
Mr. Hatney: --- have the spectators to the meeting. Would there be anything wrong with
them being a part of the committee?
Mr. Wheeler: All I can, the only way I know to respond to that, sir, is to say that I am not
at this point the person who will identify who that committee is that will work with the
consultant. But I’m sure that your request as you have made today will be on record and passed
on to the individual or individuals who will make that recommendation.
25
Mr. Hatney: I appreciate that because I do believe that they are the two largest
stakeholders in that community.
Mr. Wheeler: Yes, sir.
Mayor Pro Tem: I wanted to say something to Andy Cheek. You know when I arrived
here and became a part of this group I felt a real need for something to be done in the inner city.
And at almost every meeting I talked about it and got absolutely nowhere. Bob you remember
that don’t you. Then all of a sudden Andy came up with a proposal to rebuild, not tear down to
rebuild and he wanted to do it in the Dover Street area. Well, Dover Street was not my area but
it didn’t matter because I know we have blight all over. So what did I say, Andy?
Mr. Cheek: You were with the program.
Mayor Pro Tem: I said I’m going to support you and I said I want to be second. Is that
correct?
Mr. Cheek: That’s correct.
Mayor Pro Tem: And you said I will work with you to see that it is going to be done.
Now I’m not going to go into detail right now but it’s amazing how far we have come. And give
us a few years and you are not going to believe Augusta is the same city. That’s my prediction.
And Andy I want you to know I’ve enjoyed working with you and I’m really going to miss you
when you leave.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to miss you, ma’am.
Mr. Grantham: Don’t all get ---
Mayor Pro Tem: No, no I’m mean because I really want to him know that and you have
turned this city around when it comes to revitalization and we’re very, very excited about it.
Mr. Cheek: All praise to God.
Mayor Pro Tem: Now may we have a motion to accept this as information.
Mr. Brigham: So moved.
Mr. Bowles: Second.
Mayor Pro Tem: Okay and may we vote?
Mr. Hatney: What are we voting for?
Mr. Grantham: To accept this as information.
26
Mayor Pro Tem: To accept it as information.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
17. Motion to approve and accept an Encroachment Agreement with Atlanta Gas Light.
Mr. Hatney: Move for acceptance.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mayor Pro Tem: May we vote?
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
18. Approve award for changes in estimated cost in the amount of $296,522.00 to Georgia
Department of Transportation in order to incorporate changes in material costs between
estimate and award of final bid.
Mr. Hatney: Question, please.
Mayor Pro Tem: Yes.
Mr. Hatney:So moved.
Is there anything we can do about this except to approve it?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Grantham: Amen.
Mayor Pro Tem: Questions?
Mr. Brigham: Call for the question.
Mr. Hicks: I was just going to make the comment ---
Mr. Hatney: You don’t have to do that.
Mayor Pro Tem: Max, go right ahead.
Mr. Hicks: I was just going to say this was a bid awarded by the DOT. So this was just
something we had to do. You’re right, Commissioner Hatney.
27
Mayor: Okay, may we vote?
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
19. Approve award of construction in the amount of $322,381.36 to Blair Construction
Company for the Fairington 12” water main project. Bid item #07-168.
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mayor Pro Tem: May we vote?
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
20. Approve the award of the contract for Elevator Maintenance at the Municipal Building
(Hydraulic Elevators only), LEC and Charles B. Webster Detention Center to the only
responsive bidder, Premier Elevator. The contract is for FY 2008 with two additional one-
year renewal options. The contract amounts are $1,895 for FY 2008, $2,008 for FY 2009,
and $2,120 for FY 2010.
Mr. Hatney: Move for approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second with a question.
Mayor Pro Tem: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: I have to ask this question or I would be quiet. We’ve been waiting for two
years to see something done on these elevators out here. I have seen the lights go completely off
thst
and the elevator stop between the 8 floor and the 1 floor. When in the name of somebody
special are we going to see the contracts to replace and repair these?
Mr. Speaker: The contracts are in place. We’ve been doing the shop drawings on those.
We should see materials delivered in December and work starts in January.
Mr. Cheek: It’s been quiet, I stand corrected. Thank you very much. I feel better now.
Mayor Pro Tem: Can we vote?
28
Mr. Russell: If we can when we cut the ribbon on the elevator, would you like to come
back?
Mr. Cheek: Sure. It’ll be the first time I’ve ridden them in four years and not be in fear
of my life.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
22. Approve an option for Right-of-Way between Mildred K. Timmerman as owner, and
Augusta, Georgia, for the following property: PIN: 013-005-00-0 (1076 Alexander Drive)
Mr. Grantham: So moved.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mayor Pro Tem: May we vote?
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
23. Authorize the Augusta Utilities Department to notify submitting firms of selection
results of RFQ #07-157 and proceed with negotiations for Mechanical Equipment
Integrator at the Goodrich St. Raw Water Pumping Station Project.
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve
with a question or comment.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Madam Mayor Pro Tem, as a housekeeping item somewhat germane to this
but all the land construction at the Raw Water Treatment Plant, or pumping station excuse me.
The bridge that carries the heavy equipment on Goodrich Street is one of the worst in the county
and one of the worst in the state that goes across the Long Gate Spillway. You lady and
gentlemen at some point in the next few years it would be appropriate under sales tax utility
dollars to replace or repair that bridge or we will lose access for heavy equipment to the pumping
station. And we’re planning on putting in the new diesel and other pumping capabilities and a
major extension of that plant in the next couple of years. That needs to be addressed.
Mayor Pro Tem: And now may we vote.
29
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS
th
26. Discuss the rescheduling of the December 4 regular Commission meeting.
Mr. Grantham: Madam Clerk, I guess these have always been one of my requests and
th
based on the election it will be held on December the 4 with a runoff with the two districts. I
think that we need to recognize that fact and move our meeting and it would be my
th
understanding it will be December the 6. It would be that Thursday. I know you’re saying the
ththth
5 but we have a conflict on the 5 with some people. December the 6 would be that Thursday
---
Mayor Pro Tem: Can I have that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Grantham: That’s in the form of a motion.
Mr. Bowles: Second.
th
Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, may we vote and that’s the 6?
th
Mr. Grantham: The 6, yes, ma’am.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mayor Pro Tem: Todd, do we need a Legal Meeting?
Mr. Boudreaux: Yes, we do have some items for legal session that were not addressed at
the last meeting. I do not anticipate that would take us more than thirty minutes.
Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, then we will finish first.
Mr. Hatney: Can’t it wait until Monday?
Mr. Boudreaux: We have some attorneys we needed to address last week that weren’t
able to. It can wait until Monday but we’d like to get them out of the way. One is a matter of
pending litigation that does need to be addressed but we can keep it brief.
Mr. Grantham: Keep it brief?
Mr. Boudreaux: Yes, sir.
Mr. Grantham: Motion to go into legal.
Mayor Pro Tem: No, we need to ---
30
Mr. Hatney: Recess.
Mr. Grantham: Recess.
Mayor Pro Tem: --- twenty-five first, the budget.
Mr. Grantham: I thought we were going to do that after we got done.
Mayor Pro Tem: No.
Mr. Grantham: Okay.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR
25. Motion to approve the adoption of the proposed 2008 Augusta-Richmond County
Budget.
Mr. Russell: Madam Chairman, Madam Mayor Pro Tem, on the additions to the agenda
it might be appropriate to call one which was added to the agenda but was not actually dealt with
prior to the budget.
Mayor Pro Tem: Which one was ---
Mr. Russell: On the additions to the agenda Item 1 was added to the agenda but was not -
--
Mr. Grantham: Yes it was, Madam Clerk.
Mr. Hatney: It was added and approved?
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Grantham: I was approved, Madam Clerk, if you don’t mind ---
Mayor Pro Tem: Go right ahead.
Mr. Bowles: It was added, it wasn’t approved.
Mr. Grantham: Yes, it was. It was approved they were both in the same motion and we
discussed it because the question was raised of Mr. Hicks was just going to hire the one assistant
director and bring back the following eleven to us and the answer was yes and we approved that
motion under both items in the same motion and they were both carried.
Mr. Bowles: I stand corrected.
31
Mr. Hatney: Bless your heart.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you. Y’all hadn’t been paying attention down there, fellas.
Mr. Russell: Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, you have in front of you a
th
document entitled Augusta Georgia FY 2008 Proposed Budget All Funds November 20 2007.
th
If you remember on October 16 I presented a balance budget that required a millage increase
and covered several additional areas that I thought were important. Those areas included
funding for the transfer to cover the deficit in transit. In addition to that we paid the additional
money for the Disparity Study, absorbed the increase in health care insurance as you directed
previously. In addition to that we required to fund a new state court Judge position. There was
also money available for the James Brown exhibit, the discovery of unlisted businesses for the
Tax Assessor, Drug Court, Public Defender for Juvenile Court, the balance Jury Box Program,
the Ezekiel Harris House increase, and 12000 CSRA Land Trust increase and demolition money
for $125,000 as you directed. In the past we need to continue to move forward with dollars to
help blighted areas and that was included in the funding recommendation for $125,000. This
increased the millage rate as projected to .863. After several weeks of discussion and several and
numerous conversations not only with you but our Sheriff and various other sorts of people you
find in front of you another proposed budget. It also includes the budget by funds. You will see
that listed on the first two pages. The third page indicates additional changes that I am
recommending to the budget. What I’ve recommended includes those items that were
th
recommended on October 16. In addition to that I’ve recommended an increase of funding for
the Sheriff’s office of 1.527,200.00. That increase would provide a $200,000 increase for his
sworn personnel. There are no other funds in there for other employees in his office or other
employees in our city. This includes only his sworn personnel based on their inability to retain
and recruit officers. It covers approximately half the amount that the Sheriff had asked for. His
initial request for $4,000 per individual would give us a grand total of little bit over $3 million
dollars that was requested. I am not recommending that I’m recommending halving that to a
$2,000 increase. Along with that you’ll notice those same items that were covered. What we
have done though and what I would recommend to you as part of our revenue package is to
transfer a million dollars from our --- services area to the General Fund to help with that
increase. In addition to that we have not over the past several years increased the payment in
lieu of franchise fee for water and sewer. That’s a franchise fee that’s actually been developed
and used on a regular basis. It’s similar to what we require for the Power Company, the Gas
Company and those kinds of people that have I guess a monopoly on services is what that would
work for basically. That franchise fee is legal and authorized by law. The franchise fee for the
Water Department based on their growth has actually decreased over the last several years to
about .27 or .28. What I’m recommending that we do is raise that to .3% which is what we
charge both the Power Company and everybody else that we charge a franchise fee to and that
would give us an additional half million dollars or $500,000 for the General Fund. If you’ll
notice prior to that you have a grand total of $5,388,358, which would be the amount of dollars,
we are out of sync at that particular point in time. If you add the increase revenue of 1.5 million
dollars you become out of sync by $3,883,358. That is the money we have to make up. It’s my
recommendation that we increase the millage to 971 to fund all programs, .971 not 971. George
is getting excited about a good story here. We increase it .971 which would allow us to fund the
32
increase for the Sheriff to capture all those other items that you told me to capture. In addition to
that take advantage of the $1.5 million dollars in increased revenue. The Fire Fund is also there
on the next page to increase their, to absorb their increased health care costs, it costs $167,000
for operational shortage of $435,000 so what we’re doing is increasing that slightly. And that is
targeted towards a capital improvements plan for the Fire Department. As you know we’ve
never done that. We’ve always used the SPLOST dollars to try to replace our fire equipment.
That’s got us in the hole on several occasions. I think it’s prudent to go ahead and budget that
and have a planned operation where we would replace that equipment. And that funding would
be required there. That’s pretty much the only changes that you’ll find in that. It does increase
the millage slightly over what I had initially proposed but that increase allows you to fund the
increase for Sheriff’s deputies as you have on more than one occasion told me it was important
to you. That .971 is approximately $33.99 on a $100,000 house or approximately $36.00 on a
$200,000 house. Once again less than a cost of a haircut at a fancy hair salon as Commissioner
Smith might recommend. If you have any questions I’ll be more than happy to respond.
Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: I’m going to yield to Commissioner Bowles and then I have a question.
Mr. Bowles: Thank you. Mr. Russell, I just want to confirm that the increases to the
Sheriff’s Department is for sworn officers only and not for administrative positions.
Mr. Russell: The increases that I budgeted for the Sheriff’s Department are for those
people that are certified law enforcement officers. This would include field deputies and those
people in the jail. But they are sworn and have the capability of carrying a gun and make arrests.
Mr. Grantham: To follow up on that question about the Sheriff’s Department. With this
recommended increase in the mill rate and I have been asking that this, any increase we have in
the millage rate that would be going to the Sheriff’s Department that that amount of monies and
that millage increase be designated to the law enforcement officer and that that should so read in
this budget as a footnote so that no changes can be made in the future as to that millage increase
as to where it should go in the future.
Mr. Russell: We could include verbiage to that affect if that’s want you want ---
Mr. Grantham: That’s what I want.
Mr. Russell: --- that’s designated. That is the amount above and beyond the 8. ---
Mr. Grantham: I understand. I’m not through yet. That with this being said I feel like
that you know this is good information. I think you’ve done an excellent job, you and Ms.
Williams, but I do think that we need a little additional time to work on this and be able to come
back to you with our final.
Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek.
33
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Tem. Just to recap for clarities sake. So
what we’ve done here with this proposal is we are taking care of the deputies that are in the street
and that millage increase will cover the sworn officers.
Mr. Russell: Six-Hundred and sixty-four sworn officers in the Sheriff’s office.
Mr. Cheek: So this will help us keep the trained personnel and attract and hold on to
them and attract others to our area and pay, provide a pay increase for those who are in harms
way the most, that have to carry a gun and face bullet fire.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. And I would hope that it would help solve the first two issues.
Obviously I can’t promise that but it’s a step in the right direction.
Mr. Cheek: And just for the record. My discussions with the Sheriff that every officer
we lose costs us about $25,000 to train and certify so we lose that over and above the position
and the skill set.
Mr. Russell: That’s probably a conservative number.
Mr. Cheek: I know that we can amend the budget and we can change, or I should say
that you the commission can change that at some point in the future if this doesn’t jive. But from
what I’m hearing from the public is to a person any tax increase is painful but they are quite
willing to cover those costs if in fact we are doing what we are being told we’re doing here. And
there may be some additional changes to be made but that can be made in an amendment to the
budget and I would just put before the commission the possibility of passing this today and
amending it later if necessary.
Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: Thank you. Fred, that’s the road deputies and the jail deputies.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Smith: Does that include the ones at RCCI?
Mr. Russell: No, sir, it does not. It only includes members of the Sheriff’s office.
Mr. Smith: Well, there are Sheriff’s officers out there. I don’t know if they carry a gun
or not but they are officers.
Mr. Russell: The only people that this includes are the 664 sworn people that work for
the Sheriff.
Mayor Pro Tem: Reverend Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Two questions. I’m sorry, go ahead.
34
Mr. Holland: Certified, you said certified?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney: My first question, I’ve asked this before is how did we happen to do a
merger and leave off RCCI sitting out there by itself when it was actually was Richmond County
Correctional Institution to start with. And when you merge it should’ve been merged with the
rest of it. I’ve cost some real concerns about it sitting out there by itself and you so eloquently
said that we’re not talking about RCCI you’re talking about, that’s strange because that’s a part
of the policing activity. I don’t understand why they weren’t merged together.
Mr. Russell: That obviously happened a long time before I was there. And as we begin
our conversation in January about our government and how it operates I think that’s a good
question that we need to look at and there are several others there that I’d like to bring forth. I do
not know the answer to that question why it was not considered at that time.
Mr. Hatney: The other question is that I noticed I don’t have any problems working with
giving the Sheriff’s deputies an increase because I think it’s critical that those persons in
positions of such are paid adequately, particularly when they risk their lives at risk daily. But I
also believe the firemen need to be considered somewhere along the line because they are just as
critical in their activity as the policemen are. So somewhere along the line, Fred, you got I see
you $167,000 a year for increase in health insurance but I don’t see where there’s anything to
talk about paying them an increase in the amount of money so we can maintain them also
because we lose a lot of firemen because they’re not getting paid.
Mr. Russell: Right and I don’t disagree with that either. To do the same thing that
$200,000 increase for all the firefighters that are sworn certified and in harms way would be the
best way I guess to put that would cost us an additional $708,400 in the Fire Fund which would
rd
involve an increase in the fire millage and I do not know what that number would be, about a 3
of the mill in the Fire Fund. If you’d like to look at those numbers and what that would do to our
overall tax I’m not opposed to providing those to you either.
Mr. Hatney: I would need that information because ---
Mr. Russell: Okay.
Mr. Hatney: --- I think both of these, all of our public safety workers particularly police
and fire persons they need to be taken care of better. That would be my concern and I would
love to see that because I don’t care how you look at it it’s going to create some problems if we
don’t at least take a look at that.
Mr. Russell: I would be more than happy to provide that information in the appropriate
millage increase. And y’all recognize the fact the Fire Fund is a separate fund as opposed to the
General Fund. So there is a separate tax millage there that creates a separate bank. And we are
looking fairly decently with our insurance fund that comes back from that but you know we want
35
to be careful but I’d be more than happy to provide that information to you. In addition let me
say that the budget is a living document as Commissioner Cheek so eloquently put. We do not
adopt the millage today or whatever day we adopt that. That millage actually adopted in August
as we look at the digest and how the growth is at that particular point in time. So for those of
you that think we’re raising taxes three or four times I’m suggesting we’re actually not. That
millage will be adopted in August based on the growth of the digest or the, based on the growth
of the digest. What you would be approving in the next couple days would be a plan for
spending operation based on our best estimate of income.
Mr. Grantham: Madam Pro Tem?
Mayor Pro Tem: Yes.
Mr. Grantham: If you don’t mind. Just as long, I’m sorry, go right ahead, Reverend.
Mr. Hatney: My question still remains. I believe you mentioned that the Fire Fund is
separate from the regular or the general. Is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney: And that I think you suggested that to do the same thing for the firefighters
as you’re doing for the Sheriff’s deputies that are certified it would cost an additional, did I hear
seven hundred ---
Mr. Russell: $708,000.00.
Mr. Hatney: Okay.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney: Okay that’s uh, okay I just needed that. But I’d like to see that please to be
a part of our process.
Mr. Russell: I’ll provide that information to you. And that’s a .236 mill increase in the
fire fund.
Mr. Hatney: Meaning what. To get that information and bring it back to me.
Mr. Russell: Okay.
Mr. Hatney: Sit here all day I’ll think of something else to ---
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, we’ll get that back to you.
36
Mr. Hatney: It’s only fair now. If we’re going to designate money to be going directly to
the Sheriff out of this budget we need to do the same for the firemen. I don’t have a problem
with money being designated.
Mr. Russell: And that’s obviously a policy decision but we’d be more than happy to do
your will.
Mr. Smith: Fred?
Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: (INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Russell: If I can. The Fire Fund increase would be $8.26 on a $100,000 house.
Mr. Smith: Is the starting salary the same for the firemen as it is for the deputies?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, may we have a motion?
Mr. Grantham: I still want to emphasize, Madam Pro Tem, this millage increase. What
we had told the public what we had told the people, is a designation. Millage increase for our
law enforcement and or our public safety people that at least list that percentage that goes to
them and then the other percentage that you’re using within the General Fund would be
identified and presented to the people as well ---
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Grantham: --- so they know exactly what we’re talking about. I think that’s
extremely important.
Mr. Russell: We can do that.
Mayor Pro Tem: You know I don’t believe we’re ready to adopt this budget at this time.
So may I have a motion to accept this as information and maybe recess the meeting so that we
can work on it at a later date.
Mr. Russell: Madam Chairman.
Mayor Pro Tem: That’s after we, I mean I want this done but we still need to move to
Legal.
Mr. Russell: Right at that motion would be appropriate after Legal to adjourn this
th
meeting and pick a date which I would assume would be hour prior to the December 6 meeting
37
and move forward with that. And that would be appropriately done after Legal as long as we
maintain a quorum.
Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, then just maybe accept this as information. Do we have a
motion to do that?
Mr. Cheek: Just as a straw pole. I’m just going to, Madam Pro Tem if I may.
Mayor Pro Tem: Go right ahead.
Mr. Cheek: I don’t disagree with anything that you said and just as a straw pole to see
where we stand. I think I would just like to put it before the commission aa a motion to approve
with the opportunity to amend at a later date the proposed budget submitted by the Administrator
th
and then after, I mean somebody can put a motion to wait until the December 6 meeting. I’m
not unhappy with that either but just to see where we stand from a perspective of head count.
Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I’ll second it to put it on the floor. Okay, yes, Mr. Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: I can support this today if it includes the same thing that we talked about for
the firemen.
Mayor Pro Tem: Are we ready to vote? We’re going to vote on that motion.
Mr. Cheek: Call the question.
Mr. Hatney: That is if the Administrator has no problem with doing the same thing we
th
talked about for the firemen and have that in your final document on December 6.
Mr. Cheek: The maker of the motion does not agree to an amendment.
Mr. Hatney: For that?
Mr. Cheek: The maker of the motion does not agree to an amendment beyond the
motion. And the motion was to approve the budget as submitted with the opportunity to amend
it on another day.
Mayor: Okay. May we vote on the original motion?
Mr. Grantham: Read the motion back, please.
The Clerk: If I understood it, the motion was to amend the budget as submitted by the
Administrator with the possibility of an amendment at a later date.
Mr. Cheek: Yeah, that’s down the road if we find money for firefighters or anyone else
that we, you guys can amend it anytime.
38
Mr. Grantham: Did you include the designation of the millage?
Mr. Cheek: That was as submitted by the Administrator in his proposal which is then
presented to us in this document which is of length. And the intent was to just take the straw poll
on approving this today or not.
Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, may we have your votes please?
Mr. Hatney: Could I offer a substitute motion that we ---
Mayor Pro Tem: Well, we’re actually voting, aren’t we?
Mr. Hatney: We can always offer a substitute motion.
Mr. Cheek: Not during the process of voting.
Mr. Hatney: Because I’ve already stated I cannot support it without the inclusion for the
firefighters.
Mr. Cheek: We can ---
Mr. Hatney: And I would offer a substitute motion that we support the Administrators
th
presentation with them coming back on the 6 with the firefighters included.
Mr. Holland: I second that motion.
Mr. Cheek: Point of parliamentary procedure. I apologize for any confusion. We are in
the middle of a vote and according to Parliamentary procedure we should complete this vote and
then we can submit from the floor another motion for us to reconsider and or delay, pass or
change. But we’re in the midst of a vote. We can ask our Attorney but that is my understanding.
If we’re in the midst of a vote therefore a substitute motion is out of order.
Mayor Pro Tem: That is correct and I have actually voted no because I feel we simply
are not ready to move forward with the adoption of this budget.
Dr. Hatney, Mr. Harper, Ms. Beard and Mr. Holland vote No.
Mr. Williams out.
Motion fails 5-4.
Mr. Cheek: Motion to reconsider whatever item number that was.
Mayor Pro Tem: Did I hear a second in reference to that?
Mr. Brigham: No, ma’am.
Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Mr. Brigham.
39
ADDENDUM
29. Motion to go into a Legal Meeting.
LEGAL MEETING
A. Pending and Potential Litigation.
B. Real Estate.
C. Personnel.
Mr. Brigham: Madam Chair, I make a motion that we go intoegal session
l now to
discuss whatever we need to discuss and come back and then recess this meeting until the point
th
of December the 6 so that we can discuss the budget at that time. I make that in the form of a
motion.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mayor Pro Tem: Will you please vote?
Mr. Hatney, Mr. Grantham and Mr. Holland not voting.
Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 6-0.
Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, we’re in Legal.
[LEGAL MEETING]
34. Motion to approve execution by the mayor of the affidavit of compliance with
Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mayor Pro Tem: Motion to approve the execution.
Mr. Cheek: So moved.
Mr. Brigham: Second.
Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, let’s please vote.
Mr. Williams, Mr. Harper and Mr. Smith out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mayor Pro Tem: Okay and at this time we will recess ---
Mr. Boudreaux: Can I add these agenda items for added approval?
ADDENDUM
30. Motion to approve mediation as ordered by the Court in the case of Mack vs. Augusta.
40
Mr. Boudreaux: Motion to add and approve an agenda item to approve our handling of
the mediation case, Kevin Mack versus the City of Augusta.
Mr. Cheek: So moved.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Please vote.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Harper out.
Motion carries 8-0.
ADDENDUM
28. Motion to approve an engagement agreement with John C. Bell of Bell and Brigham,
P.C. and Stephen Shepard, P.C.
Mr. Boudreaux: I’d like a motion to add and approve the agenda item to execute the
engagement agreement with John Bell of Bell and Brigham for the environmental litigation on
behalf of the City of Augusta.
Mr. Cheek: So moved.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Harper out.
Motion carries 8-0.
ADDENDUM
33. Motion to authorize litigation to be filed by Burnside Wall LLP to take action to quite
title and recover damages in the matter of Samuel Hickson and Nulite Industries Company,
LLC.
Mr. Boudreaux: Motion to add and approve and agenda item to allow Mr. Wall to pursue
litigation in reference to the Hickson property.
Mr. Hatney: So moved.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Harper out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Boudreaux: And that is all the items we need to add and approve.
Mr. Hatney: Move we recess.
41
ADMINISTRATOR
25. Motion to approve the adoption of the proposed 2008 Augusta-Richmond County
Budget.
Mr. Brigham: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Item number 25 we need to reconsider.
Mr. Cheek: Motion to reconsider Item 25 and then we’ll adjourn uh, recess.
Mr. Bowles: So moved.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Grantham: What y’all do?
Mr. Cheek: Reconsider 25 and then we’ll go into recess.
Mr. Grantham: Okay.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Harper out.
Motion carries 8-0.
ADDENDUM
32. Motion to approve recessing the meeting.
th
Mr. Hatney: Motion to recess until 1:00 o’clock on the 6.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Harper out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mayor Pro Tem: Okay now to recess.
Mr. Brigham: We stand in recess.
Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
Mr. Hatney: We are recessed.
[MEETING RECESSED]
th
The Mayor: Reconvene the November 20 meeting. Item 25.
42
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR
25. Motion to approve the adoption of the proposed 2008 Augusta-Richmond County
Budget.
The Mayor: Mr. Russell, I believe you’re on.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, as you know over the past several
weeks we’ve talked about the budget and the future of Augusta and how we wanted to handle
that. The decisions you make today will help develop a path forward for us as a city to begin to
accomplish the goals that have been established by this commission. As we all know the most
important things we provide, as a government, are public safety, cleanliness and the ability for
citizens to enrich their lives and grow. These things are covered in the budget that I have
presented. There are several options available to you in reference to that particular budget. We
have worked long and hard to put together a menu of things that each and every one of you have
talked to me about over some point in time and have developed as ideas and issues that we feel
that you feel as individuals and feel as small groups or whatever that are important to the future
and the well being of our citizens. Let me tell you that this is not an easy process. As each of
you know in the conversations we’ve had over the past couple of weeks we have had many
disagreements, we’ve had many issues arise and we’ve had many different thoughts and different
philosophies on how we should continue to move forward. I’m going to share with you a
document that the Finance Department has prepared for me. That document actually gives you a
menu of things and I’ll be happy to go over that with you as we go forward there.
The Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Administrator, could I ask you a question please?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney: Would it be possible, all these scenarios we’ve heard but there was one we
looked at yesterday and could you just go over that one before we get into the other ones? I’d
appreciate that if we could possibly do that. This is a scenario we have not discussed at all.
Mr. Russell: Right and I would be happy to do that.
Mr. Hatney: All the others we had.
Mr. Russell: I’ll be happy if you want to start there I’ll be more than happy to do that.
What I’d like to do is talk about, we need to start with the long page the page that’s done
horizontally and then we’ll move to the vertical attachment. The horizontal page begins to talk
about several options that we have available to us. Those options are defined and those are the
ones that are present and we’ve talked about at some length on several occasions. What we’re
calling the vertical option actually bills upon this and let me share with you what you’re looking
at. If you look at the first part of that which is totaled in column, as line “A” basically are things
43
that we have to do in my mind to continue the operation of this government. We’ve committed
to those objects and you’ve done that over previous meetings and previous opportunities or they
are mandated by legislative opportunities or they are required to remove General Fund dollars to
specific funds such as 911. What that does is fund the increase in the health care costs, the
remainder of the Disparity Study, the new state court judge position, a small amount for the
maintenance of the Golf and Gardens, the transfer to the transit we talked about and the transfer
to 911 and implementation of equipment in the Fire Department. The second or Group B
includes things that we think that are necessary and appropriate to do. We’ve had discussions
about each one of those and they are still in my recommendation. That would include the James
Brown Exhibit, the discovery of the Unlisted Business Tax to help us increase our revenues, the
Drug Court which would I think help us reduce our jail population which is a driving increase in
our budget at this particular point in time. The Balanced Jury Box Program, which is required by
law. We’ve also added small amounts of money for Ezekiel Harris House and the CSRA Land
Trust that are done by agreement with those particular things. We’re just keeping with those
agreements. As we talked about on numerous occasions there’s money in here for the
Demolition Program as we look at blight in our communities, there’s $125,000 for that and as a
supplement the Community Medical Outreach. As you know we have several groups that are
coming to us to assist our community in medical outreach, Miracle Making Ministries, 901 and
various other sort of things and I suggest we split those monies between those groups in a
frequent manner. It’s a good investment in our community it’s an investment in those people
that can’t afford medical help and it also helps with the Project Access use of those particular
dollars in the drugs that they use. I think they --- (baby crying) --- that’s all right, I’ve been
crying too! I think that they, that they compliment each other and serves some of our citizens
that need the most help. I think that’s more than appropriate. So if you look and A and B it
becomes a we’ve got to and we ought to kinds of things there. The next issue becomes how do
we treat our employees and that’s something that is probably the most important thing we can
talk about. As you well know our employees are the most valuable resource we have. None of
us here sitting on that side of the dais or standing here can do anything at all to help our citizens
unless people are out there moving the shovels, fighting the fires, arresting criminals, manning
the jail, painting the street lines and doing those things that are important to the quality of life in
our community. We can decide all we want, we can budget all we want, we can make laws all
we want but until the 2000 or so odd people that work for you and work for this community
show up everyday and do their job and do it to the best of their ability we haven’t accomplished
anything. That is the best resource we have, it is the only way that we will continue to prove, it
is the only thing that stands between us and not having a government at all is the employees that
we have. Are we perfect, no but we trying hard, yes and I can assure you we will continue to try
harder and harder. But what that means is that you actually adequately pay these people to do
their jobs. We have not done a good job of that over the years. In January or so you will be
seeing a study that reflects that and there’ll be some numbers there that will pretty much mirror
what I’m telling you today. What the potential budget includes is the vertical sheet here, which
is another example of how we could do that. I think most of you have determined that our law
enforcement people need an additional supplement. Recent activities, the kinds of things that are
going on in our community, the dangers they face on a regular basis I think they deserve that
supplement and I would be in favor of approving that. In addition to that not only do the
Sheriff’s people in my mind deserve that supplement those people that wear the uniform for the
Marshall’s Service and face those same kinds of dangers and those people at RCCI that deal with
44
inmates, deal with prisoners have prisoners on the road and have those same kinds of
responsibilities that the jailers in our jail in my mind deserve that supplement. Firefighters who
once again as each, several of you have mentioned regularly and do the things that require them
to put their life’s line on the line, life on the line on any given moment. It’s amazing to me that
we sit here with a room full of firefighters that are here interested in what we’re going to do
today but let me assure you if the pager went off or the bell rang that each and every one of those
people would put beside their on personal interests and run to protect the people in our
community. That’s what they do. That’s what they do every day. It might not be a big fire
everyday it might not be a big arrest every day but each and every day they’re in jeopardy and
they need to be rewarded for that, comparable to other places and other communities and we’ve
been woefully slow in doing that. So my recommendation would be that not only do we fund the
$200,000 increase for the Fire Department, for the Sheriff’s Department and those other agencies
such as RCCI and the Marshal’s Office. That leaves out a good portion of our work force and
once again let me tell you that they are just as important to the well being of our government as
anybody else that’s in this room. The guy that sweeps the streets, the guy that fixes the street
lights, the guy that puts up the signs, the guy that deals with our water issues, the guy that does
the kinds of things that each and everyone of our employees do, the Clerk’s Office clerk that
keeps the records straight, the person in Finance that actually provides you with this kind of
information, the people in any department that we have are vital and necessary for not only the
well being of this government but the services that we provide for our citizens. Let’s talk about
cutting something out and people will be, you know I got hollered at and cussed at by a lady just
a couple weeks ago because three years ago we cut out the, what is that program at the, with the
clay and the pots? What do you call that?
Ms. Speaker: Ceramics.
Mr. Russell: The ceramics program. She cornered me in a meeting, what two weeks ago,
three weeks ago. Three years ago we cut that out and that poor lady hadn’t forgot that yet. She
was mad at me. But that’s the kind of thing that you end up having to do if you don’t fund it.
We need to retain employees, we need to retain the best employees, we need to pay those people
adequately and make sure with that adequate pay we demand that they do the best job they
possibly can. And make sure that we demand they do the best job they possibly can. We can no
longer afford to lose seasoned law enforcement officers to other communities. We can no longer
afford to have firefighters leave after five years and a wealth of training and experience to go
someplace else that pays more money. We can no longer afford to have clerks that we train or
people that we train in IT or people we train at the water treatment plant leave here to go
someplace else because we don’t adequately compensate our employees. And let me share with
you that I think that’s very necessary. And part of that is a proposal for a 3% COLA that we
have for our employees. The question becomes then not so much what I want to do but how I
want to do it. The proposal on the vertical page explains that to you. What I would like to do is
make the 3% COLA for all employees including law enforcement, fire and everybody effective
stst
February 1. August the 1 I would like, sir?
Mr. Grantham: You said February, you mean July?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham.
45
st
Mr. Russell: I mean February, sir, if you look at the vertical page, February 1. July 1 I
would like to supplement the law enforcement salaries, the fire salaries, the Marshal salaries and
the RCCI salaries at the rate of $2,000. This brings them closer, not to but closer to amounts that
are being paid in localities fairly close to us in jurisdictions that we are occasionally losing
people to. What this does I think gives us an opportunity to continue to move this government
forward. The impact is almost, the impact of the entire package is less of month when you go to
Wendy’s and buy one meal for on a $100,000 house. One meal. A nice hamburger, French fires
and a large drink. You can’t even go to the movies and get the big stuff there, you got to get the
small drink you don’t come close to what this impact would be on a $100,000 house. The
decisions that we make today are just that, decisions that we make today. The budget is a living
document. The budget can be amended, the budget can be adopted and the budget can be dealt
with as we go forward in what ever manner that new information would help lead us. I hate to
say after all this hard work that it’s a yes but it is. We guess at what projected revenues are
going to be, we guess at expenses and we think we’re giving you a very good shot at what
reality’s going to look at. But in August we’ll have a second chance to come back and look at
that. That chance will give us based on the digest the opportunity to look at the growth, to look
at what those changes would be and the opportunity to modify what we do today. In addition to
that we can do that whenever we look at our particular budget and do with that. We’ve been
very successful with that and that’s a living document that we need to continue to treat as a living
document. It’s not written in stone, it’s not something that you can’t vary from. It’s something
that you take current conditions look at on a regular basis and modify that as you continue to go
forward. It’s a plan. It’s an opportunity. It’s what I think we need to continue to move forward.
The Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Russell, the second document that you are going through that includes
all of our employees initially I believe effective in, did you say February?
st,
Mr. Russell: February 1 yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney: And those other certified individuals to be inclusive of all of them, firemen
the Marshal’s people, the Sheriff’s folk and the RCCI folks. With this document it will be
effective July/August.
st
Mr. Russell: August 1.
Mr. Hatney: August.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney:
Personally I’m just talking what I feel in my heart. I just think that if
we’re going to talk about moving the city forward smoothly your employees, you’ve got two
great assets in any town. Your constituency actually is number one. The second ones are your
employees. I just believe that when take care if our employees you can demand work better from
them and then you’re going to supplement other individuals that work for the same organization,
46
they won’t have such a, you won’t have such a back lash. And for that I just prefer this one and
I’d like to put in theform of a motion that we start with this one.
Mr. Holland: I second that motion.
The Mayor: Okay, it’s been properly motioned and seconded. Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Fred, the increase in sales tax that is suggested that
we get. How will that affect what you’re speaking of here?
Mr. Russell: Not a whole lot. The local option sales tax has an impact on the ratio for
the millage there. We’ve programmed that and the numbers that we used I think are a little
conservative but I think they’re, I would be afraid to be any more aggressive in that. So that, that
increase that we project is small, is already programmed into what I’m recommending.
Mr. Smith: And the amount that will be closed out at the end of the year. When will we
receive that?
Mr. Russell: The amount of sales tax?
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Russell: That usually runs about two months behind so it’s a rotating issue there.
Mr. Smith: We’ll get it in the first quarter?
Mr. Russell: No, we get a check monthly but it’s about two months behind.
Mr. Brigham: 60-90 days.
Mr. Russell: 60-90 days behind.
The Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Brigham: This is a nice proposal. What’s it going to cost?
Ms. Williams: The total cost of this proposal on the front sheet and then flipping to Dr.
Hatney’s suggestions that will move the timing of the COLA and the raises for Public Safety.
You want a mill rate or a dollar on a house?
Mr. Brigham: I want a mill rate.
47
Ms. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Brigham: I want to know how it compares to the tax cap.
The Mayor: Okay, while we’re waiting on that response, Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Grantham: With what you’re recommending this afternoon this being the first time
we’ve seen any of these requests in addition to that of the law enforcement personnel, did you
receive written documentation requesting this, asking this from the various departments or from
the people that were over the RCCI, Fire Department and Marshal’s Department?
Mr. Russell: It’s my responsibility to provide you with a balanced budget, which I think
is in the best interests of our government and that’s what you’ve got.
Mr. Grantham: Why was this not included in your first proposal?
Mr. Russell: My first proposal dealt basically with some of the basic needs that we had.
It’s been a work in progress over the last several weeks and we’ve added, we’ve subtracted
we’ve dealt with that and it’s here.
Mr. Grantham: Okay. But you still did not receive any formal request. Normally your
department heads would come forth with that.
Mr. Russell: No formal thing in writing, some informal conversation.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you.
The Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Thank you. You know when we talked about health care costs about three
months ago that was about a 3% COLA increase and we decided to absorb that for the
employees. In addition to that have we calculated the pension liability that we’re going to have
in tens or twenties of thirties of millions of dollars? Has that calculation been done?
Mr. Russell: It’s my understanding you can’t actually make that calculation until you get
the numbers of people that are involved in the pension programs itself there. That has not been
done.
Mr. Bowles: How about post retirement?
Mr. Russell: For the what?
48
Mr. Bowles: Health insurance. Has that been done? That’s according to government
accounting standards. That’s going to have to be done.
Mr. Russell: That has not been done.
The Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Russell, I, like you, I don’t think you got any requests from the
department heads, Fire Department or Marshal or anybody else. You know that it’s been all over
the news all over the front page about the law enforcement getting a raise and I think they need
that raise. And I also agree that the Fire Department and other agencies need it and it’s always a
crucial time. It’s like which one you should and which one do you feed. You try to feed them
all. I guess my question is though what can be done to prevent us from being competitive with
the private sector. I mean because we lose people who say I’m going to a better job. Can we do
something? I think the raise is something we need to do. We need to find a way to do it. I’ve
been preaching about economic dollars coming into this city more than one way rather than just
raising taxes but that’s another subject. Somebody else can handle that I guess. I just want to
know what can we do to prevent being played against the private sector that we can’t compete
with for going somewhere else saying well I got another offer. And that’s what the Sheriff’s
Department told us that they’re losing people. The Fire Department’s been struggling for years
and years and years. If you looked at the rates I think you’re going to find where they’re
probably been behind but I’m not here to speak on anybody’s behalf. I just want to know what
can we do for this government not to be placed in a position where the Sheriff’s Department the
Fire Department, Marshal or anybody else come in and say well I can go to the private sector and
make more money. We got to dance to that tune so is there anything to be put in place I guess
that’s what I’m asking.
Mr. Russell: I don’t think that the public sector can compete with the private sector
across the board for dollars. That’s a tough thing to do. What we can do and what we continue
to do I think is make sure our benefits are decent and I think ours are. Our health care is not a
bad plan. Our vacation plans aren’t bad. Those kinds of things that some people look to as the
benefits of the job I believe in the public sector are probably better than what you’re going to
find in the private sector. What we can attempt to do is make that our salaries are as close to
competitive as we can and not lose people to other government agencies as opposed to losing
them to the private sector. I mean that’s probably one of the measure goals that we would have.
Mr. Williams: If I can continue, Mr. Mayor.
The Mayor: Please.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Russell, what I was getting at was a conversation brought about
where the new employees came on they were signed on for a season or a certain period of time
not just train somebody to go to somewhere else. And if that discussion has been brought about
if that’s something we can discuss or talk about I think that ought to be put placed in the back of
our heads so we can have something to know that we won’t train them even if we do the raises
that we want to do. Because I think that the employees are going to look at tenure along with
49
benefits along with salary. I don’t think any of these guys in here none of the law enforcement
comes in here and says I just want to work for a year. I think once you got tenure in a position
and once the promotion thing is done once all the other amenities to a position is afforded then
people will want to stay in the organization and continue to grow in the organization. That’s my
question.
Mr. Russell: I’m familiar with organizations in particularly law enforcement specifically
that require new employees to sign a contract upon accepting a position which they will agree to
stay for ‘x’ number amount of years based to cover expensive training. My experience with
those and I’ve actually been in several departments that use those is that while the theory works
fairly well in practice it’s hard to collect those dollars. Those individuals that make that decision
to leave make it for sometimes other than financial reasons and it becomes somewhat
burdensome. And once again if you take the amount it costs to train one of those individuals the
number is fairly high. If you look at the salaries we’re actually paying them, that’s a fairly low
salary there even when they go someplace else. So you end up with a fairly large debt even
when it’s prorated that in a lot of cases because of the nature of their employment they really
can’t pay it so you end up in a lot of cases trying to get money out of somebody that doesn’t have
it. And I’m not to sure how successful they are but some places do that, we look at that and
some places you know that might encourage some people to stay but my issue with that is not.
The theory hasn’t worked as good as the practice.
The Mayor: Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Apart from the budget one of the things we can do
we should do we must do to reduce the operating costs of this government and therefore have
more disposable income to pay for pay raises and other things is something that’s been suggested
in the past that’s never come to fruition. One would be to institute a behavior based safety
program with a target of reducing injuries across the board by 10% the first year. We’re paying
a tremendous amount out in risk management, workman’s comp insurance that we could actually
save and there companies in this area that are lining up and are quite willing to help us
implement such a program. Secondly something mentioned years ago that never came to fruition
was the institution of a Peak Alert Program to reduce the consumption of electricity again which
is money we pour into our utilities. We could save as much as 10% annually of that electrical
budget to put back into salaries and other benefits. These things that never came to fruition that
can be done an implemented over the next couple of years they would have drastic impacts on
outlays of capital monies to funds basically to have little or no return. And those are things that
we must do you the future commission must do and follow through on in order to make the
government more efficient and to save money to go into equipment and salaries and training and
other things that we need without impacting the tax payers of this city. Those are things that are
simple to do. They’re done every day that we can do here and for whatever reason we haven’t
done. But there’s experts out there willing to help us if we’ll just reach out for that expertise.
The Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: If I can respond to Commissioner Brigham’s question. If you notice at the
bottom of the horizontal speech, all options, not speech, horizontal spread sheet all options A
50
through E had an impact of $62.18 on a $100,000 house. By changing the timing as proposed on
option, the option that’s on the table we reduce that impact on a $100,000 house to $55.48. The
timing reduces the general law enforcement and general fund millage by about .0106 and the fire
by about .086. So those reductions are seen in that figure of $55.48 as opposed to the $62.18 that
was proposed in option, all the options above.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, can I finish with ---
The Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: --- my questions? Fred, that’s great. Now, where are we at with the cap to
that rate? What’s the difference?
Mr. Russell: With that we’re about .6 mills below the cap.
Mr. Brigham: .6 mills below the cap.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Brigham: If our digest is flat this year who are we going to lay off next year?
Mr. Russell: You face that question every time you deal with the budget, sir.
Mr. Brigham: No, I being, I’m having a very honest, this is not, let’s have a very honest
discussion about this. Our digest in my opinion is not going to continue to grow at 3 and 4%. I
believe based on the number of construction permits that I’ve been seeing issued this year that
our digest is going to be flat. I know that the real estate market is down. Now I want to have a
very serious and honest discussion. We have increased the pensions, we have increased the
health insurance, we are giving away many, many benefits up here but we are still working for
the constituency that pays for these things. I want to know which services we’re going to do
without next year if we have a flat digest.
Mr. Russell: Obviously in my mind those are the tough questions you have to ask. And
those are the tough questions that you would require me to answer. You have to stay with the
core services that provide public safety and health and welfare. Those other things, the lady that
got mad at me about the ---
Mr. Holland: Ceramics.
Mr. Russell: --- ceramics will probably be very mad at me because we’ll probably be
closing parks. We’ll be doing other things that don’t include the basic necessities of government
that our community has gotten used to. And our community is well used to them now and
demands them. The funding for the arts, in my mind at that point would go away and you’ll
have every artist and everybody else in our community knocking on your door and saying you
know we need to fund the library at an extra half million dollars or we need another $340,000 for
the museum and those kinds of things. Because my recommendation at that point would be you
51
cut all that out. You cut out the things that are nice. And if we want to live in a community that
doesn’t afford those things and if our tax system is such that that’s what we have to go to that’s
where we’re at. But at this particular point in time it’s seems somewhat unfortunate to me that
we would try to make a decision based on that future which we really can’t predict but if we
have to you go back a way. You back away from recreation, you back away from arts you back
away from those others things that in my mind don’t fulfill the core mission of our government
and that’s safety, security, cleanliness, water and roads.
Mr. Brigham: Very eloquent, Mr. Russell. Now the problem that we have is once we
give these raises this year if we turn around and cut these people next year they’re not going to
be happy either. Then you know this always comes at Christmas so we always get to play the
Grinch at Christmas, right.
Mr. Russell: No, I thought that was my job, sir.
Mr. Brigham: Well, I think it’s ours this year. But obviously if we do all of this we
could very easily be back next year asking these people to take a pay cut if we’re going to keep
full staff like we’ve always done in the past unless we’re going to eliminate some programs.
Mr. Russell: Well, I think ---
Mr. Brigham: The thing that I have, my real concern is we have some needs. We cannot
meet this Christmas list in my opinion. Now we need to meet some needs that we need to meet
and we need to be honest about what we can meet and what we can’t meet. I can’t make
everybody hold up here and bring everybody to market level. I have a constituency that doesn’t
want that. They have a constituency that wants to give some people raises and not other people
raises. I have to do what the rest of these people have to do and make the best decision I can
make. And to give this shopping list that I’ve been given I know that we can’t do that. And I
don’t want to be forced into voting to do this and then next year have to come back and ask these
people to take a pay cut or something else because of the fact the economy can go down hill very
quickly and it’s very subject to. And I believe we’re in a flat area, I don’t believe our digest is
going to continue to grow like some other people think it is.
Mr. Russell: Well, and I don’t disagree with anything you said because I think you’re
absolutely right is that at some point we need to make a decision on how we continue to move
Augusta forward. Our tax cap is a wonderful sounding thing and it sounds like a great thing to
go talk to your constituents about because it reduces the growth of government. And when you
reduce the growth of government you reduce the level of services we provide. And if that’s what
our citizens are happy with then that’s what we got to live with. We’ve got to be cognizant of
the fact that we’re developing and we’re running the government in 2007 based on a situation
formula that was developed back in ---
Mr. Brigham: 1978.
Mr. Russell: --- 1978. And that is horrible because that’s totally ridiculous and you’re
asking me to do something that’s almost impossible to do. And you’re asking yourselves to do
52
something that’s almost impossible to do. Other communities that we look to and want to be like
and act like and be like and have the things they have operate with millions and millions and
millions of more dollars than we do because they’re not trapped by a tax rate, a tax program that
was established 30 years ago. It’s nothing that was established 30 years ago that is appropriate to
today and we can’t guess what happens tomorrow and those people probably did a good job. But
the question becomes is where to we want to go? Are we afraid or our own shadows or are we
looking to the future. Are we being prudent or are we not being prudent. You know that’s a
policy decision that each and every one of you have to face everyday. And you know whatever
you give me to deal with I will do the best I can to do the best job that we can possibly do.
These people here if you don’t give them a penny will come back tomorrow and do the best job
they possible can. Not only these but the 2600 that aren’t in this room today. We all know that.
And we live by that. That’s what it’s all about. And they’ll be here. You know they’re not
going to get mad and wander off. But the question becomes is where does Augusta want to go?
And that’s one that is a tough question. But can we afford not to be in 2007? That becomes the
issue that I put on the table. You know you’re talking that increase that I proposed is $55.48.
You divide that by twelve and you can’t go to McDonalds and get a hamburger for that on a
$100,000 house. You can’t buy a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk. You know we’ve got
constituents that might not be able to buy that gallon of milk because we raised that tax that
much. But other people will benefit from the services other people will be there other people
will see what we’ve got to live with. And you know I just pitch what I got and I work with what
you give me. But in my mind you’ve got a prudent budget with a reasonable amount of tax
increase it has a minimum amount of impact on our community and provides a level of service
and a level of compensation for our employees that continues to move us forward and doesn’t
stop us in our tracks.
The Mayor: Commissioner Beard, then Commissioner Grantham, then Commissioner
Cheek.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I want the employees to know I don’t think this is a good time to
raise salaries. And I don’t because the economic climate is really just not good at this point.
And when we attend our meeting we are going to find that this is true when we hear from the
Terry School of Business. Now all of this is out and I guess it’s something we have to do but
with the sub-prime situation in this country and the State of Georgia foreclosures the fact that we
may not be receiving as many taxes as we have in the past because of foreclosures and this is not
something or this is not where we are every year. But we’re here, we are here and this may be
different but understand sometime in the future there may be a cutback.
The Mayor: Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Russell, I’m hearing your plight and I know
it’s important and that’s what we need to be talking about. But I want to go back to your
opening comments and when you mentioned on your horizontal sheet that the total items of A
are somewhat necessary. They are essential that we do based on what we’ve already approve
such as your Disparity Study, your health care ---
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
53
Mr. Grantham: --- and likewise. And then you moved down and of course one of the
questions I’ve got and that is on the new State Court Judge. We’re always told that the judge or
the court system generates and creates their own revenue. And that being the case why does that
revenue not fund what they do. Because we’re always told that they generate more than what we
necessarily need.
Mr. Russell: Be that as it may I can answer that real quickly. I think that is appropriate
because we hear that regularly and a lot of people take credit for that. The judges take credit for
that revenue, the District Attorney takes credit for that revenue, the Solicitor takes credit for that
revenue. The Sheriff will come in and say well if I didn’t write the tickets they wouldn’t have it
to begin with. It costs us approximately twice as much to operate the system as it does to collect
that revenue. We would be ahead by half if we just did away with the whole thing and didn’t
arrest nobody or do anything.
Mr. Grantham: That might not be a bad idea.
Mr. Russell: I’m not opposed to that if it balances the budget.
Mr. Grantham: But my point on this is that moving on to Section B.
Mr. Russell: Yes sir.
Mr. Grantham: And you mentioned that it would be nice for us to do those. And it
would certainly be nice for us to include the firemen that are here today. But you’re talking
about Section B being things that are not absolutely necessary so why wouldn’t it be more
important to just eliminate all of Section B. You have $590,000 in that section and put that into
the law enforcement public safety to where we could include the firemen or the others that
you’re speaking of. And then we identify these unnecessary things as the so called revenue
increases or the digest increases over the course of the next six months and then we put them in
st
to the next years budget of August the 1 instead of waiting to treat your personnel. You know I
think we’ve got to look at it to the point that is our personnel more important than some of these
things that are being put in that you yourself indicated are not necessary or these gentlemen and
ladies out in the audience necessary compared to those items.
Mr. Russell: Let me make sure we’re not putting words in my mouth here because you
used the words not necessary and that I’ve indicated they weren’t necessary. What I said was if I
could reiterate that real quickly is that the first column of things that we’ve got to do. And I
think we’re in agreement there. The second column, which is totaled in “B” are things that we
ought to do. That doesn’t mean that they’re not unnecessary they are things we ought to do.
Several of those “oughts” I think would in long term save us money in the fact of the discovery
of the Unlisted Business Tax which cost .25 mill, .025 mills I think will pay for itself as we look
at people that haven’t paid property tax on their inventory and move forward with that. The
Public Defender for Juvenile Court another ought as opposed to a have to I think helps our
system move forward and can potentially move people out of our jails to save us about 44 bucks
a day as does the Drug Court which saves us about 44 bucks a day. So if you take the Drug
54
Court and move you know 200 people out of jail you almost paid for that right there in one day’s
time or over a period of time. So I think for the grand total you know you could probably whittle
some of that out but once again you’re talking about an impact of 3 or 4 dollars on a $100,000
house that you’re whittling on there and I’m not to sure that whittling is worth while.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, if I can.
The Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Grantham: My point is exactly what you’re talking about. It’s not that these things
aren’t necessary but the same principal should apply to our employment, to our firefighters and
to our other people if that’s the case. You know then maybe some of these things we can do
without. But can we do without that firefighter? Or can we do without that law enforcement
person. And you know I would rather take my risks on being able to fund these items after we
look at the digest and after we see things come in for the first six months of the year then I would
say take the risk of not being able to take care of these people in Public Safety. And I am not in
favor of all employees. I want to go record in making that statement.
The Mayor: Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Russell: And that’s an option you have, sir.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ve, being one of the senior members here having attended the
Terry School of Business Report for Augusta for probably six or so of the years it’s been offered
until my stomach turned enough to where I quit going. They’ve been telling us for the last 8
years that our growth would be flat or 2-3 percentage points below every other city in the State
of Georgia and a state during those initial meetings, which was leasing the nation in economic
development. We walked away and I looked at the faces of the so-called city leaders and people
that, us and the people that hold high positions in different places in the city smiling when we
were told that we had high unemployment but that was good because that would attract people to
the area because there were people ready to work. Or that our real estate values were low that
would attract people to the area because we had such a good housing market. All of these things
that we apparently just ate up that were indicators that Augusta’s economic growth and
development is percentage points behind everybody else and we were pretty darn satisfied with
being where we are. And in my tenure I’ve seen some things tried and I’ve seen some things
defeated but we’re not willing to do the things that would solve this problem today and in the
future and that’s grow our local economy. Now we can continue on and fight this fight today
and I for one trust the recommendations of our Administrator and how he and his staff has
managed the budget and have done a fine job these last few years to work us through this
situation in a way that impacts our property tax holders the least and covers the needs of
employees the most more so than I do a bunch of part time public officials or a group of public
leaders out of the community who are happy with the fact that we have sustained mediocrity in
our economic growth. And that is exactly the facts in the case in what we see and what we’re
going to hear again from Terry should be no surprise. We are going to continue to be below
everybody else. So when we are at the bottom and there is an economic downturn it’s going to
get worse for us just as the statistics would show and it should come as now surprise to any of us
55
sitting here or any of the public leaders. The question is what are we doing to change this for the
future. And the answer is if you look on the planning boards we’re piecemealing things but
doing nothing to become competitive to grow our local economy in a way that’s going to put us
in the lead not at the rear of the pack smiling. Mr. Mayor, I support what the Administrator is
bringing to the table. I support our work force. I support economic growth and development.
Some of the things I mentioned earlier would reduce the impact on the General Fund therefore
freeing up more money to cover costs for salaries and other things. There’s a lot of things we
can do but for us to fight this battle every year and not have that light bulb come on over our
heads eventually that shows that hey this is the same battle we fought for the last eight years,
Marion, and it isn’t getting any better. The cost of living continues to go up and if you look at 2-
3 percent annual economic growth and factor into 3-4 percent annual inflation we’re taking a
negative 1-2 percent growth against the buying power of our staff and our citizens. That has got
to change. But it all comes back down to who do you trust to manage the government. We have
seen in the past years as we’ve had to borrow from our savings account. We turned it over to our
staff, they’ve been able to manage it to where we’re actually been able to take less and less out of
savings, they were actually able to see more and more revenue come in. Costs are being covered
without impacting the General Fund reserve because we’ve had good management and good
professionals running the show. We’ve got good management and good professionals running
the show now. We can nickel and dime this budget to death. We will have a problem with
morale if we raise part of the salaries in this government. We will have a problem sustaining our
tax base if we continue to manage Augusta the way it’s been managed for the last 50-years. And
I leave it to you, Mr. Mayor, and to the new commission coming on board to wake up and smell
the roses and when Terry tells you it’s a good thing that we’re below everybody else but it’s
steady then it’s time for you to start scratching your head and saying maybe that’s not good
enough for me, my folks and my children, future generations and do something about it.
The Mayor: Commissioner Bowles did you?
Mr. Bowles: Yeah, I just wanted to inform Mr. Cheek that Terry came in last year and
told us the Augusta’s economic outlook was positive and we did have our largest revenue in the
last fifteen years so you might want (UNITELLIGIBLE) economists you might like.
Mr. Cheek: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
The Mayor: Okay, if there is no further discussion commissioners will now vote by the
usual sign.
Mr. Smith: Would you read the motion?
The Clerk: The motion was to approve the recommendation of the Administrator with
the inclusion of all COLA raises for employees effective February 1, 2008 and the law
enforcement supplement effective August 1, 2008.
Mr. Russell: This would include all funds as normal.
Ms. Beard: Did you mention the firemen?
56
The Clerk: Yes, ma’am, the Public Safety would include the firemen, RCCI and
Marshal, the Sheriff’s Department along with the Fire Department.
Mr. Brigham, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bowles and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
th
The Mayor: And that was the final agenda item of the November 20 meeting?
The Clerk: No, sir. I’d like for Mr. Grantham to clarify a motion that was made on the
addendum item in regard to the twelve positions at the Augusta Utilities.
The Mayor: Commissioner Grantham
Mr. Grantham: Madam Clerk, Mr. Mayor, my motion was to add that and approve
the item that we put on as an addition the last time.
The Clerk: Can you put that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Grantham: I put that in the form of a motion. The only thing we did from the
commission standpoint is we just added it. They did not approve it. But we did add it and
approve and that was the vote that was taken but it was not written up that way in the minutes
that will reflect that particular commission meeting.
The Clerk: Can I get a second on that?
Mr. Hatney: I second that motion.
The Clerk: Okay.
The Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I want to know what ---
The Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: --- we’re adding and approved and what we’re voting on. Previously it
had been approved. I’m lost.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, at the last meeting you added on an item regarding the ---
Mr. Williams: What item was that?
The Clerk: Twelve positions for the Augusta Utilities for the Fort Gordon project.
Mr. Williams: I don’t think we approved that. I think ---
57
The Clerk: You added it.
Mr. Williams: We added it.
The Clerk: You added it, yes, sir. So what he’s, we’re clarifying to approve it in this
meeting.
Mr. Williams: I think that was just added at last week ---
The Clerk: That’s what’s we’re doing now, Mr. Williams, clarifying ---
Mr. Williams: I’m just trying to get something clear y’all. I’m going out.
The Mayor: If there’s no further discussion commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Mr. Williams: To add.
The Clerk: No, to approve.
Mr. Grantham: Add and approve.
Mr. Brigham: It’s already been added.
Mr. Williams: I want to discuss it. I mean I don’t understand how we can approve 12
positions that you know just add and approve. What the positions are? What’s the salary are?
We just got through discussing with these men here about ---
The Clerk: (INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Williams: To add it.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Not to add and approve.
The Clerk: Well, we have nine votes.
Mr. Williams: Well, you ain’t got ten.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 9-0.
th
The Mayor: Okay, do we have any further business from the November 20 agenda?
58
The Clerk: No, sir, that’s it.
th
The Mayor: Which by the way was my 40 birthday so I’m sorry I was not here with
th
y’all to celebrate it. But if there’s no further business the November 20 meeting stands
adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy
of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on
November 20, 2007.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
59