Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommission Meeting - June 1, 2010 REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER JUNE 1, 2010 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 5:00 p.m., June 1, 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 Paul Sherwood, Associate Pastor, Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited. Mr. Mayor: And, Paul, if you could come, Paul, if you could come forward. You’re not in trouble, don’t look like you’re in trouble. But thank you for that wonderful invocation. By these present be it known that Reverend Paul Sherwood, Associate Pastor of Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church is Chaplain of the Day. For his civic and spiritual guidance demonstrated throughout the community. Serves as an example for all of the faith community. Given under st my hand this 1 Day of June 2010. Thank you so much. Reverend Sherwood: Thank you so much. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. (APPLAUSE) Madam Clerk, on to the delegations. DELEGATIONS A. Mr. Sammie L. Sias, Concerned Citizens of Richmond County. RE: Chronic Nuisance Property Ordinance Task Force and the continuation of a permanent CNPO. The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Mr. Sias has requested that his delegation request be deleted from today’s agenda. Mr. Speaker: So approved. The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, ma’am. Move on to the consent agenda. The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1-19, items 1-19. For the benefit of any objectors to our alcohol petitions would you please signify your objections by raising your hand once the petition is read. Item 1: Is to approve a Transfer Application for a Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Club 3000 located 3054 Damascus Road to Club Prestige location 3054 Damascus Road. 1 Item 2: Is for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Club Enigma located at 544 Broad Street. The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those two alcohol petitions? Mr. Russell: None noted, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1-19 with no objectors to our alcohol petitions. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Do we have any items to be added to the consent agenda? Commissioner Jackson. Mr. Jackson: Mr. Mayor I’d like to add twenty-one, twenty-three and twenty-four and twenty-two to receive as information. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, if it pleases the Commission I’d like to add number twenty- five. Mr. Mason: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mason: I just, I’ve got a question on twenty-five. I don’t think we’re going to have any issues but I do have a question that I’ve got to look at on twenty-five. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Okay, thank you. Do you want to address that now or hang on to? Okay. Okay, so we’re okay with adding twenty-five? Okay, thank you. Are there any items to be pulled for discussion? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mason: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I need to get some, I need to pull item three. Mr. Mayor: Okay, any other items to be pulled for discussion? Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor --- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Lockett. Mr. Lockett: --- item number six. I just have a question. The Clerk: Number six? 2 Mr. Lockett: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Okay, three and six and, Madam Clerk, I believe twenty-five had been added to consent as well. Okay, hearing none further if I could get a motion to approve the consent agenda? Mr. Aitken: So moved. Mr. Mason: Second. CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC SERVICES 1. Motion to approve Transfer Application: A.T. 10-31: request by Keith Douglas to transfer the Liquor, Beer & Wine license used in connection with Club 3000 located at 1602 Gordon Hwy to Club Prestige to be located at 3054 Damascus Rd. There will be Dance. District 5 Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 24, 2010) 2. Motion to approve New Application: A.N. 10-32: request by Tenoia Powell for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Club Enigma located at 544 Broad St. There will be Dance. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 24, 2010) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 4. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and uninhabitable structures in the South Augusta Neighborhood: 2577 ½ Dover Street, (District 6, Super District 10); Turpin Hill Neighborhood: 1949 Martin Luther King Boulevard, (District 2, Super District 9); Bethlehem Neighborhood: 1824 Martin Luther King Boulevard (2 buildings), 1410 Twelfth Street, (District 2, Super District 9); Old Town ND Neighborhood: 112 Telfair Street, (District 1, Super District 9); AND WAIVE 2 READING. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 24, 2010) FINANCE 5. Motion to approve the purchase of 10 vehicles for the General Fund with 2010 Capital Outlay funds. (Approved by Finance Committee May 24, 2010) 7. Motion to approve request from Utilities Department-Construction & Maintenance Division to replace 3 light trucks in Utilities Construction and Maintenance Division and Engineering Division. (Approved by Finance Committee May 24, 2010) 8. Motion to approve the purchase of one compact excavator for Utilities Department – Fort Gordon Division. (Approved by Finance Committee May 24, 2010) 9. Motion to deny a request from Steinberg and Associates on behalf of the Golakia Corporation regarding a waiver of the penalty for property taxes owed for the Laney Supermarket at 843 Laney-Walker Blvd. (Approved by Finance Committee May 24, 2010) 3 ENGINEERING SERVICES 10. Motion to approve subject Change Order Number Two and proposal from Stevenson & Palmer Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $135,180 for inspection services associated with the Main Interceptor Upgrade Phase 2. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 24, 2010) 11. Motion to approve Deductive Change Order One to R.W. Allen in the amount of $28,515.34 for funds not utilized during construction due to cost saving construction methods utilized for the project under PO Number P172131. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 24, 2010) 12. Motion to award subject contract to Gary’s Grading and Pipeline Company in the amount of $4,055,564. This award will include new construction of sanitary sewer mains. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 24, 2010) 13. Motion to approve and accept a Deed of Dedication and Maintenance Agreement for 3338 Peach Orchard Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 24, 2010) 14. Motion to authorize execution of a contract with Tetra Tech Inc. to provide Construction Manager at Risk Phase I services for Various Projects at Ft. Gordon in the amount of $387,890.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 24, 2010) st 15. Motion to approve recommendation to name the bridge over the 1 Level Canal after the Honorable Mayor Hugh Lamar Hamilton, Sr. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 24, 2010) 16. Motion to approve recommendation to select R.J. Griffin & Company as the Construction Manager @ Risk for the Reynolds Street Parking Deck. The total amount of $458,195.00 for the General Conditions, Construction Management Fees, and Pre- Construction Services are included in the overall total project budget. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 24, 2010) PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 17. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held on May 18, 2010. APPOINTMENTS 18. Motion to approve the attached appointment and reappointments to various Augusta- Richmond County Boards, Authorities and Commissions representing District 3. 19. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. David S. Young to the General Aviation Commission representing District 5. PUBLIC SAFETY 21. Motion to approve agreement with Sentinel Offender Services, LLC for probation services. 22. Motion to receive as information an Ordinance to amend the Augusta, GA Code; to create a new Chapter under Title Six, enumerated as Chapter 9 and denominated “Scrap Metal and Materials Recyclers”; to repeal all Ordinances and parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide an effective date and for other purposes. 23. Motion to approve renovations of the entrance and the control room of RCCI. 4 24. Motion to approve the replacement of obsolete computer equipment (laptops, computers, servers, printers, and scanners) and purchase of any required computer software upgrades. APPOINTMENTS 25. Motion to approve the appointment of Andrew MacKenzie as General Counsel for Augusta-Richmond County. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Hatney abstains. Motion carries 9-1. [Items 1-2] Motion carries 10-0. [Items 4-5, 7-19, 21-25] Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hatney, I know you have a reference to make. The Clerk: That motion carries with Dr. Hatney abstaining on the alcohol petitions. Mr. Hatney: (Inaudible) --- drink. The Clerk: Drink okay better known as drink. Mr. Hatney: But you weren’t talking about soft drinks. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I think in one of our consent items I would like to note that former Mayor Hugh Hamilton that we had agreed to name a bridge after him and I’d like for you to address the family if you would please. Mr. Mayor: I would just like to recognize Hugh Hamilton III and other family members here. Obviously if y’all could stand, oh excuse me but if y’all could stand please so we can recognize you. (APPLAUSE) Again that went beautifully with there on consent but congratulations on that well deserved recognition for our former Mayor. Mr. Speaker: On behalf of my family we do. We’re very grateful to the Commission and their willingness to honor his memory and his contribution to the city. We’re all indebted to you very much. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Madam Clerk, on to the first pulled agenda item. 5 The Clerk: PUBLIC SERVICES 3. Motion to approve the purchase of 11 additional fareboxes to complete the farebox system at Augusta Public Transit (APT). (Approved by Public Services Committee May 24, 2010) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I believe this was yours. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And do we have the representative from Transportation? Ms. Speaker: Mr. Johnson is not here today. Mr. Mason: Okay um, okay there’s a couple of things and you’d have to excuse me. I was out of town so I wasn’t available for the committee meeting. And I really don’t have a problem with the purchases of these fare boxes but I’m a little troubled with some of the as I was trying to get caught up when I got back some of the dialog that was attributed to Mr. Hayward. So Mr. Johnson so I was hoping that he would be here to address this. But I’ll say this to you in reference to the comments that were made about the fare boxes. And some of the fare boxes have been inoperable on the buses. So my question is how accurate have we been then when we’ve been given reports in terms of the monies that have been collected. Because we all know that transportation is a losing entity for us here. And we’re having to you know really deal with that on a large basis. So when you tell me that as an example we only made $875,000 last year it costs us $4 million we’ve got to pitch in $3.2 um, how accurate have we been with those numbers that we’ve been dealing with fare boxes that are not operational? Ms. Speaker: Okay, Commissioner, the fare boxes have been having some issues for some time and that is why we need to replace them. When the SMO was done they discovered that so the numbers that we received from the fare boxes because the computer reads that data that’s downloaded. I can tell you that it’s as accurate as the fare box reads. We have to go back and do hand counts for the revenue coming in. So we double-check that way but some of it with the fare boxes has been inaccurate. Mr. Mason: So to your knowledge have we been relying on the bus operators when the fare boxes aren’t working. I mean do you kind of see where I’m going here? Who’s been watching the henhouse here? Who’s been you know keeping track of dollars coming in. Because I mean we need every dollar that we can get as far as that especially when it comes to transportation. We know that if they don’t make money we know historically in most cities that they don’t make money. But if we’ve had fare boxes that haven’t been working for any number of years and I don’t know how many number of years we’ve had these boxes that haven’t been working I’m just wonder now and you may not be able to answer that but I think that’s something we’ve got to look at. How accurate have we been in our reporting process in terms of the dollars we’ve actually collected? And who have we been counting on to ensure that those dollars when they’re collected when somebody comes up on the bus, and I hope it’s being collected that it’s being turned in properly and accounted for accurately. Is there a separate sheet 6 in case the fare, you see what I’m saying is there a separate sheet that somebody’s writing something down in case the fare box isn’t working and you’ve got some log where you’re annotating um, help me here. Ms. Speaker: Okay, if the box is not working, it’s malfunctioning, what happens is the driver contacts control. That’s our transfer facility. The supervisor comes out and meets them wherever they are and fixes the fare box at that time. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: I think you know what you’re discovering is that ongoing problem that we’ve had with the fare boxes themselves. I think part of the issue becomes because of the numbers of people we were looking at and the issues that we’ve got here I think we’re trying to fix that ongoing problem. The numbers you know they secondarily count the dollars so we know the dollars that are in. We’re depending on the drivers to make sure people deposit those dollars as they go through. So I think this is just what we’re looking for is this whole system is a secondary check on that to make sure that we’re actually collecting as we should. It was a problem pointed out in one of the federal audits that we had about two years ago? Initially we looked at it and my thought was okay it’s going to cost me ‘x’ number of dollars to fix the fare boxes and we’re only bringing in ‘x’ number of dollars period. But because of the checks and balances that you’re asking us to do and the federal dollars that were available to do that it’s probably a good way to go ahead and move the system forward. You know as we look at that we’re going to be able to continually monitor that. I think what you’re suggesting and what I would agree with is we probably need to get the clickers and do a little spot-checking on that and have a supervisor to do that in addition to that. And I think that’s where you’re going if I’m not putting words in your mouth. Mr. Mason: Well let me clearly say that number one I makea motion that we approve this item because I understand that the city has a very small financial binder in this whole process and obviously we do need it. But at the same time until we get the new fare boxes we need to be ensuring that this money that’s coming in on our transportation system in coming into this city and not going somewhere else. And I’m not suggesting that it is but we’ve got to cut out the possibility even the probability that we’re getting inaccurate counts in terms of the monies that we’re trying to raise the standards within this city and bring in the taxpayers dollars where it’s supposed to be. So like I said I make a motion that we go ahead and approved this here today. We’ll have some further discussion on that Mr. Administrator. And to ensure that this Commission gets the feedback as far as what system we’re going to use to ensure that while we’re waiting on these new fare boxes oh by the way this is eleven. Do we know how many fare boxes are inoperable? Ms. Speaker: There’s probably, about, I would say, five to six. Mr. Mason: Five to six that are inoperable? Ms. Speaker: Totally inoperable. When you say inoperable I’m thinking they don’t work at all. They do work but --- 7 Mr. Mason: Well, that was just, I’m using that because that’s what, the statement I heard on the news and all of that so that’s the reason why I kind of wanted Mr. Johnson. Ms. Speaker: Well, he just has some issues because they’re older boxes and they have issues so. Mr. Mason: And if those issues are determining how much money is coming in then I think we, we need to look at that. But that’s all I’m saying. I think we need to have a system in place. We need to start looking at insuring that there’s a system in place for accountability for those dollars coming in to our transportation system. Mr. Mayor: I agree. We have a motion. Is there a second? Mr. Lockett: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I believe Mr. Johnson said that all the fare boxes on the entire system was on, we’ll have enough to replace everybody with the new ones that we ordered in Committee the other day? That was one of the questions that was asked at Committee at the time. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith. Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Are there cameras on those buses? Mr. Mayor: That was another question I believe. They are coming. Ms. Speaker: On the new buses. Mr. Russell: There will be cameras everywhere one day, sir, including our buses. Ms. Speaker: Currently there are cameras on our ADA vans. We will have cameras on our new buses that are coming in. Mr. Smith: That certainly would help. Mr. Mayor: Big Brother will be watching you. 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: Madam Clerk, the next pulled item which I believe is number six. The Clerk: 8 FINANCE 6. Motion to approve request from Utilities Department-Customer Service Division to replace an F-250 Utility Body Pickup Truck, Bid Item 10-010. (Approved by Finance Committee May 24, 2010) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett, I believe this was yours. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just basically had a question. I noticed that we’re replacing an F-250 with an F-250 and I see that this truck is needed for meter repair and replacement. And basically my question is could we possibly buy a smaller truck and get the same service out of it? Or does it, do we really need a truck that big for what it’s designed to use. Mr. Wiedmeier: We rely on the recommendations from the fleet management as to size of the trucks. A lot of this has to do with the amount of equipment that it hauls around and they felt like it required and F-250. Mr. Lockett: And that is to haul meters for repair. Are those meters that big that heavy? Mr. Wiedmeier: Some of them are. The industrial meters are very large. Mr. Lockett: Well thank you. That’s all the questions I have. Mr. Mayor: Okay Commissioner Smith. Mr. Smith: Tom, those things have those utility bodies on them which adds a lot of weight to it. And that’s one thing that I think the reason they use the 250. Mr. Wiedmeier: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Okay, can I get a motion to approve? Mr. Lockett: So moved. Mr. Smith: Second. 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. Motion carries 10-0. The Clerk: Okay, Mr. Mayor, you’re on. Mr. Mayor: I don’t want to jinx it. Madam Clerk, on to the regular agenda. 9 The Clerk: PLANNING 20. Z-10-28 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that the only access to the property be from Deans Bridge Road; 2) the rear yard buffer requirements as stated in the Tree Ordinance shall be met along the rear (opposite U.S. 1), Morgan Road, and Inwood Drive property lines; 3) all lighting shall be directed downward and away from adjoining properties; 4) the only B-2 use of the property shall be a truck, recreation vehicle, and boat parking as described in this petition or those uses allowed in a B-1 zone; 5) any truck that may be left running must be parked a minimum of 100 feet off the nearest property line; a petition by Cliff Channell requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property containing approximately 6.6 acres and consists of three tax parcels that will be combined and utilize an address of 3528 Deans Bridge Road. (Tax Maps 106-0-087-00-0, 106-0-086-01-0 and 118-0-463-00-0) DISTRICT 5 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty. Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. We received a letter from the petitioner in this matter this morning asking that he be allowed to withdraw this without prejudice. He no longer wants to go forward with it. And if you do that if he did want to come back for something else he would have to go through another advertisement period and start over. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Brigham: I make a motion to allow him to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Johnson: Second. 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. Lockett votes No. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, on to our final agenda item. The Clerk: OTHER BUSINESS 26. Discuss recent increased tax valuations. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Alvin Mason) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I believe this is yours. 10 Mr. Mason: Uh yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor, just a couple things in reference to this. I know there’s been several Commissioners to include myself who’ve received a number of phone calls from concerned citizens and residents in Augusta Richmond County in reference to the recent increased valuations. And I didn’t have any answers to give them so I thought maybe we’d give someone from the Tax Assessors Office an opportunity to come up and address potentially the reasons why there could be potential tax increases. And then there were certain areas in particular that the phone calls that I received that had to do with South Augusta, some of the rural areas, Blythe, down Windsor Spring, there were a couple new subdivisions that came to me. I happen to live in one of them and of course they want to know why I increased their taxes. Of course I told them I didn’t do that but in any case they wanted to know why did the taxes increase so much. And I think if we have somebody here from the tax assessor’s office that can address those issues and speak to the fact of the appeal process. And that way we can get it out there I see there’s a lot of media here and then we can get it out to our constituents. So is there someone oh, --- Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Mason: --- there he is. Mr. Mayor: And, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’ll tell you I’ve spoken to people about the same issue. I think this is great that you’re doing this. I’ve also spoken to people whose assessed values have gone down that refuse to come in and request that they go back up. That’s the nature of the game. Please, sir. Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners thank you for this opportunity to share this information with you. I’m Charles Smith. I’m Chairman of the Board of Assessors here in Richmond County. And we’re very pleased to have this opportunity to address the concerns that you and other constituents have. The first thing we’d like to point out that there were about 34,228 Assessment Change Notices that went out. Of those 22,556 where increases, 11,383 were decreases. There were 289 that were new processes. The, our job in the Board of Assessors Office we’re to assess the value of property. We do not determine what the taxes are. We only value property when and that’s what our job is that’s what we do. We do so in accordance with the law of the State of Georgia and with the regulations that are put forth by the Department of Revenue. That is our job to do that to find tangible properties in Richmond County and to value those properties to determine what’s taxable, what’s equitable what is the equitable value of those properties and then to determine what the net digest is. The formula for calculating the mill rate as you know is that the net digest is in the denominator of that fraction not in the numerator which means that when the, when we have done our job and have assessed properly and fairly the value of the properties in Richmond County if we get every property that should be and done fairly then the mill rate will allocate of course all of those properties what ever expenses have been determined by this Commission and by the Board of Education because those are values that go in the numerator. What we have been, what we’re concerned with as we look at the value of properties we have to be concerned with one other thing and that’s appraisal. And that is something called uniformity. We have to be concerned with not just what one value is but looking at neighborhoods, what are the values throughout neighborhoods and are we assessing values properly. We have to be concerned with whether or not low value properties 11 are assessed any differently from high value properties. All of those are the requirements in state law so that we’re not simply looking at a property but we have to look at how the value of a property how that’s affected by the overall valuation here in Richmond County of the digest. So that it is a job that the staff, which we’re really proud of worked on year round and one of the difficulties that we have is that we have nine field appraisers and we have nearly 80,000 parcels in Richmond County. It makes it impossible for the nine field appraisers to visit every property every year. We have had this addressed back in 2003 when this Commission had a performance review board evaluate the performance of the board of assessor’s office and one of the recommendations was an increase in staff. But that has not been possible to achieve at this point. Even if we had the increase in staff we don’t have the space to put them in yet. So we’re looking at maybe next year to be able to address those issues. But until that time comes we have to have some means by which we can address the property value each year as we go along. One thing the taxpayer or property owners can do and has been something that we have missed is that they can file a return. As a matter of fact have an opportunity to file a return on their personal property and the real estate, their homes at the beginning of the year. And when those, when you file one but it’s still not what you think but it’s on the fair market value however it’s determined. But then if that’s done if there are some issues that we have with that than that almost certainly will have an inspection of your property to make sure we have the correct description and sometimes that happens. We do not, as I say, we can not inspect every property every year. So it’s entirely possible that a description of a property is wrong. And so if you have an assessment of valuation that is incorrect in your judgment then absolutely, we need to have you say to the office here’s the concern. You have from the date of the notice that you receive you have 45- days to appeal. And it’s on the information that you receive indicating how to appeal this appeal. Just call the office and say here’s the concern here’s the property and some of those issues I have known to be addressed via phone simply by discussion because there’s been some misinformation. Another situation you may have to come in and look at some other data that you may have that indicates that there’s an incorrect description. What are some of the reasons that property values might increase? Let’s say last year or whatever year the year before or whatever there were some work things done on the property and there might have been even some obsolescent that is the property might have been not up to par. And so it was valuated on the basis of that in the previous year. But as of January 1, 2010 that property was now back up to standard. Let’s suppose it had 60% of the value in the previous year and now it is up. Then what would happen now? That property would be valued back up to standard. And if you have not realized what was the cause of the lower value in previous years then you certainly would not register why there’s an increase this year. But that can certainly happen. All of us have been concerned with the fact that there have been a number of foreclosures and a number of other issues that affected properties but we also know that not every neighborhood has foreclosures. We also know that there have been some neighborhoods where there has been some appreciation in value. That is certainly true here in Richmond County. There are some other counties that we read about here about in the news here in Georgia where they are too having some considerable problems. We are very fortunate not to have had to deal with that much of an issue here in Richmond County. But we really do want to stress the fact that we welcome anyone who has a concern about the valuation and let us help deal with that and get that resolved. Obviously here there’s no way to do that on a mass basis because I guarantee that not everybody here’s got the same issue. But on an individual basis and that’s what will happen with the appeal process that those issues will be addressed. We will have as I said from the date of the notice you have 45- 12 days to appeal. We have received some appeals. I don’t know how many yet because I’m not sure we had a chance to count those that came in today before we got here. But the appeals are coming in and not only the right that is desirable. How else can we get sometimes a correct description of the property unless the owners of the property say I have a one-story house not a two-story and for whatever reason there’s a wrong description of the property and that could very well happen. Let me just pause and just ask if there’s some other questions that I might be able to address. Mr. Mason: I have one other question. And let me say thank you for coming forward and kind of clearing some of that up for us. In particular the calls that I received were out of South Augusta. And of course a lot of it was done in Manchester Subdivision, inside of Diamond Lakes and so you know they’re building new homes and things like that. And the statement was that well last year you know I was at this amount and now I’m $65,000 dollars more this year. I mean that’s a huge jump in these economic conditions is what’s being said to me. So I don’t know you know how to address that or explain it. And of course I’m going to forward them to your office of course and so that we can get that done. But is there anything happens say for instance in the subdivision where they’re building new homes and things like that. I mean is there something that could possible trigger such a large increase as such? Mr. Smith: There is one thing that has been occurring and has needed to occur for some time but has not been addressed in south Richmond County as much as it should have been because there were not necessarily as many sales going forward there or in some neighborhoods. There were some but not all. So it hadn’t been addressed every year as much as some other neighborhoods. However land values has been a concern, the schedules for land. When the digest was submitted in I believe it was 2003 it was approved conditionally that the, that the land schedules that we’re using in Richmond County would be addressed. We’ve been attempting to do that. And it was just this year that we were able to get a lot of that addressed in south Richmond County. And so that’s one of the reasons that I don’t know the specific areas we’d have to check that with the, on that area specifically. But I know that was the case that in some areas we’re I’m getting, I’m getting helpful information. Also you indicated that in the neighborhoods houses being completed or other things being done this addresses the issue if a person has purchased some land or has building on some properties on a house and it was not complete last year and if it was completed this year that would certainly cause an increase in the value since it was not completed, the value was not there. Mr. Mayor: And I’ve just got two quick questions. One the request to look at the land was that, that came from the Department of Revenue --- Mr. Smith: Yes. Mr. Mayor: --- in ’03? Mr. Smith: That’s correct and we have been attempting to do that. As a matter of fact we had to address a large acreage. That was done also for large acres of land in and that was, that would be again primarily in south Richmond County. We had, we hired a firm that deals with forestry and land, large tract evaluation and they came in and assisted with that this past 13 year. And so that would be reflected as well in this with digest because our land values were too low. Mr. Mayor: Well, and that was my second question and then I’ll recognize Commissioner Smith. Have you ever had anybody come in and say, “hey, my assessed value went down. I think I’m not paying enough”. Mr. Smith: Well, I’ll tell you this. Let me just point out. This is the first year I’ve been on the Board of Assessors since ’99 this is the first year that I recall that we have sent out notices for decreases. And that’s what’s required again in the legislation. Let me point out that next year it will be required that notices will go out to everybody whether there’s an increase, decrease or whether --- Mr. Mayor: Flat. Mr. Smith: --- they (inaudible) bank. So that’s going to increase need to increase our budget by the way. Where is Mr. Russell? But on the matter of last year there were some decreases. The notice wasn’t sent out but there were some property owners that saw that. They asked why did our property decrease. Now they didn’t ask that they wanted to pay more taxes. They were concerned about the valuation of the land and their thinking they might be able to sell it for a higher price and that might influence the value of their property if it was sold. Mr. Mayor: Well --- Mr. Smith: I have not heard anyone this year who said that we would like to increase it so we can pay more taxes. Mr. Mayor: And along the lines of what the Mayor Pro Tem is trying to do, get information out here by putting this on the agenda just I think people need to realize that we have not raised the millage rate as a city government in three years. Assessed values have changed but the school board has separate taxing ability and they have raised their portion of the millage rate. Commissioner Smith, then Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In District 8, which covers Hephzibah, McBean, Blythe I had a group out there that called me and said that their assessment was doubled on farmland. And so we got together with them and brought them down here and had a meeting with the office. And some of the things that our people out there said was why do you wait ten years to do this? If it was done every year one-percent it wouldn’t hurt so bad. And when you go ten it can wipe out some folks. But it’s a very serious thing with some of the people out in rural Richmond County. Mr. Smith: Yeah and I agree completely. It is very difficult to do that and why one of the things again in adjusting the, and primarily it might have been the land schedules again because of the large acreage in terms of the value of the land. That was not necessarily an easy adjustment to make. That’s why and with the staff that we have again doing all of the things that the staff got to do made it difficult. So we did get to the point where we had to hire a firm that 14 comes in that specializes in looking at large tracts of land, large acreage. And we did that last year. And that’s why that did show an increase in the acreage value. I believe let’s see with my notes here. I believe that the large acreage tracts where it’s about $1,200 per acre and when the firm made this recommendation it was up to $2,700 per acreage. They said that we were that much too low. Hopefully going forward we will be able to look at schedules much more frequently not certainly for south Richmond County but for all of the counties. But again with nine field appraisers it makes it a little bit more difficult. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Grantham then Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to thank Mr. Smith. And I don’t know how many of y’all are familiar with Charles Smith and what his responsibilities have been in the Tax Assessors Office. But what we have been faced with in the last five to eight years has been mandated by the state to bring our property values up to the expected amount that the state required and they did this. And we have been without a chief tax appraiser now in Richmond County for almost a year. And Mr. Smith as assumed that responsibility and he’s done that while he’s worked his own personal job and tried to help maintain a sense of level and a sense of compassion for the people of this community. And personally I want to thank you for that Charles. I think you’ve done an outstanding job, you and your office. And I know I’ve been there in the trenches with you when you get these complaints. But on my behalf I say thank you. Mr. Smith: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Lockett, then Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should pass because Commissioner Grantham said everything I wanted to say. But I’ll say it anyway. Chairman Smith, I just want to let you know I appreciate what you’ve done on the board for many years. And you have some good deputies and the board of assessors is one of the greatest offices around. And y’all are recognized for your expertise throughout the state. And I just to say keep up the good work. Mr. Mayor: I concur. Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Smith, is all the notices out? Mr. Smith: The notices are out on the real estate properties but not for business return. Mr. Mayor: All the real estate properties are out? Mr. Smith: Right, the notices are out. Mr. Brigham: How many returns did you have filed by individuals this year? Do you have any idea? 15 Mr. Smith: No, I don’t. Do you know about how many returns? About four hundred of Ms. Greer who’s in the real estate area indicates that there were about four hundred returns that were filed. Mr. Brigham: They were filed? I was curious about that. And can you go into briefly about how they file an appeal and so that the public will have an understanding of that also please? Mr. Smith: Let me ask this. Are we still on, can we do that online? Mr. Speaker: Not yet. Mr. Smith: Not yet, okay, I didn’t know if we got to that point. Yes, if they would call the office and indicate that they’ve got a concern they can get an appointment and come in with their concerns. It’s very simple. That’s all they need to do as happened here and just to indicate with the questions that they have. Let me tell you the reasons for appeal. One reason that is not and acceptable reason to appeal the valuation of the property is that I don’t want to pay more taxes. That is not a reason. They can appeal on the basis of the value, you can appeal on the basis of whether the property is taxable in the first and the other is uniformity. We have measures of uniformity I mentioned that where we look at how the assessments are grouped. Are they in a rather narrow funnel? The more narrow the funnel is when we do the statistical measure called the COD then we fall within the guidelines for uniformity. For real estate properties that is 15% for commercial 20%. If it falls within that funnel then we’ve got uniformity. But if there’s great disparity in a neighborhood in terms of values for the same description of a property then we’ll look at those issues and see what, why that is the case. Others may have looked at properties but there might have had to be adjustments made because we’ve got to meet the problem of and the issue of uniformity. So those are the three basics for appealing. Not because you don’t want to pay more taxes but the value is wrong, the property is not taxable or isn’t uniformity. Those are the three primary bases for appeal. But we make it very simple here. It’s not a complicated problem to appeal. Mr. Brigham: Okay, one other --- Mr. Smith: And on the notice that you receive there is the name of the person is there and the phone number. You call them the ones who did the primary work. That is there so the taxpayer would be able to call and address an issue to the ones who primarily did the work on their values. Let me get my glasses on here and see what this other note is. They can also write a letter. I forgot that. Okay. There’s one other thing I wanted to mention if you would allow me. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham had one more question. Mr. Brigham: Do you have any idea if our digests are going to go up or down? Is there an indication, do you have an estimate as to if it’s a percentage increase or a percentage decrease yet? 16 Mr. Smith: I think that from our indications that it will be that we should be operating under no growth. We have for several reasons. One is that even though there was an increase in the in several assessments some of that might have been appreciations. And as you know if the mill rate is going to take that into consideration there will have to be some public hearing that the Commissioners and the Board of Education would have to have relating to that. We don’t know how much that is now but also because of the situation that it’s been, mentioned by Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Mason particularly we are having quite a number of appeals. And we don’t know what the final result of those appeals are going to be. That’s the 45 days from the date they were mailed until that they have to appeal we’re going to begin working those. We are working those appeals as they come in. But we don’t know where that’s going to be. But there wasn’t that much of a growth to be able to say that it will be in a percentage higher. So it is just, we can’t forecast any higher percentage at this point. There was one other quick thing that was mentioned in terms of making adjustments. Something that I think we need to be aware of. As you know properties are assessed real estate at 40% of the value. But when we complete, when we calculate on that basis and then complete the digest and do all of the calculations we have to do based upon what’s been done county wide what we realize and what the statistics will show is that the overall level of assessment may be greater or less. That is for the overall county than 40%. Under Georgia Law currently when the value overall level of assessment is between 38 and 42% the utilities this is state law state wide, the utilities have agreed to be assessed at 40%. So we’re at 38% here in Richmond County. The utilities in Richmond County will be assessed at 40% level. And that makes a lot of sense. Utilities cross county lines so you had one county at one level than the another so they have agreed with the Department of Revenue with the state that’s what would happen. But what happens when it falls below 38%. Below 38% the utilities are assessed at whatever the value is for that county. For the last couple of years because we have not made some of the adjustments that we needed to make the reason we have to go through this now our overall level of assessment has been declining so that we down below 38%. So we needed to make to go in do the things that needed to be done to get everything back up to where it should be. Get the schedules back up and do the things needed to be done so that we would back above 38% so that the utilities was in the assessed --- Mr. Mayor: Forty. Mr. Smith: --- level because otherwise Richmond County would be losing money as a result of that. So I just wanted to point that out as well. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Well, thank you, sir, any further questions? Mr. Mason: I just got a parting comment. First of all I appreciate you coming forward and expressing this to us. I think as we move forward in the future and whomever takes over this position um, these types of things happen a lot of times. You know it’s sometimes a little difficult on the resident because the only thing that they’re going to get is the bill and there’s no explanation. And I know that situation like everyone pretty much gets a utility bill, a water bill from Augusta. So even if we had a little something shot off in there which wouldn’t cost us any more money the bill is sent out anyway just to kind of somewhat address what may or may not be happening. There my be something to look at in the future as we put a little information paper 17 in with their water bill or something like that to kind of, to kind of address some of these types of issues as we’re trying to get the information out to the residents at the most inexpensive way possible. Because it doesn’t cost too much more to throw that off into, Tom Wiedmeier to throw it off into the water bill and get that information out there. But I do appreciate that and thank you, Mr. Mayor, for giving him that information to come up for it. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Can I get a motion to receive this as information? Mr. Smith: So moved. Mr. Lockett: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Mr. Attorney. Mr. Mackenzie: We have a need for a Legal Meeting for Pending and Potential Litigation as well as Personnel. LEGAL MEETING A. Pending and Potential Litigation. B. Real Estate. C. Personnel. ADDENDUM 27. Motion to approve going into a Legal Meeting. Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to into Legal to discuss those matters? Mr. Smith: So moved. Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Jackson votes No. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mayor: We are in Legal. You got to say Joe Jackson’s consistent. [LEGAL MEETING] 18 Mr. Mayor: I’ll go ahead and call the meeting back to order. 28. Motion to authorize execution by the Mayor of the affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act. Mr. Hatney: So moved. Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Bowles and Mr. Brigham vote No. Motion carries 8-2. Mr. Mayor: If there’s no further business to come before the body 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 June 1, 2010. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 19 20