HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2010
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
FEBRUARY 16, 2010
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 5:00 p.m., February 16, 2010, the
Hon. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Smith, Mason, Grantham, Hatney, Aitken, Johnson, Jackson,
Bowles and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
The invocation was given by the Reverend Dr. Melvin Ivey, Pastor Greater St. John Baptist
Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
Mr. Mayor: I’ll go ahead and call the meeting to order. And I’d like to call on Rev. Dr.
Melvin Ivey, Pastor of Greater St. John Baptist Church for our invocation. Please stand.
(Invocation given by Dr. Ivey).
Mr. Mayor: Pastor, if you could please come forward I’ve got something for you. To
Reverend Dr. Melvin Ivey, Greater St. John Baptist Church. Greetings. By virtue of the power
and authority vested in me by the constitution and laws of this state and in pursuance of your
appointment I do hereby commission you the said Pastor of the Day in the City of Augusta. For
providing outstanding and civic and spiritual guidance as one of God’s most dependable and
delightful ministers of the Gospel. Your service to our community is greatly valued especially
for this occasion. Given under my hand and the Seal of the Office of Mayor at the Municipal
th
Building in the City of Augusta on the 16 Day of February in the year of our Lord 2010. Thank
you, sir. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the recognitions.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITION(S)
2008 Child Fatality Review Committee of the Year
A. Georgia Senate Resolution 985 recognizing and commending the 2008 Child Fatality
Review Committee of the Year from Richmond County. (Requested by Commissioner
Jerry Brigham)
The Clerk: Commissioner Brigham, do you have any further comments?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor I think it’s, we ought to join the state in recognizing the
local Board of Health for the work that they have done in this area. It’s not often we have
an opportunity to give them a pat on the back and I think we need to do that. And I would
make that we do that.
1
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Bowles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor vote by the usual sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: It was in that last meeting I said all in favor. Sorry about that but I think it
was unanimous. Madam Clerk, on to the delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
B. Chief Ranger Mr. Steve Abbott. RE: Annual Report from the Georgia Forestry
Commission.
Mr. Mayor: And if you could keep it to five minutes, please, sir.
Mr. Pearson: Without a problem. Good evening Commissioner, Mayor, distinguished
guests. My name is John Pearson. I’m with the Georgia Forestry Commission. Steve Abbot
couldn’t be here this morning or this afternoon because his mother passed away this weekend.
She passed away from cancer. I’m not going to take up much of your time. I just wanted to
bring out the annual report and just kind of hit a few highlights. Basically I wanted to start out
with the mission statement. We provide leadership, service, education and protection for the
stewardship of Georgia’s Forest Resources. Our vision is to help the sustainable forests in
providing clear air, water and abundant (unintelligible) for the future. On page two it shows a
listing of our personnel here in Richmond County. Chief Ranger Steve Abbott, myself, Ranger
Two and Ranger One Larry Felix. It also shows District Office personnel. It gives you a
rundown of what the county pays to the state as far as fire protection. It gives you a rundown of
the equipment we have here in Richmond County. This past year we had 37-fires that we went
too alone. In latter of those 37-fires 18 of those were in cinerary. Moving right along we did a
few special projects this year. We did the Light Fever we did Arbor Day here in Augusta. We
hosted the Juvenile Fire Setter Program. We also (unintelligible). Spirit Creek has programs
that we conduct throughout the year with the school system here in Richmond County. The City
of Augusta as well as Fort Gordon was recognized again as the Tree City of the USA. We
processed 23-seedling orders, which accounted for 44,961 trees. And in closing I’d like to state
that our mission and vision statement is our purpose only to report to the number of statistics in
the previous year. And we all live and work here and hopefully that we’ll continue to do so as
well. During the year we moved from the office on Tobacco Road. We are now located on
Educational Forest at 4052 Smokey Road.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. And I just wanted to thank you for all that y’all do. I
know that you do a great job and in these jobs of shrinking budgets I know it’s not easy. But we,
and it’s greatly appreciated. Do we have any questions or comments? Okay.
2
Mr. Grantham: Motion to receive as information.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second to receive as information. Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: And please, sir, I know that the Commission joins me in sending our
condolences to Steve. Please share that with him. Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk, the consent
agenda.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Our consent agenda consists of items 1-18. That’s items 1-18. For
the benefit of any objectors to our Planning petitions, once the petition is read would you please
signify your objection by raising your hand.
Item 1: Is a request to deny a petition for a Special Exception to establish a Family
Personal Care Home of property located at 1738 Drexel Avenue.
Item 2: Is concurrence with the Planning Commission to approve a petition for a change
of zoning from a Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to a Zone R-1C (One-family Residential)
affecting property located at 3025 Dennis Road.
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions?
Mr. Russell: None noted, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Mayor, our consent agenda and members of the Commission
consists of items 1-18.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Do we have any items to be added to the consent
agenda?
Mr. Hatney: (inaudible)
Mr. Mayor: Now, Reverend Hatney, you said you were ready to get out of here in a
hurry so.
Mr. Grantham: Add ‘em all in.
Mr. Hatney: Add ‘em all in.
The Clerk: For the benefit of, you may want to consider the recommendations from the
Pension Committee regarding item number twenty-one. The recommendation is to use a single
measurement for all plans. The publication by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, a twelve-
month change as of December each year for all urban consumers of the south. And that the cap
3
remains at 5%. The Finance Director recommends that the increases for all plans be given at the
st
same time, March 1 of each year. The committee concurred with her recommendation as
regards to item twenty-two that the increase for 2010 be 2.9. Those are the recommendations
from the Pension Committee. Those to be added to consent.
Mr. Grantham: I’d like to add and put to the consent for those two items, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: --- two and twenty-three.
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: I request clarification on item twenty-two. It addresses increases and I
remember last year we had a decrease in the cost of living and we took no action. Did we
address any decreases in the meeting, cost of living adjustment?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Williams.
Ms. Williams: Yes, sir. Last year on the calculation of the ’49 Plan called for no
increase. There is a provision in that plan that could possibly require you to have a decrease in
the benefits for that plan. But we didn’t, that didn’t occur last year. But was approved last year
was a tiered structure of COLA raises whereby it was 3-2-1% raises given by the level of
benefits (inaudible) and that was a one time amendment to the plan that was outside the
parameters.
Mr. Bowles: Okay, all right. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Okay, I just want to get clear the two items from the
subcommittee were twenty-one and twenty-two. I know 23 we’re going need to have to the
report from Mr. Russell so do you want to do?
The Clerk: Well, we can’t do twenty-four until six.
Mr. Mayor: We can do nineteen and twenty.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I would like to add nineteen to the consent. But I think Ms.
Donna Murray’s here from the Assessors Office. She’s going to tell us that we cannot do a mid-
year change in assessments.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, how about twenty, twenty-one and twenty-two. Okay.
Mr. Grantham: So moved.
4
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second?
Mr. Bowles: Second.
The Clerk: Nineteen, did you say twenty?
Mr. Mayor: Um, nineteen, twenty or excuse me twenty, twenty-one and twenty-two.
Not nineteen because we can’t ---
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: We’re not putting it on the consent agenda. Okay, are there any items to be
pulled for discussion? Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: I can’t agree with item twenty being added to the consent agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’re back to twenty-one and twenty-two. Do we have any items on
the consent agenda to be pulled for discussion? Okay, hearing none can I get a ---
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, excuse me.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Agenda item number six. Well, that be discussed under nineteen or are
those considered two separate entities?
Mr. Brigham: They’re two separate.
The Clerk: There were two separate motions for those so they’re two separate items.
You want to pull it?
Mr. Lockett: Yes, I’d like to pull it, please.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any further items to be pulled for discussion? Can I get a
motion to approve the consent agenda?
Mr. Jackson: So moved.
Mr. Johnson: Second.
5
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
1. Z-10-03 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to deny a petition by Makebia Pryer and Loretta Ferguson, on behalf of Sean
D’Antignac, requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Personal Care Home per
Section 26-1 (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property containing approximately .30 acres and is known as 1738 Drexel
Avenue. (Tax Map 057-3-068-00-0) DISTRICT 2
2. Z-10-06 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve with the following condition 1) That the development plan must
conform to the concept plan submitted with this petition limiting the development to 17
units; a petition by John Crowell, on behalf of Crowell and Co., requesting a change of
zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residential)
affecting property containing approximately 6.65 acres and is known as 3025 Dennis Road.
(Tax Map 004-0-002-00-0) DISTRICT 7
PUBLIC SAFETY
3. Motion to accept the grant award on behalf of the Augusta Judicial Circuit regarding
the United Circuit Plan Application for Byrne JAG Funding in association with the
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. The application for this grant was approved by
the Augusta Commission in meeting Augusta 19, 2009. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee February 8, 2010)
FINANCE
4. Motion to approve the recommendation of the Aviation Commission for the purchase of
one Ford Explorer SUV for the Augusta Regional Airport Director under the Georgia
State Vehicle Contract. (Approved by Finance Committee February 8, 2010)
5. Motion to approve the purchase of one compact excavator with transport trailer for
Public Services Department – Maintenance Division. (Approved by Finance Committee
February 8, 2010)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
7. Motion to approve Change Order No. 17 in the amount of $167,031.28 to the
Construction Contract for the Webster Detention Center (WDC) Expansion. This Change
Order also includes a contract time extension of 46 days for Inclement Weather Days
experienced by the contractor in 2009. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
February 8, 2010)
8. Motion to approve award of a “Task Order Contract for Water & Sewer Repairs &
Installation – Phase II” contract to Tran Construction, Inc. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee February 8, 2010.
9. Motion to approve the deeds of dedication, maintenance agreement, and road
resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Augusta Utilities Departments for Aylesbury
Commons Subdivision, Phase I. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February
8, 2010.
10. Motion to approve the deeds of dedication, maintenance agreements and road
resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Augusta Utilities Departments for Aylesbury
6
Commons Subdivision, Phase II. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February
8, 2010)
11. Motion to approve the deeds of dedication, maintenance agreements and road
resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Augusta Utilities Departments for Aylesbury
Commons Subdivision, Phase III. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February
8, 2010)
12. Motion to ratify the Emergency Repair of Pump #1 in the Auxiliary High Service
Pumping Station at Highland Ave. by TAW Augusta Service Center in the amount of
$39,670. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 8, 2010)
13. Motion to approve an Option for the purposes of acquiring a Right-of-Way between
Textron, Inc., as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, as optionee, in connection with the Marvin
Griffin Road Improvement Project, conveyed in fee simple (200 sq. ft.) more or less; and
(N/A sq. ft.) of permanent easement, more or less; and (7,092 sq. ft.) of temporary
construction easement from property located at: 1451 Marvin Griffin Road, private, at the
purchase price of $700.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 8,
2010)
14. Motion to approve award of Construction Contract to Horizon Construction and
Associates, Inc. in the amount of $159,836.20 for the Paving Various Road, Phase Ix –
Contract 1 Project, CPB #324-041110-208824001 subject to receipt of signed Contracts and
proper bonds as requested by AED. Funding is available in the project account. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee February 8, 2010)
15. Motion to approve award of Construction Contract to Mabus Brothers Construction
and Capital Project Budget in the amount of $2,447,975.08 for the Paving Various road
(Urban) Project, subject to receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds. Funding is
available in SPLOST Phase III Urban Recapture and Phase IV Resurfacing respectively as
requested by AED. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 8, 2010)
16. Motion to approve award of Construction Contract to Mabus Brothers Construction
and Capital Project Budget in the amount of $2,476.552.62 for the Paving Various Roads
Project (Suburban), subject to receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds. Funding is
available in SPLOST IV Resurfacing as requested by AED. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee February 8, 2010)
17. Motion to authorize the Engineering Department to approve Capital Project Budget
Change Seven and Supplemental Agreement Number Seven from Jordan, Jones &
Goulding (JJG) in the amount of $268,378 for the purpose of incorporating the updated
noise studies criteria into the environmental document and update the document for re-
evaluation to enable the right of way funds to be authorized; additional re-evaluation of the
environmental document for construction letting; redesign of existing detention p9ond
impacted by the proposed construction and redesign of the proposed detention pond to
satisfy concerns of Norfolk Southern Railway; design of a special design junction box for
drainage purposes; update the current traffic volumes as mandated by GDOT to the years
of 2014 and 2034; and incorporate design staging details to construct the bridges over
Spirit Creek and Norfolk Southern Railroad on the Windsor Spring Road project, Willis
Forman Road to Tobacco Road (Phase IV) and State Route 88 to Willis Forman Road
(Phase V), ARC projects 323-041110-299823766 and 323-041110-299823786. Funds are
available in the amount of $134,189 Section IV and Section V project right of way accounts
7
to be transferred to the Section IV and Section V project engineering accounts. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee February 8, 2010)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
18. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held on
February 2, 2010.
SUBCOMMITTEE
Pension Committee
21. Motion to consider/approve the recommendation(s) of the Pension Committee
regarding the 2010 COLA increases for 1945 and 1949 Pension Plan retirees.
Pension Committee
22. Motion to consider/approve the recommendation of the Pension Committee regarding a
method of calculation of COLA increases.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioner’s will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-5, 7-18, 21-22]
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, let’s go with agenda item six that was pulled first.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor nineteen, item nineteen is a companion item for six. Do we want
to do those together?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
6. Motion to approve the waiving the interest and penalty request from Warren Baptist
Church regarding their 2009 property taxes. (Approved by Finance Committee February
8, 2010)
19. Consider a request from Warren Baptist Church for a six-month and future exemption.
(No recommendation from Finance Committee February 8, 2010)
Mr. Mayor: Okay we have somebody from ---
The Clerk: Ms. Murray’s here.
Mr. Mayor: Please.
Ms. Murray: I have an application from the church for the year 2010. They bought the
property in June. You cannot give a partial exemption because they did not own or occupy the
st
property January 1.
8
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham:I’ll go back and make the motion I made in Finance that we waive
---
the interest and penalty.
But under state law I do not believe we can give an exemption for a
non-profit for a partial year. And I think that’s what we’re being advised from the Assessors
office and I think that’s what the Attorney advised us earlier and I would make those companion
motions again.
Mr. Bowles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, and we do have somebody from Warren Baptist.
Mr. White: Thank you, sir. I’m Steve White. I’m Executive Pastor at Warren Baptist.
And just in regard to the exemption I do want to share with you that we bought property next
door to our church, 2.88 acres and a building there 3231 Washington Road in Augusta from the
Taylor Family Limited Partnership. And as a part of the closing we received $9,626.40 of a pro-
ration of the county taxes from January 1 to January 29. And the taxes for the year came to a
th
total at the end of the year for $19,521.91. And on the 12 of January we contacted the Tax
Commissioners office and were advised we should make total payment and then request a refund
th
to our church for the taxes for that period for which the church owned the property the 30
st
through December 31 of 2009. We mailed a check that same day for the total amount. Now
th
today we are requesting a refund and exemption from taxes on the property beginning June 30.
And I hear what you’re saying but I just have one question about that. If it begins with the
calendar year is what I think you’re hearing, I’m hearing you say that it must begin with January
one. Now if we were to sell the property today and we are by law a tax exempt organization
does that mean that whoever takes over they’re exempt for the remainder of 2010?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ,a’am, Ms. Murray.
Ms. Murray: Yes, sir.
Mr. White: So they’re exempt for the rest of the year if we sell it back to the Taylor
Organization.
st
Ms. Murray: --- January 1, 2010? If you sell it in June the exemption will be until next
January.
Mr. White: All right, so by law we cannot receive a refund for from the middle of the
year even though we’re a tax exempt organization.
st
Ms. Murray: But you didn’t use the property January 1 2009?
Mr. White: Right.
9
Ms. Murray: It has to be used for the intended purpose. You bought it in June, I think
you renovated the building after you purchased it.
Mr. White: Right.
Ms. Murray: You filed for an exemption in October.
Mr. White: Right.
Ms. Murray: So when did you start using it for the church purposes?
Mr. White: Around the first, end of August first of September is when we started using
the property. We actually, we had to renovate it for, as student building and it’s a main part of
our campus now. Used for student building, we have worship services out there and we also use
the parking. I just wondered you know with is that a law that could be looked at in here or is that
something we want to do with churches when they buy something in the middle of the year.
Mr. Mayor: But I believe that as Commissioner Brigham says that’s and Andrew, we
have an attorney in the room. I believe that’s state law?
Mr. White: I’m a little naïve to that so that’s why I’m asking.
Mr. Brigham: It’s not something we have any control over. The legislature passes that.
Mr. White: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Local law we can’t supercede what state law is.
Mr. White: Okay. Thank you for your consideration.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Okay we have a motion and a second. If there’s no further
discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, next agenda item.
The Clerk: I believe item twenty-three?
Mr. Mayor: Twenty?
The Clerk: Twenty?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
10
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
20. Motion to approve the modification to the TVS contract to include the design of the
TEE Center Parking Deck subject to review by the City Law Department. (No
recommendation from the Engineering Services Committee February 8, 2010.
Mr. Brigham: So moved.
Mr. Mayor: Is that a motion? We have a motion ---
Mr. Jackson: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: --- and a second. I know we’ve got some questions on this. Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: I’d be happy to respond to any questions. Commissioner Johnson and I
talked about this and I think I’ve answered some of his questions. But he might have some more
and I’d like to be able to respond.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First and foremost, Fred, I know that we spoke out
in the hall about the issue I had with this particular project moving forward. First of all I see
th
here it says the TEE Center Committee met on Friday, January the 8 to recommend a contract
modification which I see, basically the only thing you’re saying you’re trying to modify the
contract that TVS has now to add that them doing the design for the parking deck only. Just the
design, no construction.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, just for the design of the building of the parking
area itself. The rationale behind that is to make it because it is tied into the building itself in a
figurative way and literal way because of the security functions and stuff like that we thought it
would be appropriate to go ahead and move forward with that and modify their contract. The
actual, the next item that will be coming before you would be the motion to award a contract to a
contractor and that would be the one that I think would be the crucial issue at this point on how
we move forward with that. So we’re just positioning ourselves to continue to move forward.
Mr. Johnson: Okay now as far as the committee goes when did they come up with this
th
recommendation? I mean I see where it say the 8 but the last time I checked I was on the
committee. I don’t recall making this recommendation.
Mr. Russell: The recommendation was from the working committee of the development.
That’s myself and staff.
Mr. Johnson: Okay.
Mr. Russell: I’m sorry.
11
Mr. Johnson: That’s what I had some questions about.
Mr. Russell: And I apologize for that. That’s a staff recommendation.
Mr. Johnson: Okay. The amount that you’re proposing is going to take to add to this
contract is $516,000.00?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. If you’ll note that we’re using local consultants for about 73% of
that. So that was one of the issues that we raised as making sure that we do have some local
participation in the, in that design project itself. Simply because of the nature of the design and
the fact that we want to make sure we maintain the historical integrity of that particular area. So
we’re actually pretty excited about the potential to make it blend into that. The architects have
worked well with us on that as we discussed that potential. So we’re, we’re thinking that’s a
good step to move forward and I think that when we come back with a recommendation for the
construction people themselves I think that’s where some of the other issues become that we
need to continue to discuss. You know that’s what the plan is at the moment. This just actually
positions us to go ahead and move forward.
Mr. Johnson: Okay, how does Heery fit into this process as far as. I mean are they in
position to do the designs. And why and the only problem I have is it’s not that I’m against
moving forward with this, Fred ---
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Johnson: --- and I think I stated in committee that I had no, no knowledge of it until
it came to committee.
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Johnson: And that’s why I couldn’t support it until then. But I just needed to find
out, you know, those that could have been involved and why not.
Mr. Russell: Heery helped us put together the recommendation for the continuation of
the architect. Heery’s position will be as it is in all the current SPLOST projects that they’re
working on. They are the people that help us monitor the performance of the architect and the
construction manager when we get to that particular point. Because of the nature of their duties
with us and their responsibility with us in this case we didn’t think it was appropriate to move
forward. As a matter of fact Heery, and we’ve had that conversation with Don Green from
Heery and he concurs with this recommendation to go with the architect. So that’s the
difference. In a few minutes I’m going to hit you with another proposal that sort of shifts gears
on that a little bit. But based on where we’re at now the fact we’ve got the architects on board
for the TEE Center that you’ve approved and moving forward with this building in a
companionway, I think that’s probably the most effective way to do it.
12
Mr. Johnson: So basically the only thing you’re saying now we’re just going to modify
this contract to include them designing the parking deck as the did the TEE Center.
Mr. Russell: Yes.
Mr. Johnson: When is the deadline on this?
Mr. Russell: The deadline?
Mr. Johnson: Yeah, to amend this modification.
Mr. Russell: As you well know in both of these projects the crucial issue is to move
forward. In my mind we’ve got other projects that we need to continue to move with that we’ve
discussed in the past and one that we’re going to discuss in the future. So if we can get them
working on this as soon as possible that’s one item checked off the list that we can continue to so
we can have time to focus on other items that we’ve got out there. So it’s a matter of moving
forward. I mean the timing issue is such that we can’t move with the TEE Center until we do the
parking because as we said last time we’re replacing some, displacing some parking as we move
forward. So it’s sort of one of those giant puzzles that I have all the time that you’ve got to make
the pieces all fit together. So I think that’s, that was the, our concern to move forward with that.
Once again you will have another opportunity to look at the bids for the construction manager
part of it. This just gets us to that point. So and that’s, the modification of the contract gets us
there.
Mr. Johnson: Okay, I think that’s what I had to get cleared up because I was under the
perception that we was doing something different with this. And that’s the purpose I meant that
is important for us to talk about this stuff prior to these meetings because if we don’t we come in
and we don’t have knowledge and has been shared. And one of the committee members called
me and needed information and I don’t have information on it and then of course I can’t give that
information to these guys.
Mr. Russell: And that was my fault, sir, and I apologize for that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Mason votes No.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
Motion carries 8-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item.
13
The Clerk: I believe that’s item twenty-four. Right, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk: Item twenty-four is authorize, no.
Mr. Mayor: Twenty-three.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR
23. Report/update from the Administrator regarding the Sheriff’s Department
Administrative Building.
Mr. Russell: If you’d like to just skip that.
The Clerk: No, no we can’t do that one until six-o’clock.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Russell will you put this up on the screen too so everybody else in the
room can see it?
Mr. Russell: If Jim could help me with that I’d be more than happy to do that there. Mr.
Mayor, members of the Commission two weeks ago we met we talked about the Sheriff’s Office
Building and decided I’d come back with a recommendation to you at this particular meeting.
We’ve, as you know the best-kept secrets in this community is we’ve been looking at several
sites over the past 18-months or so. Ronny, I think we’ve, or Sheriff, I’m sorry, I think we’ve
probably looked at if it was big enough to house one care we looked at it at one point or the other
in this particular area. We have narrowed those selection sites down to two potential sites. One
of which is a site that we own, another which is a site that is currently a store in a shopping
center, in a shopping center down on Gordon Highway. I have over the past several weeks not
mentioned the name of that store because we were unable to negotiate a price until just recently.
And Mr. Meybohm and I have had some conversations about that and I’m not opposed to saying
that currently the Safeway, Safeway? No ,that’s the other one, Smartway. You program
yourself not to say these things and when you finally get around to saying it you mess it up there.
So you know this a public announcement George. That is the site that we’ve been talking about
for the last couple weeks here basically. We’ve asked and have done some due diligence, as we
were required to do. Over the past couple of weeks we’ve done some environmental work at that
site. The environmental work has come back pleasingly so. There doesn’t seem to be any major
issues at that particular site. What I’d like to do is go through the chart that you’ve got in front
of you here just for a second and then give you some dialogue in relationship to how that works.
As you well in SPLOST V $3 million dollars was designated for the Sheriff’s Administration
Building and in SPLOST VI we added and additional $6 million dollars. The $6 million dollars
was bonded because we recognized the need to go ahead and move quickly on that building.
Quickly is defined by the bond attorney as opposed to us at this particular point in time or the
Sheriff. So those dollars are available and ready to move forward with the site. The two sites
fairly to be considered as central locations. Total project costs are about the same for each site.
14
We’re figuring about $9 million dollars which is a little bit more than what we have but if you
remember as we’ve talked about each of these projects in the past we’ve always started out with
a little bit higher number than what we ended up with. So I’m not uncomfortable that we can do
that within the accounts that we’ve got. There are pluses and minuses at both sites that we’ll talk
about in just a minute. We have Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 are the prices that were developed by
Heery to give us some idea of what it would cost. The comparison matrix, I’d like to go to next
which is Exhibit 3. What we’ve got in the Smartway store is a building of approximately 5,000
square feet. We’ve been able to negotiate a price of about $1.9 million dollars for that facility
which we think is a good price to have at this particular point in time. The pluses of that is it’s
already constructed. It would be a little bit quicker maybe to move into at this particular point in
time. Some of the minuses that might be in that particular building is because it’s currently
constructed we would have to do some renovations because it was constructed as a furniture
warehouse or furniture store there’s high ceilings there. The building’s approximately 50 years
old if I remember correctly so there’s so inherent problems with a 50-year old building basically
that we’ve got there. Some asbestos abatement but as I’ve said before we’ve done the
preliminary environmental stuff and it wasn’t as bad as what we’re looking at, what we
anticipated in a building of that age at this particular point in time. Parking would be a plus
there. There is sufficient parking in that particular area. And as you know we currently have a
substation behind that of about 10,000 square foot that the owners of the property would let us
continue to use in that particular location according to Mr. Meybohm in the conversation
yesterday. So we would be able to continue to use that particular area behind that as we go
forward with that. The other site is one that we had not looked at until just recently. As we move
forward with the Judicial Center we were able to free up some space and some parking closer to
the jail itself. It’s the site directly across from that which would be behind the Red Lobster at
this particular point in time. That has some pluses and minuses too. The fact that we would be
designing and building a building specifically for the law enforcement function. In addition to
that we feel that we would probably be able to design a building that would be green, or at least
lead certified at this particular point in time. In addition to that because of the just the fact that it
is a building designed with a specific function that would be lead certified or designed to be lead
certified there’d probably be some cost effectiveness in operations that would not be available in
the site there basically. The issue becomes at this point in my mind both sites work. I can make
both sites happen within the budget that we think that that’s available to us at this particular point
in time. So we’ve become a policy question on which site that this group and the Sheriff would
like to determine as best that we have there basically. We have pictures of the other site that’s
available, maps and stuff like that. And it’s a big open space that you can use. We do have some
numbers from Mr. Meybohm’s office there that basically shares with us the fact that they did
some work there and anticipated maybe a little bit cheaper price than what we did in the
renovation, about five million plus or so. According to those numbers there might be some
savings there. I would feel more comfortable with the numbers from Heery at this particular
point in time since they work, they’re the ones we’ve worked with in the past. But I did want to
make sure that you had those numbers available to you there. The issue once again is it’s a
policy decision. We can make it happen. You know it works either way and I’d be happy to
respond to any questions that you might have at the moment.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
15
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Administrator, I’ve got two concerns. One is that we’ve been, you
mentioned two weeks ago we’ve been talking about this since the fall of the year and there’s no
doubt in my mind everybody’s got their own opinion. That we need more of a police presence in
South Augusta than we have. And the thing the concerns me is that we started discussing this
back last year and I thought we had decided on the spot out there in the plaza. And it’s only this
week or last week we did anything about that other piece of land, which has been out there all the
time. It’s been there all time. It’s not like it’s just all of a sudden it just appeared. It’s been
there. It just concerns me but Augusta’s not the small little confined area it used to be and it
seems like there’s a lot of activity, adverse activity going on in that area. To me I just think we
need a much larger presence out there in South Augusta. And you say you’re building closer to
the jail but I thought that was going to come down anyway.
Mr. Russell: It is.
Mr. Hatney: So it’ll be sitting there by itself then you know so. But from my perspective
the presence in South Augusta I think is needed way more than we need it down there. That‘s
just my thoughts.
Mr. Russell: As I’ve said and just to give you a little of the chronological approach of
that. What you did charge me to do several months ago was to look at these particular sites. We
did narrow it down to two at that particular point in time. One of which was downtown. That
became cost prohibitive as we looked at that. This additional site was one that the Sheriff
brought to our attention just a couple weeks ago. We looked at it, if I remember correctly
probably about eighteen, nineteen months ago. At that point parking was as issue down there,
we were looking at another site downtown that we thought would be better until that became cost
prohibitive. So that’s how we got to where we are today and that’s what we’ve got in front of us
here.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, I want to say just I’m glad however we got to where we are
today. I’m glad we are where we are today so this body can take action. But I did, I see Sheriff
Strength is here, I just, I thought it would be appropriate to get a little bit of input on his opinion
on the two sites or if he’s fine either way, but as the chief law enforcement officer of the whole
city county.
Sheriff Strength: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I didn’t know I was going to get a vote today
but I’ll be happy to get Bob. I’m going to back up a little bit and I’ll probably say a couple of
things that Mr. Russell has already said. When we started some time back as everybody knew
our concentration was in the downtown area. We did not look anywhere further than the
downtown area at that time because of the new Judicial Center and us feeling that we should be
somewhere in the downtown area close to the courts. We’re involved with the courts as you
know a lot. So there was no emphasis put anywhere but the downtown area. The big problem
that we had in everyplace that we looked at in the downtown area was parking. That was the
major problem that we had. We found buildings, we found locations but adequate parking was
not there. And then of course we started going out a little to see without going out to far we find
something that would suit what we needed. And we looked at of course the first, went out south
I think we looked at was the old A&P which is further west that the Smartway Furniture. There
16
we major problems there in as much as staying within the scope of monies to be spent. We also
looked at the buildings across the street. At that time, it may be owned by Acura but it didn’t, it
did not fit into what architects thought we could do with it. And of course we looked at the
building at Southgate which the old Smartway Furniture building. The building and I personally
went out there and the building number one is there, it’s supposed to be sound. I know nothing
about that. In as much is it large enough. Without a doubt it is. I need probably 40,000 square
feet. I think this building is 50,000 square feet and adequate parking is out there. Now that’s
how we got out there. Now and as Mr. Russell said a couple of weeks ago I called him as I was
looking out my window across the street I was looking at the two parking lots that are over there
knowing that at the first of the year there would be no cars out there. And I think that was the
big thing we kicked that down some months back was because there was not adequate parking at
that location. But now of course the situation has changed because everybody in that building
with exception of us will be leaving. The courts won’t be there, the clerk’s office won’t be there
therefore folks won’t be coming down needing parking to go to court. So that threw this back up
in my mind as a possible site because at that point be can definitely use 100 parking places that
we have right now on the property where 410 is. Plus I am told that would be easily fifty more
parking places could be put if a building was put there. I know absolutely nothing about
building, what you have to do, the ins and outs of any of it. We can adjust to either site. We can
make them both happen like he said. Now what is best for the agency? Probably being in a
downtown location because of the courts. What may be a plus is as Reverend Hatney said more
of us out in the county. And of course the decision is made with this body. The plus, both of
them have pluses of course, the plus of there we’re going to be in it much quicker I am told. The
plus downtown is we don’t have to buy any property. The city already owns that property so
there won’t be a purchasing of any. Plus of course we’re close to the court, which definitely will
be in the downtown area. Now I know I hit some high spots and probably left you open what the
heck. Both sites can happen. Now if I get a vote on it I’ll do that. But I’ll leave that out and if I
can answer any questions for the Commissioners of the Mayor I’d be happy to do that.
Mr. Mayor: Ronny, now you know we can’t give you a vote. I get the first shot at that
vote.
Sheriff: I know that.
Mr. Mayor: I know Commissioner Smith had his hand up.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all we have gone back months talking about
this. And everybody knows that the Center of Richmond County, the City of Augusta is right
there. That’s the center. And we feel that as Dr. Hatney has said that we need some support out
there. We feel like the presence of these officers and these patrol cars would help. They have
had to close up those motels out there. I can’t tell you how many calls and I imagine there’s so
many that the Sheriff probably don’t know. But we really need some something people more
than we need bricks and mortar. And I really feel like the presence out there would help South
Augusta as much as anything. I have no problem with putting stuff downtown or anywhere else
in Richmond County. But that area out there has suffered and they only place that we can move
is south now. And this is a perfect time to do it. And I, we’re getting four acres out there and
then a large lot behind that store for future development if needed. And we just believe too that
17
like you said Sheriff quicker, you can get in there quicker, probably a year when it’ll take two
years to build the other. And based on Mr. Meybohm’s numbers we can save about $1.8 million
dollars. So I don’t know whose numbers we’re looking at but I think it’d be good to get together
with whoever’s putting the numbers out and compare and really see what the difference is. So I
understand we’re not going to vote on this today and I know it’s been a lot of work done but I
whole heartedly endorse Southgate Plaza. Thank you.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: I, Commissioner Lockett but I was thinking we could vote on this today. I
thought we were going to vote on this today. Commissioner Lockett and then Commissioner
Grantham.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to echo everything that my friend
Commissioner Smith just said. Last week at our committee meeting this was extremely urgent.
The roof was falling down and in the Law Enforcement Center. Everybody was contaminated
with mold. We had to do something. Now we found a building that can be retrofitted that we
can move in, in a matter of months. It has everything that we need plus. So I really can’t see
why there should be any lengthy discussion on whether it should be Southgate or downtown.
And I have several questions that I would like to ask if I may. One is we were shown that it’s
going to be about $2 million dollars difference in the price if we, much less if we use Southgate
as opposed to downtown on Walton Way. Am I’m kind of concerned, is if 401 Walton Way is
eventually going to be torn down or demolished what are we going to do with parking at that
particular time? As a Commissioner representing part of South Augusta I would like for my
constituents and others in that particular area to know that we’re doing something for South
Augusta and everything is not directed to downtown Augusta. Now the Sheriff has indicated that
either place would be fine for him. We are the stewards of the taxpayer’s money. If we can save
them $2 million dollars, get the Sheriff’s people out of the decrepit building that they’re in into a
new facility that’s centralized in Richmond County I think that’s what we should do. Thank you,
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve got a couple of questions that I’d like to
ask. And I think we need to, the Commission needs to answer one of these questions. And I
understand where Sheriff Strength is coming from when he says the convenience of downtown is
important as far as the office goes, close to the Judicial Center or close to this building. However
I think convenience also for our citizens and taxpayer’s of Richmond County should be
considered as far as where we located that office and where the presence is noted more so in the
central part of our county. And certainly that’s in the Southgate area. I can vote either way but I
feel that we owe it to the taxpayer’s and citizens to put this facility in a location that is supportive
of them and that we give them the protection that is so needed. I have argued many occasions
for the Sheriff. I helped propose the one-penny tax that we’ve been talking about for several
years to support the Sheriff to and to try to get additional services and dollars for him. And I
think the questions right now being raised within myself is that, you know where are these
figures coming from. I know here is an expert in what they do. They’ve done some fine work for
18
us. We’re talking about 40,000 square feet but these projections show me 35,000 square feet.
We’re talking about $9 million dollars and if you’ve every played poker and you show your
whole card then you’re going to spend all of your money. And that’s exactly what we’re doing
today. We’re spending $9 million dollars. And I don’t know that we’ve really looked at where
the savings is going to come from that we’ve been told might be there. And I’ve got a problem
with that. And I can vote based on getting those answers back. But I am really concerned about
having an existing building that’s going to cost me $9 million dollars and then building a new
building that’s going to cost me $9 million dollars and you own that property. So if we had to
build that building downtown on property that we would have to purchase it would cost us $11
million dollars. I just have a problem with that and I think that we need those questions
answered and I think we need to answer to our constituents and to the taxpayers of this county
and city as to how we’re going to protect them. That’s my comments right now. I’ll have some
more later.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Russell and then I know Commissioner Johnson. And,
Commissioner Jackson, did I see your hand up too? Okay.
Mr. Russell: Let me attempt to answer some of those questions. As you noted the initial
plan was the 35,000 square foot. We’ve talked to the Sheriff. Until we actually do the study on
that we’re estimating 40,000, 35,000 we don’t really know what the initial numbers were 35,000
square foot. He thinks he might need a little bit more and we might firm that up as we go
forward. We don’t know that.
Mr. Grantham: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, let me follow. If we build, if this is going to cost
of $9 million then if we build 40,000 what’s that going to cost us?
Mr. Russell: Well, as you---
Mr. Grantham: Another $181.00 a square foot.
Mr. Russell: As you well know as we begin these processes in going forward with that I
can’t tell you today the total price of the building. What I’m giving you today is the estimate
based on the people that we’ve hired looking at both facilities to do that.
Mr. Grantham: Right.
Mr. Russell: If you remember back initially we talked about building the Judicial Center
right at $100 million dollars and we’ve got that down to sixty-seven now. That’s what I do and
that’s what you’ve allowed me to do is make sure that we get the best bank for the buck as we go
forward with that. What I don’t want to do is come in and tell you that we’re going to need nine
thousand and need twelve thousand. So we’re looking at that. The $5 million dollar figures
were done by the perspective seller of the property and his agent and you know I respect their
figures there as much as anybody. But at this point the other figures were done by the people
that we’ve hired to protect our interests in there. I think that as we continue to move forward
with the project as we have in the past we’ll be able to refine those numbers down to most
degree, hopefully increase the space that is available. But you know at this point I’m
19
comfortable in both locations providing the Sheriff with a facility that’s going to be within his
needs. And I think we can do that. The question becomes the policy question of where you
decide that facility needs to be. You know the dollar amount is going to fluctuate as we go down
as we work on that. The space assignments that we’ll talk about a little bit later once, if you
want to move forward in that direction to expedite it in a method that we can do that, that will
help us redefine and make sure that we’ve, that we’re doing it in the right way. What I’m telling
you today is that either facility will work within the money that we have available to us. We thin
that we can provide the Sheriff the facility that he need not only to provide well being for his
employees but a functional space. And you know the dollars pending on that is still going to go
back and forth as we look at that. I’ve never brought you a building in for the final price that
what we initially estimated. We’ve always done better than that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Jackson then back down to
Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to have to agree with my colleagues
Jimmy and well for that matter all of them down there pretty much said a lot that I was going to
say. Primarily I know initially we talked about it being a savings going to Southgate. And this is
not personal. I would love to have the Sheriff’s Department out there so I’m not saying that I’m
(unintelligible) for that particular venue to be there, entity to be there in South Augusta. I want
what’s best for the citizens of Augusta but primarily I want to make sure that we can do it under
the costs. And I agree I don’t understand how we get to the numbers of $9 million to do a
renovation of a building and come up with the same figure on building new construction. So I
think we need to get some more hard numbers on actually doing this project because these
numbers are kind of just based on what it would cost to do this. But I think once we actually set
out to get some hard figures on it those numbers will probably come back a lot lower than what
they are. And also we need to make sure that we’re looking at the best for the taxpayers
financially. There’s other things we can be invested in as far as public safety goes and we’re
looking at time as well. So we need to make sure that whatever we do we take time and
consideration because I know they need to get out of that building. It’s not safe for them and it’s
not a great department right now so we just want to make sure we do what we can as soon as
possible to make that happen. So I do have concerns but I think this is something that we may
just need to come back to the drawing board or least go back to the table and at least delay it for
a week or so to kind of get some hard facts on the numbers and then bring it back so we make an
educated vote on where we’re going to be financially with this project overall.
Mr. Russell: If I may ---
Mr. Mayor: Fred, do you want to respond and then Commissioner Jackson,
Commissioner Smith and ---
Mr. Russell: Just so you understand that that $9 million dollars for the renovations
includes the property cost. Okay? So that’s part of that $9 million dollars there. The $9 million
dollars for the other building includes nine million towards the building give or take. So that’s
some of the difference there. The numbers that we got from the perspective seller is about five
something or so, so somewhere betwixt and between is what you’re going to end up with. My
20
general feeling is that we go with the people that we’ve hired to give us those numbers. And
that’s why, that’s why I’m not uncomfortable saying that either one I can make happen.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Jackson, did you?
Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, Sheriff, like nobody’s business I want you in
my back yard protecting the constituents of Augusta-Richmond County but I do have some
issues with taking, you know taking that off the tax role. That’s ten-grand for the tax roll. I
mean we’ve got property and I want you wherever is comfortable and best suited for you. The
only problem I have is with the age of the building. If the z-bar’s damaged or, what I don’t want
to do is spend eight and a half, seven million dollars to get to a building that’s unsuitable in five
years. And for future growth is either location good for future growth?
Sheriff: Yeah and I know exactly what you’re saying and I’m a little confused. I’m
going to back up. I’m going to get to that because and I know about building, building costs or
anything else. But I was real confused when I was told that this may be inadequate, a statement
that’s not correct that could purchase property at Southgate for approximately two-million and
they could go in there and do what we need for three and a half million, $75.00 a foot. It’s not
building a house. You can build a house for $75.00 a foot. You’re not going to go out there
because I will tell you gentleman right now get that contractor down here get him to sign on the
line that he can build what we want for $3.5 million dollars. And I’d say do it because you can’t
do it. Because you know we’ve got certain things I don’t guess he builds many houses with
holding cells of them. So these things are a lot more than $75.00 a foot and I think a little more
needs to be looked into that. Now I understand what you say it is a 50-year old building. I’m
told that the structure is sound. I don’t know, I don’t know anything. But you know they’re a lot
of variables in there. How long is that shopping center going to be there? I don’t know. I
definitely would not want to be left out there alone. Hope is there and I hope everything is
rented all the time. But these things you know we think about on our end. And of course
everybody would like us like you said in your back yard. Ya’ll can flip the coin and if you think
it is best out there I’m not going to fight you. I’m just laying it on the table. But I don’t think
and I would like for him to come down there today and commit to $3.5 million dollars. If he
does let’s take it because I’ve some stuff that can go in there that he can’t do for that. But get
him to commit.
Mr. Jackson: Well, I guess one of the other concerns that I have is we can, it can be
anywhere you want it to be. The concerns I have is it’s between two existing buildings. If
something catastrophic were to happen to either one you’ve got an issue right there. You’ve got
a leaky roof. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith and then um, Commissioner. Just go ahead, Jimmy,
and I’ll figure it out on this end.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to hear from Mr. Meybohm. He’s the one
that had somebody to look at that building and see if these figures that we’ve got here is accurate
or what you think about them.
21
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I don’t think we’re going to get into arguing over construction
figures. I want to call a point of order for that. Heery works for us. Nobody else works for us. I
think we’re stuck with Heery’s figures. If we’re going to go outside and start bringing in people
about construction figures we need to open it up and bring in a bunch of people to talk about
construction figures. Or either we need to sit with just our people.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Jimmy, it looks like people agree with that.
Mr. Smith: Agree with what?
Mr. Mayor: With Mr. Brigham. I mean just by the nodding of heads I’ve seen that we
ought to use our own people to give us prices on this.
Mr. Smith: I think it’s ridiculous. You’re talking about millions of dollars.
Mr. Mayor: Yes sir, okay. Let me go actually Commissioner Aitken, then Commissioner
Bowles.
Mr. Aitken: I think now we’re looking at too is Mr. Brigham said is bid process. If
we’re going to do that you need to open it up for people to do that instead of just listening to
those numbers. And two I think as a city we’ve been in the habit of building buildings too small.
And I think if we’re going to build a new building we really need to build an adequate that there
is potential growth into it and think outside the box then what we’ve normally been doing. And
Sheriff in your professional opinion what do you think that by having it at Southgate for the
presence because we’ve got a substation in the back. How much of a deterrent do you think
that’s going to be if we have it there for that part of the county?
Sheriff Strength: Well that would be very difficult to answer how much deterrent.
Without a doubt any law enforcement visibility is a plus. I would never argue that. And I
definitely feel that it would, it would make a difference. I cannot say how much difference. It’s
not like we’re going to go out there and be there. We’re going to go out there and we’re going to
get our stuff ---
Mr. Aitken: And that’s my point.
Sheriff Strength: And we’re going to go to work. And we’re going to be all over the
county again. Now there will be more folk if that building were to be decided on. There will be
more folk there during the course of a day then it would our uniform folks that will be headed to
beats all over the county. Because we have folks that work out of our office all day long. So
there would be a presence in that building all day, if I answered it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Fred, one of my concerns is you know we’re looking at costs here but what
we’re not factoring into this is what the cost would be for the Sheriff’s Department’s wear and
th
tear and the time of the officers to transfer from Southgate to the Judicial Center versus 4
22
Street. So I think that needs to be factored into any decisions we make as well. And also be
specific on the piece of property we’re looking at. There are three tracts of land owned by
Southgate Partners Equities. Which particular parcel is this? Is it the one in the middle, parcel
three?
Mr. Russell: Yes.
th
Mr. Bowles: My concern is that property sold May 5 of 2008 for $772,000.00. Why in
the world would we even entertain $1.8 million dollars to purchase it for? It sounds like
somebody’s making a hefty profit.
Mr. Russell: We had asked for a best and final offer. I’m sure that would be negotiable
below that if necessary. But that was the best and final offer that we had at that particular point
in time.
Mr. Bowles: And just speaking of the past of Augusta many people have made a lot of
money off this government and it’s like if we take that deal it’s going to be one more person and
I can’t support it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, everybody’s had a chance to speak to this issue.
Mr. Mason: Yes, please.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mason: I’m going to keep it short. Sheriff, I think one of the things we have to look
at is the priority. What is our priority here? Is our priority to get into a building quickly. Is it
our priority to get into a building that fits the need? Is our, I mean what is our priority? So I
guess my question to you is what is your priority as we begin to make a decision on this building.
Because you’ve heard some Commissioners say well you know they though it was timing that
you needed to get in quickly. You know things have been falling down and so forth. Or so can
you sort of help us shed some light on what the priority is actually so we can make a good
decision here.
Sheriff Strength: --- and I understand what you saying, you’re absolutely right. The
timing is important but I look at this and it shows the time renovation at Southgate, 212 days.
The time for a new building 365 days which is a difference. I keep, I go back and I don’t
understand, maybe I don’t understand some of these figures but I keep going back us spending
two million dollars if we own property. I have a hang up there but that’s my personal hang up.
There would be some logistics that we would have to work out that can be worked out by going
to Southgate. The courts being the biggest because we’re in and out of these courts all day long.
We’ve have teams of guys that go in and out of the courts. And I know nobody can say well that
building will be there for a very long time. I don’t know. We saw what we went through with
the building we’re in now. I would never say that that building being 50 years won’t last
because I can’t. I don’t know that. The, a new building we know what we’re supposed to be
getting with a new building. So our priorities probably if I had to pick one it definitely would be
23
getting into a place as quick as we could. But on the other hand you want to be in the right place
for the community. I understand our Commission is there but I have to look at what we do as a
job being downtown, in the downtown area. Because that was our druthers. We never looked at
anyplace else but downtown because of the courts. And of course without a doubt you know
judges have already been calling what about this, what about this, where are you going to. And
then, I can understand what they’re saying. But you know we have, we also have crime in the
downtown area too. Taken out of the downtown area well that would increase the crime down. I
don’t know. I don’t know what it will do Commissioner Mason but getting into a place is
important to us but I’m, even though I won’t be here I would definitely hope that a building
would be built that would be there more than any 25 years.
Mr. Mayor: Okay Commissioner Lockett, then Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Fred, you said if the building is put by the Red
Lobster it would be green certified?
Mr. Russell: That’s what we’ve tried to program in sir, yes, sir.
Mr. Lockett: Okay. The figure that you gave us does that include that?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Lockett: So that is included in that. And we mentioned the fact about commuting. I
would imagine that Sheriff’s deputies commute more from Southgate south than they do from
Southgate back into the city. If you purchased the property at whatever price you’re not only
gaining property but you’re retaining the property that you have on Walton Way.
Mr. Sheriff: I understand that but if we’re not on Walton Way and everybody’s gone I
don’t know what you would ever do with that property then. I don’t know but I understand what
you’re saying.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: The, when you talk about structures I can’t help but remember that part
down there on at 401 is less than 30 years old. Less than 30 years old and it’s falling apart so it’s
a, new construction makes sense. But I never will understand how in the world we built that
building and it’s dead already. But you’ve got one that, and I’m not, and if somebody says they
want to police in their back yard I don’t live out in South Augusta. So if it was in my backyard
I’d want it down in East Augusta. But I do believe that would be a central location and when
you’re talking about transporting prisoners you got to come from Phinizy Road anyway. And
that’s not going to change and eventually the one down here’s doing to be taken down.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
24
Mr. Hatney: It’s going to be down all together. Isn’t that right? And all or most of them
will be way out on Phinizy Road. So they still have to come the same distance to the courthouse,
no matter where the Sheriff’s located.
Mr. Russell: That’s correct.
Mr. Hatney: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, gentleman and Commissioner Brigham, I’ll get you in a second. I
initially thought we would have a vote on this today but it looks like there might be some more
questions answered particularly with regards to cost at the Southgate site. So I just wanted to
throw that out there. Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, Sheriff, I know we didn’t look at any sites in West Augusta
and I know we argued about whether it would be more important to have representation of the
Sheriff’s Department in 30906 or 30901. Both are very high on the correctional site as far as
crime and criminals are in those areas. I understand that part. I would love to have you in my
backyard too. If I could find a building we would put you in it for free if we had one. But that’s
not the case. The question I want to ask do you, are you willing to make a commitment in public
to a site at this time or are you not willing or what is your preference? And the other question I
want to have is to Mr. Russell and I want to hear a staff recommendation of a preferred site and
why that staff’s recommendation is that.
Sheriff Strength: In looking at all the things that we do and understanding what every
Commissioner has said up here, if I had a vote and said what would be best for what you do and
the administration end of your business, where would you go. Without a doubt I would go
closest to our courthouse.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Brigham: I appreciate that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, does anybody ---
Mr. Brigham: I’d still like to hear from Mr. Russell and staff recommendation to a
preferred site.
Mr. Russell: Um, I thought I avoided that fairly well.
Mr. Brigham: You can’t get away from that one.
Mr. Russell: But if, based on where we’re at, at this particular point in time based on the
information I got from Heery, our consultants that us in the design work based on a limited
knowledge of law enforcement and what it needs to be and where it needs to be if I was to be in
the position of having a vote on this particular item I believe I would spend the money that we
have on a new building as opposed to an old building and a site that’s appropriately located close
25
to the Sheriff’s office, or close to the Judicial Center. Because that is probably the major
function of those particular people would be going back and forth to that. In addition to the fact
there are also back up security for both facilities here. If something goes wrong that’s our first
line of defense in both these buildings after the Marshall’s office. And I would suggest that the
money spent on a new building that meets the exact needs of the Sheriff as designed by the
planners as opposed to the renovation would be what I would do. All that being said I can make
both happen. It’s a policy decision and y’all told me where to build the building and would be
more than happy to do that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Hatney, then Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Hatney: And I don’t want the Administrator or the Sheriff to think I’m being funny
but I remember it’s been about a year and a half ago there was wreck in the Red Lobster’s yard
and it took 45 minutes to get a policeman.
Sheriff Strength: That tells me we ought to be downtown.
Mr. Hatney: No, it didn’t do no good for y’all being down there. The first one that came
came from South Augusta.
Sheriff: Well, if they have to ---
Mr. Hatney: He came from South Augusta.
Sheriff Strength: You don’t understand.
Mr. Hatney: I hear you.
Sheriff Strength: Number one, folks that work in that building would not be answering a
wreck call. And we don’t have but one car on each beat. And the beat down here could’ve been
on anything in the world and he might’ve had to be brought in here from Windsor Spring Road
or what have you. And we do that everyday.
Mr. Hatney: I’m not being funny, seriously.
Sheriff Strength: I didn’t take it as funny.
Mr. Hatney: Forty-five minutes it took. I’m serious.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess you know the only comparison that I
think we were given was the two here that we had on property we had to purchase and property
we owned. And it just, it bothered me that we had a proposal given to us as well by the property
owners. And I’m just wondering if the, you know if we’re comparing apples to apples or apples
to oranges when you look at the cost of per thousand per square foot that we had in both of these
26
proposals. And so you know, did Heery have all of the information and the other party not have
any of that information and was just giving us a recommendation based on what they
experienced as far as renovation goes. So if we get to that point and if that’s the direction we’re
going to go in then let’s give all the parties the required requests that we have for the Sheriff’s
office.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: As I’ve said before as we go into the design, the planning process, the
whatever they call it when they do the little circles about who’s next to who and all, diagrams of
how that all interacts and whatever. You’d be able to get a better number for that. The reason I
gave you the numbers from Mr. Meybohm because they were available and he circulated them.
Once again we pay Heery to do this, that’s what they do and I’m not uncomfortable with their
numbers to the fact that I think I could do either one wherever you choose to put it. And that’s --
-
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: I was the one that asked Mr. Meybohm if he could get a square footage price
on renovating that building. It wasn’t his idea it was mine. So that’s why I asked him to get the
best price he could on the property and get an estimate on square footage on what it would take
to renovate it. So I just wanted to make that clear.
Mr. Mayor: Jerry, did you?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor I think we’ve had a recommendation from the
Administrator and from the Sheriff and I would propose that we build a Sheriff’s
administration office where they recommended it.
Mr. Mayor: Are you putting that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Brigham: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second on that?
Mr. Bowles: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Hatney: What are we voting on?
Mr. Brigham: Voting to take the recommendation ---
27
Mr. Grantham: --- downtown.
Mr. Russell: Walton Way would be the recommendation.
The Clerk: The Sheriff and the Administrator.
Mr. Hatney: It took y’all all this time to do that?
Mr. Russell: It’s we had to wait until six-o’clock anyway.
Mr. Hatney: I ain’t buying that.
Mr. Lockett, Mr. Smith, Mr. Hatney and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if I can just to let you know that we’ll be bringing some
recommendations through the Engineering Services Committee on Monday in reference to uh, as
you know we’re trying to attempting to fast track this particular item. We’ve got several
recommendations that I think will move us forward with that. And I just want to put you on
notice that we’ll be talking about those on Monday in Engineering Services to hopefully move
this project along quickly.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk, we’re after six-o’clock. We can go for that
last agenda item.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY
24. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire title of property for purchase for Augusta
Fire Department Station #10 Construction, PIN 013-3-001-00-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. Hamilton: Good Evening. Very briefly this agenda item is necessitated by change in
Georgia Law made by the General Assembly several years ago in response to an unpopular
United States Supreme Court decision, which allowed for the exercise of the Power of Eminent
Domain for the purpose of urban renewal. In response to that among other things the Georgia
General Assembly enacted a series of laws that among other things required an appropriate
circumstances that a meeting or a public meeting rather before the decision making body that can
exercise the Power of Eminent Domain to be held after 6:00 p.m. This is such a meeting and
they don’t occur very often because our roadwork condemnations and other more garden-variety
type condemnations are exempted from this particular rule. But that’s why we’re here before
you. The subject property involved is located on Alexander Drive and the Commission may be
well aware of a number of condemnation proceedings that are currently pending and are in
28
litigation now as a result of the road widening effort along both sides of Alexander Drive.
However this particular property owned Ms. Hughes who is here along with her attorney is being
considered for condemnation for the purpose of public use in the form of a fire station as the
Clerk has indicated. So in a nutshell this is designed to give Ms. Hughes and her representative
an audience before this body at the outset, at the beginning of this process in hopes that that can
be efficient and responsive and hopefully avoid the cost and expenses that can be associated with
litigation. So with that preface I would invite, Mr. Mayor, you to recognize Ms. Hughes, hear
from her and her representative. And again I caution that there are a number of related pending
pieces of litigation with similar issues.
Mr. Mayor: Could we hear from Ms. Hughes and her representatives? And if you could
state your name for the record, please, sir.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission my name is Dell Trotter and I
represent Ms. Doris Hughes who owns the property that is the subject of the motion tonight. We
of course recognize the property is being taken for public purpose. Our issue is to get fair market
value for the property which we suggest is $285,000.00 based on a sale of property next door at
1054 Alexander Drive which the city bought I think a year ago, within the last year. And doing
the arithmetic based on the value of what you paid for that next door we just took the price per
square foot and multiplied it by the square footage of this property. And what we’re seeking is
$285,250.00. And I think the city had offered $220,000.00 so a difference of $65,000.00.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have any questions?
Mr. Grantham: Yeah, I got one.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Do we have any records of other properties that were purchased on
Alexander Drive for the widening of that street that showed a difference of offering and a
difference paid based on what you’re telling us tonight?
Mr. Trotter: Well, you have the fees at 1054 Alexander Drive, which I understand, and
Ms. Hughes can confirm, correct me if I’m wrong but I understand it was also purchased for the
fire department as well. And the city paid $450,000.00 for that piece. It’s 1.12 acres. Ms.
Hughes’ piece is 7100 of an acre so thus the difference in price. But it translates to about $9.23 a
square, $9.22 a square foot. That’s the most comparable place is next door and that occurred in
the last twelve months.
Mr. Grantham: Okay to follow up on that? Does that nine dollars per square foot equate
to the $220,000.00 offering?
Mr. Trotter: No.
Mr. Grantham: That’s what I’m asking you.
29
Mr. Trotter: Okay. The two-twenty offering, let’s see I can tell you real quick what that
is. The two-twenty equates to $7.11 a square foot.
Mr. Grantham: And there we are.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Dan, do you have any figures on what the
appraised value was on 1054 that we purchased for $450,000?
Mr. Hamilton: I have not seen that appraisal, Commissioner Bowles, so I’m not able to
respond to the specifics. I would say that the tax value of the subject property were talking about
tonight is roughly the same as the amount that was tendered prior to this proceeding, the amount
that was offered. And I would also argue and take the position as we have across the board in
these cases that although these properties are located very closely to each other that’s about the
only legitimate material similarity between the two. We’re talking about differences in zoning
and size and highest and best use and all these various issues that appraisers like economists can
have different opinions about. But we, those are some of the factors that have gone into this
disparity in estimates. Well the one thing that I would point out is that Ms. Hughes’ piece is
zoned B-1. I don’t know what the zoning was at 1054 Alexander Drive. But I can also tell you
that according to the Richmond County Tax Assessors the fair market value of Ms. Hughes
property in 2006 total building value and land was $26,268. From 2006 to 2009 the value was
raised to $221,850. So it went up over ten, almost ten times what it was three years ago. So it
looks to me like we know what the value of the property is. At least we know what the bottom
of the value is.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, did we not have appraisals done on this property, Dan?
Mr. Hamilton: We have had the appraisal for the subject property that we’re talking
about this evening. I understand that’s for two-twenty.
Mr. Brigham: Right. Have we had more than one appraisal done on it?
Mr. Hamilton: Not that I’m aware of.
Mr. Brigham: Okay.
Mr. Grantham: It was two-ten.
Mr. Hamilton: Excuse me, two-ten. Thank you.
Mr. Grantham: Two-ten on the appraisal value.
30
Mr. Hamilton: And I have not seen the appraisal on the property that’s being asserted as
somewhat comparable. That was of course done for another purpose and by another appraiser
and I just haven’t seen it. That was done exclusively negotiated and closed exclusively through
the fire department officials.
Mr. Brigham:
Mr. Mayor, I think we need to make a motion. I don’t think we’re going
So therefore I think we would
to be able to negotiate price sitting up here at this table today.
need to make a motion to proceed with this because all it is, is figuring out what the price is
to go on with the condemnation. And I would make that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have a second?
Mr. Lockett: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Grantham: Yeah, what is the condemnation timeline and procedure?
Mr. Hamilton: The process from here is that we have appeared a time. We can file and
we can go to court at our pleasure. We can but we had to have this proceeding within certain
timelines from the notices and everything that’s gone out.
Mr. Grantham: So you have a negotiating period of time.
Mr. Hamilton: Yes, sir.
Mr. Grantham: Then I agree. Let’s do it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by
the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Hatney out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I know the Attorney would like a Legal Meeting but I have a sneaking
suspicion we will not be having a quorum by the looks. Can I get a motion to go into a Legal
Meeting for Andrew to discuss?
Mr. MacKenzie: It would be pending and potential litigation and I’ll just state too there
is nothing that’s immediately urgent. If you didn’t have a meeting today it would just be very
long next time so be prepared to be here longer.
Mr. Grantham: Motion to adjourn.
Mr. Mason: Second.
31
Mr. Grantham: Doesn’t need a second.
Mr. Mayor: We did not get the motion. We stand adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy
of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on
February 16, 2010.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
32