HomeMy WebLinkAboutCALLED MEETING February 12, 2009
CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
February 12, 2009
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 3:00 p.m., Thursday, February 12,
2009, the Honorable Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Holland, Smith, Grantham, Hatney, Beard, Jackson, Bowles and
Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hons. Mason and Johnson, members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
1.Present/Discuss/Approve Special Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) Phase VI
Project List.
Mr. Russell: This is a scheduled Called Meeting in which we have the opportunity to
actually begin to vote on the SPLOST list and the potential projects that we’ve been working on
for the past several months. As you know we’re, even with several months work behind us as
normal we are within a time frame that we have to make some decisions here in the next ten or
so odd days to move forward. The final list and the final proposal and resolution needs to be
rd
voted on March 3 which is a regularly scheduled meeting and we will have that hopefully ready
for you if we can come to an agreement between now and then on what should be on the list.
That list will consist of not only the resolution that will allow us to move forward with the
SPLOST but this particular attachment, which should be the list of the projects that will be
funded in that SPLOST. In addition to that there will be a time frame attached that we are
required to do by law in which we are required to go ahead and faze out those projects over the
life of the SPLOST projects that we’re looking at. Um, the last time we mentioned several issues
that were available to us that we wanted to look at and then it would be my recommendation that
we begin formulating a method to move forward without a select of those projects. So as I’ve
said before this is actually the first day as a Special Called Meeting that we could actually vote
on any type of approval that we would have to do. Several things that were mentioned the last
time were the first of which was the amount and the Challenge Grant Opportunity there and then
the project list that we were working on. We did suggest last year it would be appropriate to
have a motion at this particular point in time that we do, have you got the verbiage of that
anywhere other than, is that on a slide somewhere? As we mentioned last time my
recommendation, let me pass that out to you real quick. I’m sorry I thought we had a slide up.
And this would be involved with those agencies that receive money from us as part of the
SPLOST package there. And what we are requiring in this particular SPLOST in addition to
signing the agreement that y’all approved from the last SPLOST which is a contract that allows
us to access records, books, expenditures and those kinds of things. We requested that the
agencies that receive money those outside agencies provide “x” number of dollar percentage of
the money that we give them as a match. Matching funds would have to be raised before
SPLOST funds can be eligible for release and requesting agency. Matching funds would have to
be new funds. As we talked about it would be my recommendation is specific projects described
in the SPLOST application. They would have from the outside agency would be required to
provide verification of matching funds before any SPLOST funds would be released. Lease of
1
funds would be subject to the guidelines for the dispersal of SPLOST funds as you approved on
June 6, 2006. And that’s a reimbursement where they pay up front and we actually reimburse
their costs there. We still require those agencies entering into our SPLOST agreement and what
the money available would be new money collected upon the completion of, the election of this
th
particular SPLOST, i.e. on June 6 if this SPLOST passes and we move forward with that they
th
would have from June 6 until they were able to qualify for those dollars to raise that initial
funding. Looking at our time frame that would give them about 24-months to begin those
collections and we would be able to release that money based on those dollars after that 24-
months. So for an example if the Jesse Norman Theater had $95,000 in there they’d have to give
us in my recommendation they’d have to raise 25% of that $95,000 prior to the dispersal of those
funds per our contract. In addition to that I think it would be appropriate that as we look at these
projects that we have an reversionary clause in the contract and that would be an addition that
you would have to add that would if those monies are not spend for the specific projects within
what would be in my mind would be the life of the SPLOST of the approved time frame that
would be done contractually with that group that that money would revert back to the city.
Going to an example of the $95,000. The 25% they would have to raise $23,000 to do that, to
move forward with that. So it would be my recommendation that we do require the match, if
would be my recommendation that the match be 25% and that we would require them to fill out
the contracts as we did in the last SPLOST as I think works very well. It would be appropriate to
have any discussion on that.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And this has been one of the topics that our
Administrator and I have talked to him about as well as other Commissioners. And I think this is
certainly a step in the right direction to indicate to our outside agencies that we’re willing to help
and willing to do the things to make our community better. But we also need their help and their
participation and this is not just a place to get in line to come get money. It’s serious, it’s to the
point that our economic situation could deteriorate even further but I feel like the City of
Therefore I’m going to
Augusta is in a much better situation than the rest of the community.
make a motion that we require the agencies, the outside agencies receivingfunds or
requesting funds to raise 25%
and that, Fred, I think we need to change the year that you have
th
at the end of that first paragraph. If the Commission is going to approve this on June the 6 it
should be the year 2009, not 2006.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Commissioner, that is when you approved the current agreement that
we’re working on.
Mr. Grantham: With the agencies? Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. Russell: That would be appropriate to revise that. But that’s the agreement ---
Mr. Grantham: Right.
Mr. Russell: --- there basically ---
2
Mr. Grantham: Okay.
Mr. Russell: --- as we met with support from the agencies we’ve dealt with.
Mr. Grantham: And that we also, Mr. Mayor, include that there be a reverse of the
funding in the event that the agencies are not able to meet the requirement that would be
set out in the standard contractual agreement.
I put that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Could we be a little more specific on a timeline? Is it going to be a year
after the collections are made?
Mr. Mayor: On the reversionary clause.
Mr. Grantham:begins they would
What I think he was referring to was that once that
have the 24 months in order to raisethose funds.
Isn’t that what you mentioned the other day
or 18 months after the passing of the SPLOST therefore giving almost a 2 year period of time to
raise those funds but giving them then the life of the SPLOST in order to either establish the
contract for the work to be done or that the work be completed.
Mr. Russell: And what I would do and what I would recommend is that those items be
handled individually per contract. I mean that’s the general guidelines I’m looking for.
Mr. Grantham: Right.
Mr. Russell: But if you’re building a fence versus a building there might be some issues
there that need to be addressed individually. But I think the general guideline would be is that
we want to make sure that you’re participating in the project you’re just not using tax dollars for
a private project. That you’ve got money available and there’s a light at the end of the tunnel
and the project is going to come about. So specifically I think the agreement that would be
approved by this body per agency once they make the agreement and approve the rest of them it
would be that you’ve raised “x’ number, you’re getting $10.00 you’ve got to raise $2.50 to get
that $10.00 and you’ve got to spend that $10.00 within a specific time frame that you agreed to
or provide a product in that period of time he gets that.
Mr. Bowles: I’m beginning to think George was right about the stimulus comparison.
We keep talking about specific time lines but we don’t have one. Can we say that one year after
the completion of this 5 years or 4 ½ years, one year after that is the drop dead date for all funds
to be spent so that we can collect those monies and be dispersed elsewhere if they haven’t been
spent because that’s where we are now still trying to close out SPLOST III and IV.
Mr. Russell: If that be the will of the body.
3
Mr. Mayor: And I’ll just say that makes sense to me.
Mr. Grantham: We can enter that into the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Betty?
Ms. Beard: Have you received any input at all from the different organizations,
individuals receiving these funds?
Mr. Russell: I have not since our last conversation last week about that when that was
put on the table. I have not.
Ms. Beard: I mean just understanding what is here I think it would be awfully difficult
for some of these groups to come up and maybe they need to have a chance if they have certain
feelings in reference to this or concerns.
Mr. Russell: You now, I guess in the case of most of them they’re happy to be
considered for the dollars that they have available. And once again I do strongly feel that they
need to have some participation in that.
Ms. Beard: Well, if they don’t come forward than I assume they feel that they can
accomplish that.
Mr. Mayor: We do have somebody that would like to come forward. Is that? Okay.
And here again I think I said in the last meeting having run a nonprofit we applied for a lot of
grant funds from a lot of different organizations including the federal government and there was
always a timeline on those funds that if they were not expended in a timely fashion, 2 years or so
they reverted back. Sandra.
Ms. Self: Sandra Self, Augusta Symphony. I actually agree with the 25% and I think and
so does my board. We think it’s a good thing to do because it shows responsibility and as a
matter of fact we’ve been working on this rather rapidly and hard. We think that we can meet
that commitment ourselves for the Miller Theater. So we’ve almost got it worked out. But thank
goodness we haven’t leased 18 months there.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, my concern somewhat follows the other part of the concern.
My concern is how do we reallocate this money if these agencies do not match. And I want to
hear some discussion on that because I think that’s where the fly in the ointment’s going to be at.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we’ve reallocated SPLOST funds before but I think just in looking at
the situation I think the problem that we might have had in the past prior to me being here and a
number of other people is that we didn’t really lock it down the way we’re doing this time. I
think we’re putting some more checks and balances in the situation. But I guess, Fred, any
4
recommendation is to how you would look towards reprogramming any dollars that reverted
back to the city.
Mr. Russell: And we’re obviously looking six years down the line in my mind we’re we
would be dealing with those dollars. But I do know that we’ve got $647 million of requests that
are on the table today that we’re not able to fund. That includes bridges, roads, Rec areas and
everything else out there. I’m not the least bit concerned that we would be able to find projects
that fit into these categories that are not currently funded that would benefit our community.
Mr. Brigham: Okay, the real question I think I had in my mind is if we allocated a
portion of the sales tax to outside agencies I don’t know that we can un-allocate it to outside
agencies that I would like the Attorney to say that. The other think is if we do not appropriate
the money because they didn’t match or the people that were able to match going to be able to
come back and get the money that’s left over. That’s what my question is I think.
Mr. Russell: If I can that’s part of the contractual agreement that you’d have with the
individual agencies there. I think as we’ve written the resolutions in the past you’re able to move
within the specific categories of what you’re doing there. So it would be either cultural,
recreational which are combined, potentially some life safety issues that are involved there. So I
think what you’re doing is continue to give whoever give whoever sits in those chairs on those
days an opportunity to look at money that was not spent and reprogram to those needs in the
community at that particular point in time. You know it would be hard, as in any of this it’s hard
to guess. We might move forward and find out that the inflation factures of each of our
programs would require that just to continue to move forward with those projects that were
approved as an acceptable cost, acceptable to agree there. But I think you know my crystal ball
doesn’t quite get me there but I know there’s need. I know that we can scope, we can write the
scope of the contracts to where we do that and I know that we can do the resolution to the fact to
give us the flexibility to do that.
Mr. Brigham: Are you telling me you’re combining cultural with recreation then for this
section of the SPLOST. Is that what you’re telling me?
Mr. Russell: We’ve done that in the past totally and we’ve been able to do that. In
addition to that if you look at some of the other categories that are available to do that you can
write the resolution to where you can move it around fairly easily within those categories to meet
the specific needs.
Mr. Beard: So now are we saying recreation and other nonprofits?
Mr. Russell: I’m saying that when you have the resolution in front of you to vote on on
rd
March 3 we will have it written so that those dollars if reverted back they would be the will of
this body to put them in categories that would be necessary to move forward be it recreation,
additional nonprofits or the financial need for a project that we estimated to cost $3 million and
that might cost $7 million due to inflation or something. So I think we can give you that
flexibility.
5
Mr. Mayor: Okay, and just for clarification, Commissioner Grantham, on your motion.
Commissioner Bowles, you had mentioned with regards to the timeline on it a year after closing
of the SPLOST. Was that your recommendation?
Mr. Bowles: It was a suggestion. I’m trying to figure out what’s going to be (inaudible).
Mr. Grantham: I think we can give them 18 months not 2 years.
Mr. Russell: Based on our history and how to get our desire to move things forward with
that I think that a 24-month period would probably be more appropriate
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Russell: --- after the termination of the collection.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, and Commissioner Grantham, are you okay with ---
Mr. Grantham: I fine with it.
Mr. Mayor: --- including that in your motion.
Mr. Grantham: I think we meet all the criteria.
Mr. Mayor: Did you, okay. Mr. Butler, did you?
Mr. Butler: This is just in reference to the raising of dollars to 25%. As you know we’ve
always raised dollars to match any dollars that we’ve gotten especially from SPLOST. If I had a
preference I’d say 20%. It’s very difficult to raise those dollars. It’s difficult for us to raise the
half-million that we raised to match the other dollars that y’all granted us through the SPLOST
and it took almost 10 years to do that. So I would like to ask y’all to consider instead of the
15%, the 20% would be better for us and maybe organizations that are similar to ours. Just
wanted to make that comment.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Russell: With all due respect to may good friend there the time frame that we laid
out given you two years on the front, approximately five years on the collection and two years
after that gives you about nine years to get your match.
Mr. Mayor: And I’m helping you on this one too. Okay we have a motion and a second.
If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Ms. Beard abstains.
Motion carries 7-1.
6
Mr. Russell: That was the easy part.
Mr. Holland: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland.
Mr. Holland: I’d like to make a statement and I know we’ve already discussed this and
Mr. Butler has come forward. It just amazes me when I passed through Deans Bridge Road and
when I look over and I look at the Augusta Mini Theater facility to see what he and his staff and
the people over there have done with the funds that they have received and it’s just so good when
you have people come into town and talk about the Augusta Mini Theater and see what is
happening over there. And their record speaks for itself with the work that they’ve done with the
children that they have over there. When you have a situation like that and when you have an
organization like that and you haven’t had anybody to drop out of your program and then you
can turn your television on and look at movies and see some of the students from the Augusta
area in these movies and in these theaters it just, it does our hearts real good. So I just want to
applaud Mr. Butler and his staff for the outstanding job that they’ve done with the Augusta Mini
Theater. And the people that have been visiting here have all said some very positive things
about the mini theater. Hopefully you know we can get some people to work with you and your
staff to help raise that 25%. I’ll cook some hotdogs.
Mr. Mayor: I’m in. Talk to me afterwards. I’ll send somebody to you this week. Go
ahead, Fred.
Mr. Russell: The next item that was listed that we mentioned that we need to talk about
last week was the issue whether or not we wanted to vote on a cap for the number of dollars that
we talked about prior to the detail work of looking at specific projects. That was brought to our
attention last time and I think it would be appropriate to do that. Let me suggest to you that my
recommendation would be the cap that’s set to my recommendation of 2509 which is $184,724
and if we had six people or seven or eight of you that are here today that would be willing to vote
that up I would think that would be a nice way to start the day and I would be willing to buy
dinner afterwards personally without any use of government or SPLOST funds. If that’s not
going to happen then, Tyrone, and a few of the others might chip in with me here. But if that’s
not going to happen I think it’d be appropriate as was directed last time to talk about a cap and
what that would do to our processes at this moment.
Mr. Mayor: Does anybody want to make a motion to approve the cap recommended?
Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: This cap would take us out approximately five years. Is that correct?
Mr. Russell: The $184 in the program that I recommended is approximately 5 years, yes,
given the current collections, or given the collection history so far. That’s a better way to put
that.
Ms. Beard: And that’s basically what we did during the last SPLOST.
7
Mr. Russell: Yes, ma’am, the last SPLOST if we continue on with the third quarter of
2010, which was approximately five years.
Ms. Beard: Okay. Well, I don’t have a problem with this.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Yes, sir, I believe our collections are running slightly over $3 million
dollars. Is that right, Ms. Turner?
Ms. Russell: Yes.
Mr. Brigham: If we figured $3 million dollars in five years, I think that’s $180 million
dollars.
Mr. Grantham: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Russell: (inaudible) --- over the five-years.
Mr. Brigham: If we figure $3 million dollars a month it’s 60 months and we’ll get a $180
million.
Mr. Russell: It’s about 3.1 ---
Mr. Brigham: Yeah, but y’all have more faith in the accounting than I do right now.
Mr. Russell: You have to have faith in something, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Administrator, when you say, “cap” specifically, why is that necessary?
Mr. Russell: It was I think the discussion we had and I’m sorry you weren’t here to hear
that but I’m trying to recreate the discussion that happened at the last meeting in which several
Commissioners mentioned the fact that when we start going into this line by line if that becomes
necessary they wanted to make sure we set a cap that ya’ll can agree on that would not allow us
to move above that. I think we all have the great fear of SPLOST IV that failed where it became
interesting that we continued to add but never subtracted. So I think what they were concerned
about and I don’t want to take any words out of anybody’s mouth that said that was that if you
could agree on the total amount then the next discussion or argument would be what goes into
that total amount. And I’m just trying to give you an idea what they were saying.
8
Mr. Hatney: Are you saying that if for instance the $184,724 amount is what we decide
on that that would automatically become a cap and after you get that amount you wouldn’t
collect no more? Is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Russell: No, sir, that would be an internal cap that we would set for ourselves and
our discussion on how we do this. So if you decided the cap would be $184,724 and followed
my recommendation you could have each of the projects at the funding level that I
recommended. I think what they wanted what was mentioned last time was that we wanted to set
a number that would be the maximum amount that we would internally decide to go to and then
take either this list or another list or some dreams or program and build to that number. The
concern was that if we did not set an agreed upon level then we’d end up with a $300 million
dollar SPLOST or something. So I think that’s what that argument was about. And help me
with that because ---
Mr. Mayor: It was not an argument either it was a discussion.
Mr. Russell: --- use the word discussion and argument in the same term.
Mr. Brigham: I believe that was an appropriate outline of what the discussion was about.
The concern is that we don’t want to bump this SPLOST up to where we get back and try to put
everybody’s special projects into it and get it turned down by the voters. We want a project list
that the voters can accept.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland, then Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to ask the question. Is it mandatory
that we vote on this today? You know because it appears as if we have somewhat of, some
conflicting statements that we’re discussing in reference to the cap. So is it mandatory that we
vote on this today?
Mr. Russell: If you could help me with what you think are conflicting statements in
reference to the cap.
Mr. Holland: Well, you know the questions that have been asked in reference to raising
the cap to a certain level and what are we going to do if we are in a position to go over that? And
plus the fact my other concern is the fact that we don’t have all of the Commissioners here. And
I would like to see all of the Commissioners input here.
Mr. Russell: And maybe I didn’t explain that right. The cap would be an internal
number that you set for the working purposes of what we would do here. It would be your
budget if you want to spend $10 million on SPLOST. That would be I think that would be the
recommendation of not $10 million but the recommendation of Mr. Brigham was that we set that
cap. The total cap would be something that would be based on our total collections. So this is
just a working number to get to that you could agree upon and move forward with that. There’s
no requirement that you set that cap. There’s no requirement that you vote on it today. The only
9
thrd
real requirement we have is we’ve got to, if this election is to occur on June 16 by March 3 we
have to have a resolution with an attached list of projects there.
Mr. Holland: If we don’t vote on it today, what affect would that have on us ---
Mr. Mayor: Nothing.
Mr. Holland: All right then.
Mr. Russell: If you don’t vote on it today, if you don’t vote on it next, but if you don’t
rd
vote on it to give us time to have it ready by March 3 that you could vote on the total package
then we can’t have the election.
Mr. Mayor: Just to clarify. I think what Commissioner Holland was saying is that it
doesn’t impact us at all not to vote on the cap today.
Mr. Russell: (inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Grantham, then Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Along those same lines though without voting
on the cap today I would like for us to have a recommended cap which would be in line with
th
what Mr. Russell and his staff has done since December the 17 giving us the recommended
column after the initial request was made by the general public and the general agencies that are
th
involved. And then he came back with an additional recommended figure on February the 5 of
$184 million 724. I’d like to have another column added to that with a recommended cap that
would then show what he would do with that cap giving us an idea and a comparison as to what
Commissioner Holland is referring to. And with that in mind it would follow the same
recommendation that Mr. Brigham just made and that would be that we use a recommended cap
and I’m going to save $181 million dollars that would then fall in line of our collections as well
as what this economy is doing between and the next year to two years particularly. We have
already been notified by our December figures that they are off somewhat. We don’t know what
January’s like right now unless you’ve gotten that in the last day or two. And we don’t know
what the future’s going to be with our tax collections. So I think we need to be prudent in our
decision making whether we’re going to go out as if we are not in an economic crunch, as if we
are looking for things to be as they were for the last two years or are we going to take the
message that’s being sent all over this country as to what’s happening and are we going to heed
to those particular things that are happening. So I would like to see a recommended column and
figure if there’s some refiguring to be done by Mr. Russell and his staff than bring that to us so
th
we can compare it to his February 5 recommendation giving us something to really vote on in a
recommended cap form.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Just one concern. If we look at what we’ve got here I think the initial
request was four to six hundred mil then the next one was $185 plus, and the last one was
10
$184,724. My concern is that and I know how difficult it has to be for the Administrator and his
staff that it seems like it doesn’t matter what he brings he can’t satisfy with us. But my course
would be, I would hope we would allow the Administrator and his staff to recommend to us what
they think it ought to be because at the end of the day there’s going to be a bottom line
somewhere and that bottom line is simply automatically going to become the cap. I don’t see, I
don’t think Commissioners ought to set a cap before the Administrator comes up with his final
packet. Personally I don’t.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Beard.
Ms. Beard: I see that this is creating a lot of problems when we’ve done so much in
reference to this. Now there is a chance the economy is bad but couldn’t we if something if we
should run into problems, make it six years instead of five and maintain what we have.
Mr. Russell: We’ve taken that into consideration because what we’re recommending is
we do a fixed amount of money as opposed to a timeframe. So if the economy gets better and
we collect our $184 million dollars in three years SPLOST would be over with in three years. If
it takes five years, if it takes six years or if it takes seven years to get to that $184 number or
what ever number that we come up with that would be taken into consideration. So we’ve done
that by going with a fixed dollar amount as opposed to (inaudible).
Ms. Beard: Well, with that said if we basically agree with this there’s no need to have to
go back and redo everything.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: As I basically said the same thing if he thinks, if he decided on a specific
amount of money and that’s not years but money to be collected in two years or six years it
wouldn’t make any difference as long as you collect the amount of money you set out to collect.
Then that within itself as far as I’m concerned would take care of that rather than have to go back
to some other. I think we already restricted ourselves when we said we’re going to do $185
million that’s it if we collect it in three years that’s it if it’s collected in six years that’s it. To me
I think that would be restrictive enough.
Mr. Russell: The question if I can it begins always become what would be in that $185 to
$180 million dollars. And that’s where the rubber hits the road and the decisions are going to
have to make in the future. Let me share with you that staff from every department we have has
looked at this. This is our recommendation. If you give us a number to cut to we can do that and
we will do that but you know we’ve got, it’s up to you to decide what’s on the program and
that’s where it’s at. You tell us, it’s at the point now where you tell us where to go and we’ll get
you there. But that’s what you’ve got to decide for us at this moment.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Russell, voting today we’re just voting on what’s going in the
rd
resolution then we’ll have to come back on the 3 and vote for the resolution, correct?
11
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bowles: I still don’t feel comfortable with these Challenge Grants until I see it in
black and white.
Mr. Russell: Right and what we’ve got set up, sir, is an additional meeting next week to
give you the verbiage of that totally.
Mr. Bowles: I’ll be on the ski slopes.
Mr. Russell: We will fax it to you in Vail if necessary.
Mr. Bowles: No, it’s North Carolina.
Mr. Russell: Okay, well, that’s easy; we’ll have a pigeon carry it there. It’s cheaper. But
we should have that. I’ve got basically the contract language and whatever that we can share
with you now. I just mainly want to get the concept finished. Once again the whole key is going
to be whatever we wrap this package in that we need six of you and hopefully ten of you to
approve that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Russell: My problem is that I need direction at the moment.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I’ll ---
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, may I make a comment?
Mr. Mayor: Sure.
Mr. Grantham: Just a comment along the lines of the recommendation is coming from
the staff and from our Administrator and we’re looking at it and there’s ten people sitting here.
We can agree in principal to what he’s giving us and we can say yes this is a good list and let’s
go with it. But are the voters out here going to be satisfied with this list. This is what we have to
do and this what we have to think about is to how are we going to present this package to the
voters and are they inclusive of everything that’s on this list? And so just one or two little things
can really throw you out of kilter believe me. And with that being said that’s why I
recommended that he come back with another list for us. It’s not to say we won’t take this first
recommendation but it’s to say we have an alternate route to take in the event we want to and
using the cap of $181 based on our economic situation. Whether it takes five years, seven years,
three years or ten years you’re using an amount to collect. That’s certainly good and that’s to
our advantage. But that could also hinder some of the projects that are involved as to the
escalation of the costs. If it takes longer to collect the money is the cost of that particular project
that you had planned to start and complete in five years, is that going to exceed that amount once
12
you get there and then we do have a problem as to what Mr. Brigham was talking about
reallocating funds and doing the necessary things.
Mr. Russell: And if I may the problem with that anything above the five-year, six-year
program becomes and administrative nightmare for the staff in the fact that we can’t continue
with the management issue of those kinds of projects becomes tough. So that’s why in my mind
the $180 to $185 is the kind of area is what we need to be looking at. Anything above and
beyond that with the economy and with our internal capacity to deal with it becomes a little bit
more unfeasible.
Mr. Mayor: I’ll just say I sense that there needs to be some more discussion before we
vote on this. But I will say that I know how hard our staff has worked on this, the amount of
time they’ve spent into it, put into it. And I think we should all be able to sell this to the voters
because it’s primarily about infrastructure needs. It is a scaled back list it’s not full blown by
any means it’s pretty bare boned.
Mr. Russell: If I may, sir, my problem at the moment is it we’ve taken our best shot at
giving you what we think is appropriate. I would need some further direction from you as a
group or individually if tasked to provide a smaller number or whatever. I need to know if we’re
going to concentrate on the areas we want to look at, the things we want to do. It doesn’t seem
to be feasible to me to have me play with the numbers some more unless individually or
collectively we can come up with some agreement on which direction we need to go. And that
becomes the tough part.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: Jerry was first.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Russell, I’m ready to go home, I’m ready to make some deals. I’m
willing to take a look at your entire package again but I do think that we need to have a scaled
down version that we can also look at between to $180 and $181 million. I think we’ve got to be
very considerate of the public that we don’t want these projects to drag out for five, we don’t
want them to drag out for six or seven years. I’m more concerned about trying to get it done in
five and do the appropriate level of funding to get our projects done within five years. And I
think that’s what we’re trying to deliver to the public and that’s why we’re asking for this
additional information.
Mr. Russell: And that’s the kind of parameter that I need while is that okay, if you want
me to make measurements and make suggestions based on those projects that can be done within
a five-year period given the round of funding that we have that’s the kind of information that we
and staff need to bring you back an acceptable list. Yeah, that’s what I’m after.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Jackson.
13
Mr. Jackson: I just wanted to make a motion to accept staff’s recommendation for doing
their due diligence in what they’ve done and we can revisit.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, you’re making a motion ---
Mr. Jackson: To go with staff’s recommendation for the $184.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Beard: And I’m going to say, I’m going to second that ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Beard: --- because I honestly believe this is fair and balanced and I think if we get
back into it, yes, I do think some people in the community are going to be very, very upset and
it’s something we don’t want to get into.
Mr. Mayor: Okay and just to clarify. That’s a motion to approve the package as
recommended by staff. Okay, is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by
the usual sign.
Mr. Brigham, Mr. Smith and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Mr. Holland abstains.
Motion fails 4-3-1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor I’m still about to offer my compromise in that we take
the $184 million list and we also get a scaled down version to $181 million.
Mr. Mayor: Does everybody ---
Mr. Brigham: I’m willing to vote for that right now.
Mr. Russell: That’s in a motion then?
Mr. Brigham: Yes, I’ll make it a motion.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Russell: Compromise, develop a list based on the internal cap of $181 million to be
presented next week.
Mr. Brigham: Yes, sir.
14
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard and Mr. Hatney vote No.
Motion carries 6-2.
Mr. Mayor: All righty, Mr. Russell, I guess you have ---
Mr. Russell: Well, I know we’re the top number. Are there any, I mean I assume we’re
still looking at the priorities that we set previously as infrastructure and those kinds of things --
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Russell: --- that are the most important things we’re dealing with and I will make
that assumption but I would hope that we would have somebody make sure I’m on the right track
with that.
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Brigham: Are you on the right track?
Mr. Grantham: You’re on the right track.
Mr. Russell: We shall roll up our sleeves and continue work, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thanks. Meeting is adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy
of the minutes of the Special Called Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held
on February 12, 2009.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
15
16