HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 15, 2011 Commission Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
FEBRUARY 15, 2011
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 5:00 p.m., February 15, 2011, the
Hon. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Guilfoyle, Smith, Mason, Hatney, Aiken, Johnson, Jackson,
Bowles and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
The invocation was given by the Reverend Stephen J. Delaine, Pastor, Trinity CME
Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
Mr. Mayor: --- and hopefully we can clear out the chambers relatively quickly I’m going
to go ahead and call the meeting to order. And I’d like to call on Reverend Stephen J. Delaine,
Pastor Trinity CME Church for our invocation. Please stand. Pastor if I could get you to come
forward. Thank you for that wonderful invocation. Office of the Mayor. By these present be it
known that Reverend Stephen J. Delaine, Pastor of Trinity CME Church is Chaplain of the Day
for his civic and spiritual guidance demonstrated throughout the community. Serves as an
th
example for all of the faith community. Given under my hand this 15 Day of February 2011.
Thank you, sir. (APPLAUSE) Okay, Madam Clerk, on to the presentations.
The Clerk:
PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the 2010 Report, Focus Forward. (Requested by Deputy Administrator
Ms. Tameka Allen)
Ms. Allen: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, many times we do not take notice
of some of the great things that’s going on in our great city of Augusta. So today this committee
would like to present this to you a copy of the city’s 2010 Annual Report Focus Forward.
Alexandra will be presenting a copy to each of you. This report highlights the number of the
city’s 2010 accomplishments as well as some of the visions for 2011. In supporting our green
initiative and of course to try to keep costs low this report is also being made available online on
our city’s website using our flip viewer technology. And if Jeff can demonstrate he has it up
now. I just love how that page sounds. That’s that great technology going on. Limited editions
will also be available but we have printed up some editions and we want to thank Phoenix
Printing for working with us on that. And we will be making those available to our citizens here
at the Municipal Building, some of our recreational sites, downtown library, the Chamber of
Commerce, Convention and Visitors Bureau and the CSRA Business League. And I must say
each of those groups are very happy to assist us in that. I’m also proud to say that this report was
produced entirely by a committee of your employees. They all worked very diligently to make
this happen and to make this possible. And I’d kind of like to take the time and introduce this
committee. It actually consists of myself, Michael Blanchard of the Information Technology
Department who developed a lot of the captions that you’re seeing. Ms. Constance Brigham of
1
the Print Shop Division of Procurement and Jerry Sams would couldn’t be with us today for
printing of the notices and getting the various pricing done. Alexandra Alston of the
Administrator’s Office and everybody knows Alex who did a lot of the coordination and
gathering of information from the various departments and other agencies. Michele Pearman of
the GIS Division of Information Technology who stands beside me in the back, way in the back.
And, Michele, I’m not sure if any of you are familiar with Michele, she works in doing a lot of
the GIS but Michele is probably one of the best graphic artists that I had an opportunity to work
with. She actually designed this whole report. So they did an awesome job. I want to thank this
committee. It’s all you know just like I said you can’t do things with one person. It takes a good
group of people and I must say I think this is a great team and everybody did a very good job in
working together to make this happen and try to you know shine some of the great things that we
do for our citizens. So that concludes my presentation. I hope you enjoy the report and if you
have any questions we’ll address them now. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: And, Tameka, I just want to say to you and the committee I’ve said we as a
city need to focus on raising our game at all levels. You guys have sure done that through this
report. So, y’all, great job. Thank you so much. (APPLAUSE) Madam Clerk, on to the
recognitions.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITION(S)
Employee of the Month
B. Mr. Carlton Wade, Working Foreman, Augusta Utilities.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. At this time we would like to recognize our Employee of the
Month. We’ll ask that Mr. Carlton Wade, Working Foreman with the Augusta Utilities
Department along with Mr. Wiedmeier and other members of the Augusta Utilities Department,
Mr. Mason being Chairman of Engineering Services and the Mayor. As Mr. Wade comes
forward Dear Mayor Copenhaver. The Employee Recognition Committee has selected Carlton
Wade as the January 2011 Employee of the Month for the City of Augusta. Carlton Wade is
employed as a Working Foreman for the Augusta Utilities Department. He has been employed
with the city for over five years. Mr. Wade was nominated by Randy Blount our Operations
Manager with the Augusta Utilities Department. Carlton Wade possesses initiative and
innovation in his position as a working foreman and took it upon himself to fabricate Splash
Shields as an additional layer of protection between the chemicals and the water treatment
operators to keep, to help keep the chemicals from coming into contact with employees. Mr.
Wade has assisted when staffing shortages have occurred and created a Power Point Presentation
regarding motor vehicle inspection procedures to help employees that are less mechanically
inclined to give them step-by-step guidelines to help maintain county vehicles used by the
Utilities Department. Carlton Wade makes an effort to assist other employees and to make their
job safer more productive and is interested in saving money by preventive maintenance on
county vehicles. He goes above and beyond his normal job duties to assist others and make
improvements for his department. The Employee Recognition Committee felt that based on this
nomination and Mr. Wade’s dedication and loyal service to the City of Augusta we would
2
appreciate you in joining us in awarding him the January 2011 Employee of the Month.
(APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: And I just wanted to say thank you too. It’s really, we are a city with great
employees and we appreciate everything you do. We want to take the opportunity to recognize
you guys. With that Dear Mr. Wade. On behalf of the City of Augusta it is with great pleasure
that I congratulate you for being recognized as the Employee of the Month for January 2011.
Your contribution to your organization, Augusta Richmond County Government and the citizens
of Augusta has earned you this recognition. I appreciate your willingness to go above and
beyond the call of duty and your outstanding work ethic. You are truly an asset to the Augusta
Richmond County Utilities Department and the citizens of Augusta Georgia. Please accept my
personal congratulations of this wonderful award. You are truly deserving of this recognition.
Sincerely yours, Deke Copenhaver, Mayor.
Mr. Wade: I’m used to working on pumps, I’m not used to the formalities but it’s nice to
be here. Maybe I need to come down a little more often. I’m a bid believer you’re not a success
unless you’re surrounded by successful people and I have twenty-two other people from the
Hicks Plant to appreciate this award for because without them I don’t think I could do my job.
We work hard and I just want to say one last thing. I hope we can bring the recognition to our
department and to the City of Augusta by winning the Best Run Plant of the Year. So wish us
luck. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Wiedmeier: I would just like to congratulate Mr. Wade and he is a good example of
what we have in the department. We’ve got a lot of good employees and it’s good for him to be
able to get this recognition. So, thank you. (APPLAUSE)
The Clerk:
PRESENTATION(S)
Information Technology Department (NLC)
C. Presentation of Digital Cities Award to the Augusta Information Technology
Department.
The Clerk: Next we will have a presentation of the Digital Cities Award to the Augusta
Information Technology Department by Mr. Chuck Edmunds of Cisco Systems. Ms. Allen and
Mr. Administrator. Mr. Edmonds? Ms. Allen, are you going to come forward? Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Edmunds: Thank you. Again my name is Chuck Edmunds, I’m with Cisco Systems
and I am here on behalf of the Center for Digital Government and Kathalea Robinette it’s
Executive Director who would like to extend our congratulations to you for your top ten ranking
in the 2010 Digital Cities Survey. (APPLAUSE) A little bit about the center. The center for
Digital Government is a national research and advisory institute on information technology
practices and best practices in both state and local government. Now in it’s tenth year the survey
recognizes the successful achievements in cities in information technology organizations. Each
city in the process describes its accomplishments, planned improvements using technology to
enact governmental and departmental goals. The competition on how efficiencies can be gained
3
by using technology to streamline internal processes and lower cost structures of service
delivery. We also looked at the strategic intentions to include the top priorities being pursued by
the government agency in how technology is being utilized to realize those results. All of the
responses were reviewed and judged by a panel of experts. The cities that were awarded in the
top ten including Augusta provided the best examples of how information in communication
technology is used to support and provide public service as part of their overall strategic
priorities in operational service strategies. Specific attention was focused on their technology
accomplishments and future plans. Competition is always fierce so well done in making the top
ten and thank you for the wonderful information technology services you are providing
Augusta’s government and constituents. (APPAUSE)
Ms. Allen: You know I almost feel like Lady Antebellum receiving those Grammy’s. It
is truly and honor to be recognized by the Center for Digital Government. And I want to thank
Chuck Edmunds for coming down from SYSCO to actually to present this award. I appreciate
that. You know when they called us and they said you guys are ranked in the top ten and I was
like top ten oh my God how exciting that was for us to be in the top ten. Because the top ten
you’re not talking about the top ten in Georgia. We’re talking about the top ten in the nation.
(APPLAUSE) So when you’re ranked in the top ten in the nation of agencies your size that’s a
pretty awesome accomplishment. And so you know unfortunately I had to inform them because
of you know budget constraints we couldn’t come and receive the award in person. And they
thought enough of us to actually send someone down to present the award to us. So that’s a great
thing. But you know people who know me know that I’m one who always says no one person
does it. You know it takes a great team and I am very, very honored to be a part of a team of real
innovative people who are dedicated to getting the job done. Tameka may have her name on the
department head of the stationery and all that but Tameka’s not the one who makes things
happen. The people that make it happen are the people out there that work for the Information
Technology Department. And I’d like to take a second for you guys to raise your hands or come
in the room or because you’re the ones who make it happen. Can y’all wave the ones who did
get to come in? (APPLAUSE) It is truly people like this who you’re fortunate to work with that
make things like this possible. Now believe me they also know that we’re working very hard to
place even higher next year in the competition. But with all that being said we appreciate the
award, we appreciate Chuck coming down to present the award. We want to thank the Mayor,
the Commission and the Administration and the Department who worked so hard with us to
support us as we push these technologies because I know it’s really not an easy thing to deal with
us when we want to push technology because it’s changed. So we appreciate that, we appreciate
your supporting us and we thank you again for the recognition and support. (APPLAUSE) One
more thing. I would be remiss and I apologize if I didn’t recognize the people that really put all
the information who worked very hard to put that information together from the department.
And I don’t hear any music like they did at the Grammy’s so I guess I still have a second. And
that would be Michael Blanchard, Gary Hewitt, Crystal Singletary and Matthew Mixon who took
a lot of the information and put it together for us. I know they can’t come in the room they
probably can’t fit in. But I want to thank them for they worked very hard in gathering all that
information to submit. Thank you, guys. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: I’ll just be brief and just say I want to see Augusta strive to be a city of
excellence at all levels. This award shows that we are becoming that City of Excellence and the
4
presentation of the yearly report. So thank y’all so much. That’s awesome. (APPLAUSE)
Madam Clerk in order to get, thin the crowd a little bit with the first delegation as that’s
addressing the Woodlawn rezoning let’s go ahead and take agenda item twenty-four with that.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, with your approval Mr. Jack Long will stand instead of
Mr. Neal regarding the opposition to the Woodlawn Church Rezoning Petition. Mr. Long.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, and, Mr. Long, you will have five minutes to speak and then I will
offer the opportunity for somebody to speak on behalf of Woodlawn for the same amount of time
so that it’s fair and equal.
The Clerk: And before Mr. Long starts I’ll read the caption on the Planning Petition. We
call your attention to item twenty-four.
The Clerk:
PLANNING
24. Z-11-06 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Larry Wiggins, on behalf of Woodlawn United
Methodist Church requesting a Special Exception to establish a parochial or private school
per Section 26-1 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County affecting property containing 2.64 acres and is known as 2220 Walton Way. (Tax
Map 034-4-119-00-0) DISTRICT 3
Mr. Long: Members of the Commission, I have given each member and delivered to Ms.
Bonner and the Mayor a handout to everyone with copies of documents highlighted that I would
ask you to refer to them. This request for a rezoning is for Woodlawn United Methodist Church
which is in an R-1 District, a residential district that is in the Summerville neighborhood
association that is a protective association by ordinances that go back to 1977. There are no
commercial areas allowed and the issue here is what is happening in this particular case. The
Woodlawn United Methodist Church has filed an application with the state and you have that in
Exhibit B right before you. And in this application it points that what this is, is an ownership
change from University Hospital Child Development Center that they are transferring to
Woodlawn. That is a for profit childcare center that they are going to insure. Now it then goes
on the next page and this is, they will take subsidized care and the chief executive office is from
Columbia County. I point that out to you because there will be an argument that they’re
operating a parochial school. They are not operating a parochial school and you have the
definition of exactly what a child care center is and exactly what a parochial school is in your
handout in Exhibit #A, excuse me Exhibit #C. And you will have that out before you. In
addition you will see that when they wanted to put a wall or a fence in front of this church they
then say on Exhibit E they’re operating a parochial school. I believe Mr. Patty will agree and
Planning and Zoning will say they cannot operate a parochial school, I mean a daycare center in
this zone area. The entire area has no commercial establishment except there is a B-1 daycare
center on Walton Way which is the Child Care Network but that’s a zone B-1 that was done
years ago. You will hear argument about the Episcopal Day School that was started in 1945
before we had the historical district designated. You find out by Reid Memorial Church that I
5
has been since 1870’s and had a Mother’s day out not a daycare center that operates from six to
eight o’clock in the morning, I mean to night. They talk about St. Mary’s school. That is a
licensed parochial school. There is a difference between a licensed parochial school and that
also predates WWII. A credit to United Methodist church the same thing that church and their
operations. There are no commercial established day care except for the Child Care Network
that’s in a B-1 zone on Walton Way. In fact there is no commercial activity on Walton Way
from east of Millage Road to the time we get to First Baptist Church. And that has been a
protected area. In order to grant this you have to ignore the definition in the zoning ordinance,
you have to ignore the concept where we have created this. And I have you have Historic
Augusta going against this, you have a great number of people from the Summerville Historical
District that are required by your regulation to maintain these homes in a certain manner and use
certain building materials. And you, if you open this section like they want you to open it what
you are doing that any church can move a commercial enterprise into that church and operate it
as a money making position under the fact that they are a church. And I don’t think you should
allow a pizza parlor to be set up in a church or a daycare center for a for profit. Now they want
107 children, they say they’re only going to bring in 80 or 90. If this were a mother’s day out
program that went from eight or nine o’clock to twelve or one o’clock or if this was for their
parishioners as opposed to transferring the University Daycare we wouldn’t be here opposing it.
We are opposed to this exception and if you grant this exception you will set a dangerous
precedent for every church in every area they can bring in any commercial establish and say well
we’re operating in a church.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Long: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Now I’d like to, if somebody would like to speak on behalf
of Woodlawn the same time limit applies. If you could state your name and address for the
record please sir. And then following your presentation we’ll hear from Mr. Patty.
Mr. Enoch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission my name is Ed Enoch. I represent
Woodlawn United Methodist Church in its request for a zoning variance from R-1 to approve a
parochial private school. I think Mr. Long made well my point that up and down Walton Way
and throughout the Summerville Historic District children are cared for by churches over and
over and over again. This map demonstrates that from Millage Road out to Covenant
Presbyterian you’ve got ten facilities that take care of children. Two of those are commercial
childcare centers, one right on Walton Way. So the arguments about safety, I mean that
childcare center’s been there since 1972. Woodlawn United Methodist Church works in
partnership with the Episcopal Day School and Church of the Good Shepherd to get the flow of
traffic off of Walton Way for the Episcopal Day School three times a day. They use
Woodlawn’s parking lot to warehouse those people as they come through the Episcopal Day
School so that there’s not a complete traffic flow stop on Walton Way. So there are folks saying
Woodlawn’s not a good neighbor. Well Woodlawn in a good neighbor. This is a ministry of this
church. In your handout I’ve set out an exhibit three a number of the ministries, outreach
ministries of this church this is simply another outreach ministry of this church. Will most of
these children come from University hospital yes because University Hospital’s no longer going
6
to provide healthcare, childcare for their employees. You can see here that these folks are
already outreaching to children. It is going to be a school. Exhibit 2 shows you that the
curriculum, that the curriculum is essentially the same curriculum that has been used consistently
for University Healthcare with the exception that this curriculum now will have a religious
overlay to it. It’s produced by the same people that are producing the curriculum now. It is a
school because it educates children. That’s not a stretch. The schools up and down Walton
Way, St. Mary’s, Episcopal Day School, Covenant Presbyterian, Open Door, Trinity United
Methodist Church, Read, they’re all zoned R-1. All right. We’re going to take children from six
weeks to school age to Kindergarten age. Episcopal Day School currently takes 2-year olds to
eighth grade. They have early drop off. They have late pickup. The hours are not going to be
that different than their next-door neighbor. So to say that it’s going to somehow completely
change the character if you’ve ever driven up and down Walton Way during school hours you
know that you can’t get from First Baptist Church to here without driving through a school zone
or a pickup area. That’s not going to change the character of this neighborhood ladies and
gentlemen. If I have any time remaining I’d like for the Reverend to come up and speak.
Mr. Mayor: You have a minute and twenty seconds remaining.
Mr. McCollough: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, thank you for hearing us today. The first
thing I want to say is that we love our neighbors. We love all our neighbors. We love our
neighbor behind us and that would be Mr. Clay. We love our neighbors on either side,
Georgiana Knox and Good Shepherd and EDS. And we love our neighbors at the bottom of the
st
hill twenty-three of which will not have jobs on May 21. Teachers, you are recognizing those
who have had years of service here. I wanted to share with you twenty-one years, Brenda
Wallace, Sally Ridge twenty-one years, Maddy Higgins forty-one years, six years Brittany
Mullins, Wanda Thomas twenty-one years. Doris King fifteen years. For all of them they will
have no more jobs. It’s going to come to an end. And we saw that and read that in the
newspaper. So we just made a phone call to pray for them. That was our phone call. We’re
praying for you. Then we went down and said how can we help ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. McCollough: --- and that was how we began and this is where we are here today.
Mr. Mayor: Okay ---
Mr. McCollough: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: -- thank you and I just, I’d like to be completely fair to people. I hate to cut
you off but um, one question from Commissioner Hatney I believe for Mr. Enoch.
Mr. Hatney: Yes, sir.
Mr. Enoch: Yes, sir.
7
Mr. Hatney: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You mentioned during your presentation that this
was another ministry.
Mr. Enoch: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney: And I have no problem with a ministry but all the ministries I’m familiar
with most of them are free.
Mr. Enoch: Well, I believe that Episcopal Day School is a ministry of the Good
Shepherd Church and it’s not free.
Mr. Hatney: What I’m saying ---
Mr. Enoch: Anybody that has tuition there knows ---
Mr. Hatney: --- that might be a dangerous word to use, ministry if it’s for profit.
Mr. Enoch: Well, I would say how you determine not for profit is not whether something
is cash flow or not. It’s what do you do with the money. What you do with the money if you
reinvest it back into the community for not for profit purposes it’s a not for profit. The Family Y
makes a lot of money on memberships but they put a million dollars back into the community in
scholarships.
Mr. Hatney: Then you’re saying what you’re doing is simply charging folks that come
through so you can put the money back in the community.
Mr. Enoch: That’s right.
Mr. Hatney: And then you want to call that ministry.
Mr. Enoch: Absolutely.
Mr. Hatney: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, now we’ll hear from Mr. Patty.
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir, the folks at Woodlawn came to us and they told us they wanted to
operate this childcare center. And we told them right off the bat that it would be difficult to get
commercial zoning in that area so we had to make a distinction between the daycare center and
an educational institution or a school. And they were pretty clear that it was a school so it moved
forward and we did the due diligence that we normally do on rezoning requests. We believe
having evaluating the existing traffic conditions and we had the luxury of knowing exactly what
this operation was going to be in terms of it’s impact because they’re just going to pick it up
from University Hospital and move it up the hill. And so we knew what time people were going
to arrive and park and based on that we concluded that it would not coincide with the existing
peak periods up there with the coming and goings of the Episcopal Day School and the normal
8
evening peak. We also concluded from their testimony that they would not be making
significant changes to the building or the property so that there would be no impact on historic
structures or historic district. They were going some fencing but they were not going to increase
the size of the play area towards Walton Way. They were only going to add a door to the
building. So based on the impacts that we saw and the testimony of the applicant and the last
thing I asked the applicant at the zoning hearing is convince us that this is a school. And I
thought she did a reasonable job of it and frankly to move it forward I recommended the
Planning Commission approve it, which they did. Since then and I think immediately afterward
when I talked to the staff attorney that attended the meeting I told him that we’ve got some more
work to do on this distinction between school and church. The definitions in the zoning
ordinance are pretty sparse and it could be either frankly. So we went to the state law and with
care homes, residential care homes and childcare homes where we both have rules regulating
those functions the state and local governments we generally abide by their, we try to mesh up
with their rules and regulations. And unfortunately in 2004 the definitions, the key definitions of
a private school and a daycare were amended and elaborated upon in state law and we didn’t
pick it up. And I think to make a long story short at this point in time I think in my opinion and I
won’t speak for the attorney’s but I think my opinion is that this is pretty clearly what they
described is a daycare. It just has way more characteristics of a daycare then it does a school. I
mean they accept infants, they’ve got testimony in here from and I’m trying to belittle what they
do. Obviously they provide a very nurturing and learning environment and maybe that does
make it a school but they accept infants. One of these testimonials was they took a child literally
from childbirth. I don’t think they meant that but they’ve got others at two months, three
months, I could give you a whole list of reasons why I don’t think they’re a school. But I think
probably the attorney’s might do a better job of that ---
Mr. Mayor: Can we ---
Mr. Patty: --- opinion if you wish to hear more about that.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Yeah, I need to ask Mr. Patty a question. Okay, just for clarity I need to
understand that initially the Planning Commission approved their request? Or was recommended
approval their request based on the fact that by what I’m hearing from you they convinced you
that about their operation and you thought that was worth approval.
Mr. Patty: I’m convinced that their operation and incremental traffic and changes in the
neighborhood would be slight and the impact would be small. But in order for it to be approved
by Special Exception, which is on the agenda today you have to conclude that it is a school. If
it’s a daycare then it’s got to have commercial zoning.
Mr. Mason: And it’s your opinion now or then that it was based on what they said to you
and it’s your opinion now that it’s not.
Mr. Patty: That is correct.
9
Mr. Mason: That’s what you’re saying to me.
Mr. Patty: That is correct. That’s what I’m trying to say.
Mr. Mason: Okay. Now, have there been any dialog with the petitioners in terms of your
new opinion?
Mr. Patty: Yes.
Mr. Mason: And obviously that, I mean we’re here today so evidently that didn’t, that
didn’t settle the issue. Do you have something to add to that?
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: George, is what Woodlawn Church is asking for is it in consistent with
what the other churches are doing with their own property?
Mr. Patty: The Episcopal Day School and St. Mary’s operate schools. There’s no
question that those are schools. I don’t know of any other, and we checked as thoroughly as you
can check these other schools in the immediate area and we couldn’t find any that operate if a
childcare facility has less than nineteen children and operates less than four hours a day then
they’re not defined as a daycare under state law. And they’re not regulated by the state. And our
research indicated that every other one of these operated under the state radar. None of these are
daycare facilities.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have any other further questions? Wayne, can we hear from
you, please?
Mr. Brown: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners let me be clear because this is so important. To
reach the conclusion that you need to reach today Woodlawn has applied for an exception. They
cannot run whatever operation they have or want to have at this location without having an
exception in a residential district. They applied for a parochial or private school exception.
They did not apply for a daycare exception. There is no daycare exception that exists under the
law in Augusta in a residential district. So your determination today first step whether to give
them the exemption or not depends upon whether or not you believe that they are a school or a
daycare. So that is the issue. If you determine they are a daycare you cannot grant the
exception. If you determine they are a school and they do not have a negative impact on that
community you can then grant their exception. No, what Mr. Patty did below at the Planning
Commission he focused mostly on if this is a school does it impact the community so harshly
that we should not grant the exception. He is clear and his opinion remains the same. The
impact of that operation does not harm that community to a level or in a way that you should not
grant an exception. That doesn’t answer the other question. The harm of that has settled in Mr.
Patty’s mind. What was not settled in his mind completely below was whether or not it was a
school. Woodlawn applied as a school, they stated they were a school. They said they had
classes. So when Mr. Patty came to me I had him do further inquiry regarding this matter. Had
him go to Woodlawn to get more into exactly what do you do as a school. What kind of, what
10
age and hours, age and hour requirements are. Do you test, do you give grades. They do not
give grades. They do not test. If they truly were a private school they would be exempt from
state licensing. Woodlawn has applied for and received a daycare license from the state. The
application to the state is as a daycare and further the application to the state says that what we
are doing is transferring ownership of a daycare program from a commercial area to a residential
area. Now we are, Augusta is a sub, a political subdivision of the state. The statements to the
state should be binding on Woodlawn. If they present themselves as a daycare to the state unless
fraud was intended and I assume that it is not. No basis to believe that they were being
fraudulent. Then on that alone I think is enough if there is doubt in your mind to take their word
at it to the state that they are a daycare. Their students are not required to stay there a certain
number of hours a day and they are not required to be there all week. Their school does not
substitute for a public or parochial education in some other place. That distinguishes them from
EDS. Their school substitutes for what the state requires as educating kids. This does not occur
at Woodlawn. And lastly I will say the fact that you teach classes does not make you not a
daycare. You can teach classes in a daycare. So that is not the only inquiry whether classes are
taught. Given that even the state says the state has a broad definition of a daycare, which is the
exact, same as ours except this confusion came to the state and the state recently amended it’s
rule to exclude private schools from the definition of daycare. And I will read that very briefly.
A daycare center means any place operated by a person, society, agency, corporation, institution
or group wherein or received for pay for group care for less than 24 hours a day. Without
transfer or legal custody nineteen or more children under eighteen years of age provided the term
daycare shall not include a private school. See Woodlawn has characteristics of a private school,
characteristics of a daycare. But because the state has this problem we say daycare we are exing
out private school. But it further says a private school, which as kindergarten through grade
twelve educations meets the requirements of Code Section 20-2-690, which Woodlawn does not
meet and is accredited by one or more entities. And subparagraph A, of paragraph six of Code
Section of 20-3-519 which Woodlawn has some accreditation but it does not have the
accreditation of any of these agencies that the state trusts to accredit a school. So they do not
meet that requirement in which care before and after or both before and after the customary
school day to its students as an auxiliary service to such students during the regular school only.
That means they can have and they do have before and after care. A school can have a before
and after care. But it must be as an auxiliary service to those same students who are going to the
school, not anyone and everyone coming in and out of the school. Therefore it is now the
recommendation of George Patty and of the Law Department is that we do not deem within the
meaning of our statute and within the state definition that Woodlawn is operating a school. And
if they want relief for the activities that they planned they must apply for a commercial zoning at
that location or they must change their program to meet the definition of a private school.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Brown, two questions. One the land we’re talking about. Who owns
the land?
Mr. Brown: I don’t know who owns the land but ---
Mr. Hatney: Somebody knows.
11
Mr. Brown: --- it is a church.
Mr. Hatney: Somebody knows who owns it. The church owns it?
Mr. McCollough: Sir, the church is incorporated so Woodlawn United Methodist Church
is incorporated.
Mr. Hatney: But you own the land. Is it detached from the regular part of the church?
Mr. McCollough: No, sir, it’s one parcel with the sanctuary and education building on
the one parcel of land.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Um, yes, Mr. Mayor, I’m just a little disturbed, that’s good summation there
but it’s a little disturbed by what was presented by Woodlawn. So I would in the interest of
fairness if the lawyer for Woodlawn. I mean does he have any rebuttal to what the, what our
attorney is saying here in terms of whether you’re a school a daycare a, what’s going on or? I
mean now I’m a little confused.
Mr. McCollough: Well ---
Mr. Mason: Are you a school?
Mr. Enoch: I believe they are.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Enoch. Go ahead.
Mr. Enoch: I believe they are a school. They have a curriculum, they teach. Now
whether or not they test is a matter of child development. I mean we’re talking about young
children and I know that my child went to preschool at EDS and I don’t believe he took any
testing either. So it’s a matter of what’s age appropriate for the children. But I think that you
can, this operation because it has a curriculum and it has a religious curriculum within the
definition of a school. Your definition of a school is very vague in the ordinance.
Mr. Mason: I’m just trying to figure out what the law states. I mean, I’m hearing you
saying what your opinion is and I’m hearing him stating some law opinion. I’m trying to figure
out ---
Mr. Enoch: What he’s doing is not drawing from the ordinance. The ordinance simply
says that a school is a private or a parochial school, is a facility that provides a curriculum of
elementary or secondary academic instruction. That’s the definition that’s in the ordinance. And
what they’ve done is try to expand that. I’ve been trying to explain what is curriculum. And so
what they’ve done is drawing from other sources outside of the zoning ordinance to do that.
12
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett, did you have your hand up?
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did y’all apply with the state for a license to
operate a daycare?
Mr. Enoch: If you look at Mr. Long’s exhibit um ---
Mr. Lockett: All you need to do is just answer yes or no.
Mr. Enoch: We applied to operate a child education center. The application says this is a
childcare learning center. That’s what the application says.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Doesn’t that constitute daycare in layman’s terms?
Mr. Brown: In layman and legal terms state law says 20-1-A-2 says a childcare learning
center means a daycare center which participates in Georgia pre-K program. You can define it
as a form of daycare.
Mr. Bowles: Well, is it your recommendation we reject this special exemption?
Mr. Brown: Even though I would love to see them provide services it would be my
recommendation to reject this.
Mr. Bowles: I’ll make that motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second? Is there a second? Do we have another motion?
Mr. Hatney: Personally, I can’t vote against no church. I’m going to vote to accept
it.
Mr. Mason: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, we’ve been told by staff and our attorney that this a daycare.
This would in violation of our local ordinances. It will be a violation of our master plan, which
deems a daycare center in a commercial zone. We just spent a half million dollars on a master
plan to help prevent urban sprawling and help heirs of the community and this is exactly what
we’re getting ourselves into. I would appreciate the concerns of the citizens of this area from the
Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion,
Commissioner Aitken.
13
Mr. Aitken: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I think as we look at this dialog it’s as healthy as our
Administrator talks about in how we can move our city forward. I want to remind everybody
that everybody has equal time in how we present facts to this Commission. I’ve had a lot of
phone calls and I thank you for those phone calls. You care for the community that you live in.
But I think as we look at that the respect that’s showing in the process is very important that we
move this city in that direction. And a lot of the comments that I had were not in that tone and I
think that the tone that we set as leaders in this city as we sit as residents in this city with regards
to who you are and where you live is very, very important to us to this city. I think too with
traffic that was a lot of a big issue. If I’ve got anything to do with traffic we’re going to grow
this city and that’s going to come right down Walton Way. So that’s a very, I’m adamant about
that as you were in that. So I’m thankful we’re talking in ways to really look at the master plan
as Commissioner Bowles adhering to that. Let’s just ponder that and I give thanks for your
attention for that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, Commissioner. And ---
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: --- hang on one second. I do want to Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: I’d like to explore with George Patty a little bit more why he changed his
mind. Was it based on hours of operation? What made you determine that this was not a school
and became a daycare?
Mr. Patty: Mr. Enoch read you the definition of a private school which is no question
about it as is the definition ordinance of a daycare center which it certainly could qualify as. So
it could be either one based on these definitions. We got in, we you know it’s not incumbent
upon us to follow state law or state rules but we try to in regulating these types uses. And we
don’t have to follow the state definitions but it’s certainly a way of not being arbitrary and
capricious in trying to decide a question like this, to follow the state definitions or rules or
whatever. And I mean I’ve got a tally sheet here if you want me to read it. I’ll be glad to the
pros and cons but as far as the ---
Mr. Brigham: I would like to know why you changed your mind. I think most of the
people sitting up here would like to know why you changed your mind.
Mr. Patty: Because when we heard the argument that it was a school at the time it
seemed to be ---
Mr. Brigham: Well, we hadn’t heard that argument at all. You’ve heard it, we haven’t.
Mr. Patty: I asked the applicant actually the lady that operates the school answered the
question and my question was you know are you sure that this is a school. How do you
determine this is a school? And she said we have lesson plans, we have curriculum, they teach
specific subjects and those sorts of things which intend to make you think it is a school. And
based on that I felt like the thing to do was to move it forward and not postpone acting on it until
14
we can get a better opinion or something like that. And like I said I immediately asked staff
attorneys that we need to do more research on this before it gets to this body, which it did. And
in doing that the state definitions of schools and daycare it’s painfully obviously that this thing is
a daycare. They accept the impetuous, that’s it. They’re not accredited for this Section 20-3-
519. They do have accreditation but it’s not a accreditation that qualifies them as a school from
my reasoning. I’m not an attorney, which is why I turned to them. The teachers have technical
degrees but no grades are issued, attendance is not compulsory they don’t conform to 20-2-690,
which is the definition of a private school. They were formerly named University Daycare.
They do not provide info to the public school district. Under definition of a private school,
private schools have to provide certain information to the public school system, public school
superintendent actually which we have learned they do not do. That’s 20-2-690 B5 and as
Wayne mentioned they do not afford, the do not provide care after or before regular hours and as
an auxiliary service during the regular school year only. They provide this service all year and
they provide it as a routine part of their operation and not as an auxiliary service. I mean what
do you do?
Mr. Brigham: Okay, I had a couple of questions for Mr. Brown also.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, hang on. Let him get his questions for Mr. Brown right quick.
Mr. Brigham: I believe your big point in saying this was a daycare is that they had to
conform with the accepting of preschool curriculum to classify. Is that, did I miss that or was I
on point there?
Mr. Brown: I’m sorry, Commissioner, I really don’t ---
Mr. Brigham: You were talking about the money from the state for preschool,
kindergarten type programs. I believe that was part of the definition that determined whether or
not it was a daycare. Is that correct or was I wrong?
Mr. Brown: No, what I was referring to was responding to his statement when asked by
Commissioner Lockett did you apply for a daycare license from the state. And he said we
applied as a childcare learning center.
Mr. Brigham: Right.
Mr. Brown: A childcare learning center is a daycare that has a Georgia preschool
program. If you have a Georgia preschool program and you are a daycare they call you a
childcare learning center.
Mr. Brigham: Okay, but that is that accept state funds for a preschool or not. That’s my
question to you.
Mr. Brown: That in order, the state says that if you are a childcare facility and you have
more than nineteen and you operate less than 24 hours a day you have to be licensed. You have
15
to be licensed as a childcare learning center, which the state says that is a daycare. They stopped
calling it daycare and they call it childcare learning center.
Mr. Brigham: Okay, but I thought when you were quoting the state regulations earlier
you were talking about the funds for a pre-K program that the state awards for people to attend
pre-K. Did I miss that? Was I wrong in that?
Mr. Brown: No, the licensing has nothing to do with the funding.
Mr. Brigham: I just wanted to make sure.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Brown: Even if you were a “private daycare” you still have to be licensed because of
the age of the children and the amount. I did want to say one other thing that even they had a
daycare facility or handled children before and after hours the state doesn’t require a private
school that has before care and after care to have a license. The question to Woodlawn would be
why is it they got a license if they are a private school.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Brigham: Okay, and the other thing I believe you said was all private schools had to
have less than nineteen students. Was that correct?
Mr. Brown: No daycares ---
Mr. Brigham: Daycares have to have it.
Mr. Brown: --- have to licensed or regulated by the state if it’s nineteen or less.
Mr. Brigham: Nineteen or less.
Mr. Brown: Yes.
Mr. Brigham: That don’t have to be regulated by the state.
Mr. Brown: Right they do not regulate them.
Mr. Brigham: Okay, but if you’re more than nineteen ---
Mr. Brown: Unless you’re in a private residence.
Mr. Brigham: If you have more than nineteen students then you have to have a state
license ---
Mr. Brown: Yes ---
16
Mr. Brigham: --- is what I’m hearing.
Mr. Brown: --- the state will not even call you a daycare if you have less than nineteen.
Mr. Brigham: Okay.
Mr. Brown: You have to have more than eighteen for the state to even think of you as a
daycare.
Mr. Brigham: Okay, does the state set what the school year is? Can it be a year round
school year or can it be, does it have to be a traditional nine-month school?
Mr. Brown: You have to have a minimum of 180 days out of twelve months.
Mr. Brigham: But you could have more than 180 days could you not?
Mr. Brown: Yes if you, what the state provides for is you can have a summer program
but this can not be anymore than seven hours per day.
Mr. Brigham: I know there are schools in this state that go year round. Is there anything
that states when the school year has to be?
Mr. Brown: The state calls a school year what they call a normal school year ---
Mr. Brigham: A normal school year.
Mr. Brown: --- then you can have summer school and these private schools can have
what they call a summer program that they say you can have but it has to be seven hours or less
per day.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Lockett, Commissioner Hatney, Commissioner Jackson
please come in that order.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I’ll be real brief. You know this is going to be a
very tough vote. I came in I read I have received lots of material in advance and I was
determined I was going to vote for Woodlawn because of the positive things they’re doing. But
after the presentation with our attorney and I want to make this a part of the record. This will
probably be the only time tonight I will agree with an attorney but based on his presentation I
have no other alternative but to vote on this even though it’s breaking my heart. I really hate to
do it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Hatney and then Commissioner Jackson.
Mr. Hatney: I’d like to ask two questions. One is that I can understand the hassle here if
these folks were purchasing property and trying to get a variance. But these folks own this
property. It’s not like they’re going out somewhere and trying to buy some property and want
17
you to convert it to something. They already own the property. And I got some problems with
you hooking the church up as if it were any kind of business, any other kind of business because
it’s not. There’s a whole lot of laws that y’all got that don’t apply to no church. This does not
apply to no church.
Mr. Brown: I would agree, Commissioner Hatney ---
Mr. Hatney: If they already own the land, sir, and if they purchasing the land they come
under scrutiny of anybody else. But they own the land. It’s not like they’re trying to buy it from
somebody else.
Mr. Brown: I would agree, Commissioner Hatney, if nothing prevents Woodlawn from
asserting in another forum that what we’re doing is ministry. But what they requested of this
body is a Special Exception as a parochial school. We are, my advice and Mr. Patty’s is not
addressing whether they can carry on ministry as a church in an existing facility. The question is
before you simply is give me a Special Exception to operate this program in a residential district.
If they want to operate under a Special Exception award they have to meet the terms of the
Special Exception. Now they may be I can’t, I don’t, obviously I can’t give the church advice.
They may be able to operate with or without a Special Exception but they come in and asking a
governmental body to permit their activity then they are committing themselves to the authority
of that governmental body and he have to go by the existing rules that we have.
Mr. Hatney: That’s right, then they should’ve left y’all alone.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: I’d like to know on the application that Attorney Long gave us. It says that
they’re receiving subsidized care. Is that, are they receiving subsidized care?
Ms. Ricks: My name is Sally Ricks. I’m the director of University’s Child Development
Center and I will be the director of it at Woodlawn. We, the subsidized care is only for the
children who are identified as low income. We don’t receive the payment. It’s actually and it’s
to help the parent pay for the payment of the child. It isn’t like we receive extra money for that
care. We receive a portion of the payment. The parent pays the other half or the other portion.
So it’s actually for the child, for the parent, not for us.
Mr. Jackson: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. I know we’ve discussed this issue
prior to taking the vote though, Mr. Russell, I’d like to see those here in opposition and those
here for.
Mr. Russell: The people that are here supporting the application raise your hand.
Mr. Mason: You might want to do it in the mike because I think there’s still some
outside.
18
Mr. Russell: The people here that are supporting the application then we need you to
raise your hands. Supporting the application. And I’ve got people to count out in the hall and
the other room there.
(52 supporters noted)
Mr. Mayor: Okay ---
Mr. Russell: Those people opposed to the application please raise your hand.
Mr. Mayor: How many was that?
The Clerk: 52 supporters and 50 in opposition.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, if there’s no further discussion, Madam Clerk, if you could read back
the motion just for clarity and for the record.
The Clerk: The motion is to approve a request for concurrence with the Richmond
County Planning Commission to approve a petition on behalf of Woodlawn Methodist Church
requesting a Special Exception to establish a parochial or private school affecting property
located at 2220 Walton Way.
Mr. Mayor: Just for clarity, Mr. Bowles, you motion was to deny, correct?
Mr. Bowles: Yes (inaudible)
Mr. Mayor: No, it did get a second. Commissioner Mason, you didn’t second? Okay.
The Clerk: He seconded Mr. Hatney’s motion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, what was Mr. Hatney’s motion?
The Clerk: To approve.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Okay, we have a motion to approve. Commissioners will now vote
by the usual sign.
Mr. Aitken, Mr. Bowles and Mr. Lockett vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank y’all, please, please. I’ll give a minute for the chambers to
clear. Like I say if we can get everybody reseated and get rolling again. Madam Clerk, if we
could just move onto the next presentation.
The Clerk:
19
DELEGATIONS
E. Reverend Melvin Ivey. RE: Changes in local government.
Mr. Mayor: And once again if you could keep it to five minutes, please, sir.
Mr. Ivey: Yes, sir. Good afternoon Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. My name
is Melvin Ivey I live at 4120 Country Lane. I’m the local action chair for the Baptist Ministers
Conference of Augusta Georgia. Mr. Mayor and members of this Commission we have great
concerns concerning the proposed changes to our local government. House Bill 805, which is
known as the Charter says that in order to make any changes you must have two-thirds of the
th
Commissioners to approve it. Now one thing is that this fight is not a new fight. On May 14
1996 legislative delegation who helped craft this particular bill met with the city Mayor, Mayor
Larry Sconyers and the Commission concerning this consolidation bill, House Bill 805. The
delegation was led by then Senator Charles Walker with the delegation. It was explained to the
Mayor and to the Commissioners that it would take two-thirds vote in order to change any part of
this government. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners if you check the record this matter has already
gone to court. This matter has already been already have an official ruling. Senator Don Cheeks
th
stated on May 14 1996 that when he heard about this discussion he sought legal counsel from
the legislative counsel there in Atlanta and he provided documentation to then interim attorney
for the city Jim Walsh where he provided his records where this particular issue had already been
to court and already been settled. Then again Mr. Mayor, members of this Commission on
th
August the 15 2002 legislative delegation also met with then Mayor Bob Young and the
Commissioners concerning this consolidation bill, House Bill 805. The delegation was led then
by Senator Don Cheeks. It was explained to the Mayor and to the Commissioners that it would
take two-thirds vote in order to change any part of this government. Senator Cheeks then stated
that he had discussed this particular matter with the city attorney who at time was Mr. Jim Walsh
on numerous occasions and he had, he had only if he only wanted to change a part of this
particular bill he would need two-thirds votes in order to move it forward. Mr. Mayor our great
concern is this is that this sitting government has ignored past presidents, the sitting government
has ignored the will of the people. The will of the people elected you all to carry out the
government of this city not the City Administrator. And by giving the City Administrator
authority within the policy and procedure manuals that belong this sitting government than
you’re in violation of state law. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you. Okay, Madam Clerk, on to the regular agenda.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Consent agenda, excuse me.
The Clerk: Consent agenda. Our consent agenda consists of items 1-23, items 1-23. For
the benefit of any objectors to our Planning Petitions once those petitions are read would you
please signify your objections by raising your hand. I call your attention to:
20
Item 1: Is a request for concurrence to approve a Special Exception to establish a Family
Personal Care Home on property located at 2714 Coleman Avenue.
Item 2: Is a request for a change of zoning from a Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to
a Zone A (Agriculture) affecting property located at 4781 Deans Bridge Road.
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those Planning Petitions?
Mr. Russell: None noted, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1-23.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any additions to the consent agenda? Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, if it pleases the Commission I’d like to add item number
thirty-two.
Mr. Mason: I have some question on thirty-two, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have any other items to be added to the consent agenda?
Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to add agenda item 25, 35 and 36.
Mr. Mayor: Any further additions to the consent agenda?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, can we add an election to a consent agenda?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney, can we add an election to a consent agenda?
Mr. MacKenzie: You’re talking about item 36?
Mr. Lockett: An election or appointment.
Mr. MacKenzie: I think you’d have to select one of the appointments that are being
questioned unless there’s only one name.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Lockett: That is for two people and there’s only two people listed.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, that’s to appoint two people not just ---
Mr. Lockett: That’s a reappointment that’s all it is.
21
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We okay with the, Mr. Attorney?
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, you haven’t gotten to the pulled items yet have you?
Mr. Mayor: No. Do we have any items to be pulled for discussion? Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason: Yes, one I need some clarification because I see item 23 is the same as item
31 only item 23 is on the consent agenda. If they’re two separate items I’m going to pull item
23. If they’re companion items maybe we can take them together. But what is the difference
between the two because there’s only personnel manual floating out there right now. Is that not
correct? But this looks like there’s two separate ones.
Mr. Mayor: Fred, do you or Andrew want to? Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: I’d be happy to address that. What you have on there is the second
reading of the version of the HR Policy and Procedures Manual that was previously approved
which did not include the revisions that were requested as a result of the committee meetings.
The item 31 is the revised version that includes those changes. And there was also one
additional change that was distributed to the Commission in writing already too so my
recommendation would be to pull 23 and have it considered with 31 so they can both be disposed
of together.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Okay, so we’re going to pull it and we’ll discuss that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any further items to be pulled for discussion?
Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Agenda item four and number nine, Mr. Chairman.
The Clerk: Four and nine, Mr. Lockett?
Mr. Mayor: Four and nine.
Mr. Lockett: Yes, ma’am.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any, Commissioner Aitken, did you?
Mr. Aitken: Number four and number sixteen, I mean excuse me number seven and
number sixteen.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any further items to be, Commissioner Brigham.
22
Mr. Brigham: I have some questions on number eighteen.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, and just for clarification what number was that?
Mr. Brigham: Eighteen.
Mr. Mayor: Eighteen. Okay, do we have any further items to be pulled from the consent
agenda? Okay, Madam Clerk, can I get a motion to approve the, hand on one second. We do
have an addition to the agenda that should be in front of everybody. Madam Clerk, could you?
The Clerk: The addendum is to approve an agreement Trailwinds Daily News and Gifts
of Wilmington, NC for the airport food, beverage and retail concession in the passenger terminal
facility of the Augusta Regional Airport.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have unanimous consent to add this agenda item? We do not have
unanimous consent to add it. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I don’t believe we have any further additions. Can I get a motion to
approve the consent agenda?
Mr. Lockett: Move to approve.
Mr. Mason: Second.
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
1. Z-11-08 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Ebonnia T. Paz, on behalf of Billy Walden, 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 .54 acres and known as 2714 Coleman Avenue. (Tax Map 098-4-157-00-0)
DISTRICT 2
2. Z-11-09 – A petition by Nancy F. Moore requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) to Zone A (Agriculture) affecting property containing
approximately 1.3 acres and is known as part of 4781 Deans Bridge Road. (Part of Tax
Map 205-0-001-09-0) DISTRICT 8
3. ZA-R-201 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta Richmond County by amending Section 28-B-8-(K) regarding signs involving
internal lights or other electrical devices or circuits and the standards for certification.
PUBLIC SERVICES
5. Motion to approve an ordinance to amend Augusta-Richmond County Code § 6-6-45
License to Operate Arcades so as to define ‘Arcade’ to allow for the continued operation of
23
amusement businesses. (Approved by Augusta Commission February 1, 2011 – second
reading)
6. Motion to approve the selection of an contract with Cash Ready ATM as approved by
the Augusta Aviation Commission at their October 28, 2011 meeting. (Approved by Public
Services Committee February 7, 2011)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
8. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and
uninhabitable structures in the South Richmond Neighborhood: 2328 Travis Pines Drive,
(District 6, Super District 10); South Richmond Neighborhood: 4558 Old Waynesboro
Road, (District 8, Super District 10); Meadowbrook Neighborhood; 1832 South Barton
Drive, (District 6, Super District 10); Turpin Hill Neighborhood: 11581 Holley Street, 1583
Holley Street, 1666 Douglas Street, (District 2, Super District 9); Laney Walker
Neighborhood: 1026 D’Antignac Street, (District 1, Super District 9); Harrisburg
Neighborhood: 1821 Hicks Street, (District 1, Super District 9); Old Towne Neighborhood:
ND
22 Ellis Street, (District 1, Super District 9); AND WAIVE 2 READING. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee February 7, 2011)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
10. Motion to approve and award of the first three phases of the Design Consultant
th
Services Agreement to URS Corporation on the 15 Street Pedestrian Improvements. The
first three phases will include: Public Involvement in the amount not to exceed $85,517.94;
Concept Development in the amount of $168,674.13; and Database Preparation in the
amount of $119,317.14 ($373,509.21 total) for the Capital Project Budget. Project to be
funded from SPLOST Phase VI as requested by AED. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee February 7, 2011)
11. Motion to approve Change Order to the existing construction contract in the amount of
$377,564.50 to Blair Construction for additional work and to complete the Fort Gordon
Eisenhower Hospital Area Gravity Sewer System. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee February 7, 2011)
12. Motion to approve change order to the existing design contract in the amount of
$27,537.00 to Johnson, Laschober & Associates, P.C. (JLA) for additional design work to
relocate the proposed Elevated Tank. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
February 7, 2011)
13. Motion to approve subject Change Order Number Three and proposal from Stevenson
& Palmer Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $97,630 for inspection services and CAD
services for Augusta Utilities Department. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
February 7, 2011)
14. Motion to approve and authorize AED to accept the proposal from Duncan-Parnell
Geodetic Product Solution to apply GPS/Surveying equipment, associated services and
training in the use and maintenance of such equipment in the amount of $78,405.00, subject
to receipt of signed contract as requested by AED. Funding is available from Capital
Project Budget 272-041110. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 7,
2011)
15. Motion to approve and award Design Consultant Services Agreement to LPA Group
for the Capital Project Budget in the amount of $245,878 for the initial phases of the
24
Riverwatch Parkway at I-20 Corridor Improvements Project to be funded from SPLOST
Phase VI as requested by AED. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 7,
2011)
17. Motion to approve funding in the amount of $55,885.00 for the purchase of additional
wetland mitigation credits to offset wetland areas disturbed during the Fort Gordon
Forcemain Sanitary Sewer Connection project. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee February 7, 2011)
19. Motion to determine that a portion of Robert C. Daniel, Jr. Parkway, as shown on the
attached plat and consisting of approximately 0.101 acre (144.60 square feet), has ceased to
be used by the public to the extent that no substantial public purpose is served by it or that
its removal from the county road system is otherwise in the best public interest, pursuant to
O.C.G.A. §32-7-2, with the abandoned property to be quit-claimed to the appropriate
party(ies). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 7, 2011)
20. Motion to approve ARC to supplement the Kroc Center’s contract with B&E Electrical
in the amount of $129,241 to upgrade the traffic signal at Broad Street and Eve Street as
well as improve pedestrian facilities and provide signal interconnectivity to Crawford
Avenue. Funding is available in the Traffic Safety Improvements project account CPB 324-
0411110-202824020 as requested by AED. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
February 7, 2011)
PEITITONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
21. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held February
1, 2011 and Special Called Legal Meeting held February 7, 2011.
SUBCOMMITTEE
Pension Committee
22. Motion to approve recommended COLA increase of 1.4% for 2011 for 1945 and 1949
st
pension plans effective on the March 1 payment. (Approved by the Pension Committee
February 7, 2011)
PUBLIC SERVICES
25. Discussion: A request by Keion S. Taylor for a Dance license to be used in connection
with Alter Ego’Z Sports Bar & Grill located at 1721 Gordon Hwy. There will be Dance.
District 5. Super District 9. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee
February 15, 2011)
APPOINTMENT(S)
35. Consider the reappointment of the following to the Board of Tax Assessors to a four-
year term: Mr. Bernard Johnson, Senate District 22 (Super District 9) and Mr. James
Scott, Senate District 23 (Super District 10). (Requested by the Board of Tax Assessors)
36. Motion to approve revising the ARC Standing Committees as follows: Commissioner
Corey Johnson, Chairman Public Services Committee; Commissioner J.R. Hatney, Vice-
Chairman of Finance Committee and Matt Aitken, Vice-Chairman of Public Services
Committee. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Joe Bowles)
25
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-15, 17, 19-22, 25, 35-36]
Mr. Mayor: All righty, Madam Clerk, let’s go to the pulled items first, please.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
4. Motion to approve Ace Rental Car Concession Agreement for a three-year term to be
effective March 1, 2011. Additionally, approve this agreement as a template for entering
into contracts with the other rental car agencies. (Approved by Public Services Committee
February 7, 2011)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Lockett, this was your pull I believe.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m not in opposition to this. I just have some
questions I’d like to ask real quick please. How many rental car companies do we have at the
regional airport? Okay if we use this particular template with the others what impact do you
think it would have on the other companies there when they get ready to renew their contract?
And the way this is set up it wouldn’t potentially disqualify one of them that’s currently there.
Mr. LeTellier: No, sir.
Mr. Lockett: Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, can I get a motion to approve?
Mr. Lockett: Motion to approve, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mason: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
7. Motion to approve a request by Charles G. Levy for a Dance license to be used in
connection with Sector 7G located at 631 Ellis St. There will be Dance. District 1. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 7, 2011)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Lockett, I believe this was your pull as well.
26
Mr. Lockett: No ---
Mr. Mayor: Excuse me. Commissioner Aitken.
Mr. Aitken: I just have some clarity on that Rob as far as occupancy. I know there’s a
lot of people that spill out of that club. Has there been any violations with too many people
being in the club?
Mr. Sherman: I’m not familiar with any violations. The load limit will be posted and
they will have to comply with that.
Mr. Aitken: Okay. All right.
Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to approve?
Mr. Aitken: Motion to approve.
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.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
9. Motion to approve Cherry, Bekaert and Holland (CB&H) as audit firm for 2010
Financial Audits. (Approved by Finance Committee February 7, 2011)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for the Administrator. Mr. Russell, at
th
our February 7 meeting I asked the Finance Director a question. And part of my question was
responded to my colleague Commissioner Brigham. But my concern is I’ve been known to go
back and check on information I receive. And come to find out this particular company I was
told that had the contract for five years and was going to give them a one year extension because
of “lack of time” to go out and solicit somebody else. But I find that not to be true. During the
course of my research and I believe it’s accurate I found that this particular company has had this
audit contract with this government every year since December 31, 1997. I’m not a
mathematician but I do believe that’s more than five years looking for a one-year extension.
And I was told that there’s a professional organization GFOA that recommends that an entity
should not have the same auditor come in no more than five years or six at the most. And this is,
we always talk about the private sector, this is the system that the private sector uses. Now my
27
question to you Mr. Chairman is how can I develop a trust in the information that I’m receiving
from the Finance Department when I receive this information that’s so grossly incorrect?
Mr. Mayor: That question’s for the Administrator?
Mr. Lockett: Yes, sir.
Mr. Russell: If you look at the procedure we’ve used for the audit I think you’re
absolutely right in the fact that they’ve had the contract for an extended period of time. If you
look at the procedures that are used internally with their firm there have been different partners
that have been the actual person in charge of the audit over those extended periods of times
they’ve actually switched within the partners that are available. Therefore you’ve had a different
set of eyes actually being in charge of the audit. I believe that’s where the answer that you got
was coming from. While the firm itself has been the firm there’s been other partners that have
been involved as the actual audit managers at this particular point in time. Donna could probably
answer that better than that but that’s my understanding on the question that you asked and the
answer that you got.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Administrator, I would’ve felt a heck of a lots more comfortable had
this been explained to me. But if you’re using the same company I don’t care how many
different people you’ve got it’s still the same company. And as far as the professional
organization GFOA doesn’t encourage that. And my last question is to you, Mr. Administrator.
When are we going to use a different audit company so we can have a new set of eyes come in
and look at our finance?
Mr. Russell: Whenever it’s the will of the Commission, sir.
Mr. Lockett: Well, I’m only one but the will is here. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: (inaudible)
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a motion we approve this item.
Mr. Jackson: We have a motion and second. If there’s no, Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Fred, is it possible to put some limits on this and
maybe look at if this is extended through the rest of this year I guess that we look at seeking
another opportunity with another firm to look at this outside of this particular company?
Mr. Russell: If you’re comfort is such that you’d like to put it out for bid again next year
I’m not opposed to that. One of the problems we have is that our numbers are so big. There a
very few local people that can actually deal with that. But that’s why the partnership and the
28
express deal there usually works well for us. But if it’s the will of the body to go out to put it to
bid next year I mean I think that would be appropriate.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, my concern is with this year’s audit. We have to have an
th
audit to the state by June the 30. I don’t think we can do anything at this point to have an audit
to go out to re-bid this to get an auditing firm other than this auditing firm and meet a June the
th
30 deadline with the state of Georgia. We have been chastised in the past for not meeting that
deadline. I certainly hope that we don’t get chastised this year for not meeting that deadline. I
will be happy to add that we go out for bids for next year. That was what the Director of Finance
had recommended. I think the concern is with this year’s audit not with the fact that we need to
go out for bids. The other thing is we’re very limited in the number of firms locally that can do a
yellow book audit. And that is the type audits that we have to have done and there are a very
limited number of local firms that can do that audit.
amending that motion that we to approve
Mr. Mayor: Okay, just for clarity you’re
this agenda item but with theamendment to go out for bid next year.
Correct?
Mr. Brigham: That’s fine.
Mr. Johnson: That was basically what I was saying, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: When does next year start?
st
Mr. Brigham: We’re talking about the audit of 2011 which ends on December the 31 of
2011. The year has already started. The audit process does not start after the year ends.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Commissioner Smith, did you have
something?
Mr. Smith: (inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Madam Clerk, just as always for
the sake of clarity might we read that back?
The Clerk: The motion is to approve Cherry, Bekaert and Holland as the audit firm for
2010 and that bids be solicited for the 2011 audit year.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Now doesn’t that feel good? Madam Clerk, next agenda item, please.
29
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
16. Motion to approve Consent Agreement and Final Order from U.S.E.P.A. in the amount
of $51,800.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 7, 2011)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Aitken.
Mr. Aitken:
Mr. Mayor, I realize we got to pay this fine but I want to make sure we
a review of
have checks and balances in place that this situation won’t happen again. So I’d like
the safety procedures and training brought back to us within 30 days
that will give us some
clarity that we’re on the right page as far as the training and these kinds of releases won’t happen
to our community.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to make that as a motion to approve this agenda item ---
Mr. Aitken: Right.
Mr. Mayor: --- including the direction to proceed in that manner?
Mr. Aiken: Motion to approve.
Mr. Johnson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there is no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
18. Motion to determine that a portion of Oakdale Avenue, as shown on the attached plat
and consisting of approximately 0.22 acre (9,574.00 square feet), has ceased to be used by
the public to the extent that no substantial public purpose is served by it or that its removal
from the county road system is otherwise in the best public interest, pursuant to O.C.G.A.
§32-7-2, with the abandoned property to be quit-claimed to the appropriate party(ies), and
an easement to be retained over the entire abandoned portion for existing or future
utilities. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 7, 2011)
Mr. Mayor: Whose, Commissioner Brigham?
The Clerk: Mr. Brigham.
30
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, when I looked at this on our G.I.S. system on the, blow it up
and looked at the things for the public parcels we had a paved road on one side of this strip and
we had a paved road on the other side of this strip. And we’re missing a paved road that runs in
between this strip and my question is more as to why was there not a paved road there given the
fact that we just spent a half a million dollars as a lot of us like to quote. On a grand plan one of
things that was said we were going to have connectability between neighborhoods. And this
doesn’t make sense that we’re going to sell a piece of property that we’ve got a paved road on
either side of it but we don’t have a paved road on this strip. And that was only my question that
I didn’t understand.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown: You will need to talk to Engineering which recommends ---
Mr. Mayor: Well, you were standing, there I thought you were ready.
Mr. Brown: --- because we placed this item on the agenda at the request of Engineering.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have somebody to speak to this agenda item?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir. My name is Jim Williamson. I’m the Land Acquisition Manager
for the Augusta Engineering Department. The section of road is very short. There’s just, there’s
one house on one side, one house on the other. It’s never been developed. It wasn’t from the
original time that that road goes to put in there and it’s been grass and trucks and things since
that time. The one property owner maintains it for the city but the city isn’t going to do anything
on it so he cuts the grass on it and keeps it looking nice. And I was asked to get to the Attorney
by Abie Ladson our director to see if we could abandon that piece of property. We’re not
collecting any tax money off of it. It wouldn’t be much but if we abandon it we can start
charging taxes on it if it’s given to one of the property owners or sold to one of the property
owners.
Mr. Brigham: That still don’t answer the question. If we’ve got a paved road on one side
of it and a paved road on the other side of it and it looks like the plan was for the paved road to
run through this lot why don’t we run, why is a paved road not ran through it. And I don’t know
do we ever need to do it but what I understand we have a problem in our that we don’t have
connect ability among our neighborhoods. We have too many cul-de-sacs and I would’ve
thought that we, I know we’re paving the roads in Belair Hills because of the same type thing. I
didn’t understand why this road is being the roadway is being given away instead of being
paved. I just didn’t, it just didn’t make send to me I’m sorry.
Mr. Williamson: Well, to pave it now it would be, it would cost to pave it now a good
bit.
Mr. Brigham: I know ---
31
Mr. Williamson: And I don’t know when it was done originally. I can’t answer that but
to go back now and pave it it’s going to cost the city more money to do it and the benefits from it
would not be that great. I mean you’d have connectability but I don’t think there’s a problem
with that now.
Mr. Mason: Move for approval.
Mr. Brigham: I didn’t have any understanding so I guess I still don’t.
Mr. Johnson: Second.
Mr. Brigham: I’ll vote to approve just like everybody else.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk: Our next items are items 23 and 31.
Mr. Mason: Mr. Mayor, I’d prefer to take 23 on its own Mayor because I think it’s
separate from 31.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mason. I just recognized you.
Mr. Mason: Okay, I want to take 23 on its own, Mayor, because I believe it’s separate
from 31 and I’ll point those out here in just a second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY
23. Motion to approve personnel policy and procedures manual. (Approved by the Augusta
Commission February 1, 2011 – second reading)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One, on 23 I don’t believe needs to be on the
agenda for these reasons. This is being called a second reading. The point I was making on
thst
February the 7 was the fact that the substitute motion that Mr. Brigham made on February 1
was not included in this reading. Nor was it included in the reading that we saw for the policy
th
manual that was brought before us on February the 7. So in the absence nor is it in 31 today
either for that matter. But the fact of the matter is the substitute motion that Mr. Brigham made
st
on February 1 is not in any of these documents. So I don’t believe that you can have second
reading of something that you never seen before. So in this particular case and since we have
32
item 31 on I’m not sure why we have duplicate manuals. There should only be one manual. We
should only be discussing one manual today. So I don’t believe that this particular item should
I’m going to move that this item be removed from the agenda.
be on and
Mr. Lockett: Second.
Mr. Brigham: It takes unanimous consent and you don’t have it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Attorney, correct, it would take unanimous consent to remove the
agenda item.
Mr. MacKenzie: One question I have is we’re also going to be considering the same item
on 31 and Commissioner Lockett’s I mean Commissioner Mason’s correct in that the changes
st
that were requested on the February 1 2011 meeting were not in that version which we have
included in 31. And that’s what we’re asking you to approve. So I think it would be appropriate
to delete the item. And I’ll have to look at the rule but I think it takes unanimous consent to add
an item but not to remove an item.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: While we’re at it, are items in item number 31 also technical corrections to
this? And is item 31 considered a second reading of the passing of an ordinance or is a first
reading of a passing of a new ordinance.
Mr. MacKenzie: Item ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney.
Mr. MacKenzie: --- item 31 includes all of the items that were in the item that was on
st
February 1 2011 as well as the changes that were given to you in a redline version. On
st
February 1 we did not distribute a copy that included all of the actual changes. We just gave
you a redline sheet that said what all the changes were and that’s what we have before you in
item 31 is a complete final version that has every change that’s included. We also distributed a
one-page supplement to be included in item 31 as well. I think its page 124 if I’m correct. That
would included all of the revisions that have been made both at that meeting as well as this
meeting.
Mr. Brigham: Is it a second reading or is it a first reading?
Mr. MacKenzie: Well, it would be a new version of the proposed amendment to the HR
Policy and Procedures manual. And this one actually has in there a waiver of the second reading
to the extent one would be required for a revision to something that’s already been approved.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
33
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, I try not to say nothing as much as I can but if you’ve got two
different version of the same thing on the agenda it makes no sense. You need to take this thing
off and complete what you started and bring it back. Don’t need to have two versions of the
same things on the agenda at the same time. You’ve got one that hasn’t been voted one then you
got a revision of another one. Come on, come on there’s only one personnel policy, right?
There’s not two. Is that right?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney.
Mr. Hatney: It’s going to end up being one right, Mr. Attorney?
Mr. MacKenzie: I sure hope there’s only one.
Mr. Hatney: Okay, let’s treat it like that then. Let’s take this off and come back and vote
for it next time. Or look at it the next time at least.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I’m just going to interject something here. It seems like we keep
referring this stuff back and referring this stuff back and you know we requested the Attorney
make changes. He makes the changes and then we refer it back again. At some point I think we
need to vote on this. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you totally but the thing about it is we keep
referring it back because they keep making changes.
Mr. Mayor: But they keep making changes because you keep requesting changes.
Mr. Lockett: You cannot give me a change during the course of a Commission meeting
and expect me to vote on it. Not this year. So this is the reason why I agree with my colleague.
This thing needs to go back to the drawing board and when you put it all together and you got
one version and we’ve had a chance to look at it. But not before that. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Have a motion been made on this yet?
Mr. Mason: It has.
Mr. Mayor: It’s been made to take, to delete the item.
Mr. Johnson: And I concur. I think this is just becoming, George Eskola called me
regarding this today and I told him I wasn’t going to talk about it because we keep bringing it
back and forth and I agree. I think it’s something that we need to just take it all the way off the
agenda. Don’t add it, don’t even refer that it comes back to committee until they make all the
necessary changes. And all the ‘i’s’ are dotted all the ‘t’s’ are crossed and then bring it back to
34
the Commission. This will alleviate all of this because right now we’re going back and forth.
It’s committee commission, committee commission and it’s this way for the last six weeks at
least. So, Mr. Attorney, how long would it take you to make the necessary changes, get the
document done and whatever questions or concerns anybody may have get that done and then
bring it back before the Commission or we can get it back on the agenda. Do you have a
timeline?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: Just to clarify. The version you have in the, in your books now is item
31 includes every change that was requested by the two committee meetings that we had. The
only change that’s not in there is the one page that we distributed to you in advance of this
meeting which is page 124 I believe. Other than that all these other changes have already been
st
implemented. They were the same ones that were presented at the February 1 meeting that
included the redline version. And the only change that wasn’t in there was the request that was
made by Commissioner Brigham to include the language that was related to the Mayor, the
recommending authority of the Administrator. That item has now been added in, in addition to
st
all of the other changes that were provided as a redline sheet before on February 1. And that’s
the version that’s been in there. The only changes added was page 124 there was some slight
rewording with regard to the language in there to be consistent with the rest of the language in
the code. Other than that all the changes are there unless the Commission would like to make
addition changes. I don’t know of any other changes that we’ve been instructed to make.
Mr. Mayor: And, go ahead.
Mr. Johnson: So you can do it and have it ready by the next committee meeting is what
you’re saying.
Mr. MacKenzie: I’m saying it’s ready now.
Mr. Johnson: It’s ready now the documents and everything is clear.
Mr. Hatney: And I can get a copy.
Mr. MacKenzie: It’s thirty-one in your book.
Mr. Hatney: No, no, no.
Mr. Mayor: Hang on, Reverend Hatney. Let me because, Commissioner Johnson still
has the floor.
Mr. Johnson: And I think that needs to be clear. If it’s not, the manual is not complete, I
understand you made the necessary changes but if the manual itself is not complete than it’s not
complete. So we need to make sure that is a complete document. This is, you’ve given me the
manual. You hear what I’m saying and that everything is complete and then bring it back so we
can go to make sure that not giving me a sheet of paper saying we made the amendments and
35
then you go. I think that’s the concern we all have. We want to make sure that it’s completely
done. And if we have any questions from that point on we need to address it. But I think we
need to take the necessary time to deal with this and then bring it back. We don’t need to bring it
back if everybody’s not comfortable with it.
Mr. Mayor: But just for clarity. The changes that were requested were made and were
included in the agenda, in agenda books that were posted this past Friday. Correct?
Mr. MacKenzie: Every change except page 124.
Mr. Mayor: The one page that was handed. Okay. Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Sir, are we taking 23 and 31 at the same time right now or are we just
addressing 23?
The Clerk: Item 23, Mr. Bowles.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Okay, back to what I was saying in the first place. Item number twenty-
three is what I want to deal with because I believe it’s in error. And I pointed out the facts of
why I believe it’s in error. It does not contain as you say the substitute motion that Mr. Brigham
stth
made on February the 1 that I brought out on February the 7, the reason why I had that thirty-
minute diatribe because it wasn’t there. And it’s still not there. In his motion even though you
have the document in thirty-one his motion is not encaptured in 31 it’s a whole different motion.
So that’s a whole other subject we’ll get to that. We’re not there yet. But as far as on 23, 23
shouldn’t be in here period because number one that’s a dead issue. It doesn’t contain anything
that we’ve had. Doesn’t contain the redline. It doesn’t contain Mr. Brigham’s motion. It
certainly can’t be a second reading because we don’t see anything in there for it to have read the
first time. So it certainly can’t be a second reading. It’s not a separate manual, it’s supposed to
be one inclusive in 31, 23 I’m asking to be removed. It doesn’t exist in my mind.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie?
Mr. MacKenzie: I actually agree with you. Twenty-three does not include the most
updated version and this was automatically forwarded because it was an approval on February
st
1. This was forwarded on the second reading but since then there were revisions made. One of
st
which was a request by Commissioner Brigham at the February 1 meeting as well as the
revisions that we gave you on the redline sheet. I totally agree with you. Twenty-three needs to
be removed from the agenda but since there’s not unanimous consent to remove it you can vote
to deny it.
Mr. Mason: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Parliamentary inquiry? You said it takes a
unanimous consent ---
Mr. Mayor: No, he did not say it takes unanimous consent to remove it.
36
Mr. Mason: Well, can I hear him say that, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. MacKenzie: I believe it takes unanimous consent ---
Mr. Mason: That’s what I thought he said.
Mr. MacKenzie: --- to add an item ---
Mr. Mayor: To add ---
Mr. MacKenzie: --- not to delete it.
Mr. Mayor: --- not to remove.
Mr. MacKenzie: I may have misspoke ---
Mr. Mayor: He’s concurring with you, Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason: --- him on that one.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, but let’s just for the point of clarity so you’re saying it’s not a bad
thing to remove 23 so we can get on to number 31.
Mr. MacKenzie: I totally agree with that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Attorney, just put yourself in my position for a minute. You want me to
ignore something you put in here. You want me to look at something else all inclusive in this
paper I just got. Could you go to court like that?
Mr. Mayor: But let me just say. When we get the agenda books on Friday ---
Mr. Hatney: You can’t go to court like that.
Mr. MacKenzie: I’ve been to court many a time getting new information at the last
minute.
Mr. Hatney: All we’re asking for, Mr. Mayor, is for a complete document.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
37
Mr. Hatney: A completed document and I’m not talking about the piece of paper you just
handed me. It ought to be all-inclusive.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, just for clarity then because if you incorporate the one piece of paper
that you handed us today into what we already had in the agenda book that’ll incorporate every
change that’s been requested. Correct?
Mr. MacKenzie: That’s correct. Tear out page 124, put in that page and it’s complete.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Hatney: But how do you expect us this body this is supposed to be legislative body
of Augusta and ---
Mr. Mayor: And ---
Mr. Hatney: --- and you expect us to vote on bits and pieces of the same thing.
Mr. Mason: Point of order, Mr. Mayor. We should stick with 23 that’s what um ---
Mr. Mayor: Well ---
Mr. Mason: --- was separated out. We should have that vote on there if we want to talk
about 31. That ---
Mr. Mayor: Hang on ---
Mr. Mason: --- that item will come up and at that time ---
Mr. Mayor: --- Mr. Mason, I’m handling the agenda here.
Mr. Mason: A point of order, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Point of personal privilege but you have to wait for me to recognize you.
Mr. Mason: There is a point of order as well.
Mr. Mayor: I will recognize you and let you speak but quick about it. We need to move
on.
Mr. Mason: Well, my ---
Mr. Mayor: And I don’t disagree with you vice what the Attorney said.
Mr. Mason: --- I just feel we need to vote. I don’t see why we’re talking about 31. That
agenda item hasn’t come up yet.
38
Mr. Mayor: Just for the point of clarity I’m getting the input of the Attorney because it
has been said that people have not had ample time to review the changes requested, that if the
one page that he has given to us prior to this meeting is incorporated into what was in the agenda
book, that would comprise all of the changes recommended by the Commission.
Mr. Mason: It’s still item 31 it’s not 23 and that’s what I’m saying. We’ll talk about 31
because I disagree with that. But I’m not going to do it now because we haven’t got to 31.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Well, we have a motion and a second ---
Mr. Brigham: Roll call please, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: --- and a roll call vote has been requested to dispose of the agenda item, to
remove the agenda item. Madam Clerk, roll call vote.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Item 23.
Mr. Mayor: And, Madam Clerk, if you could read back the, and ya’ll at some point come
on. I mean this is just, it’s getting ridiculous.
Mr. Mason: It really is, it really is.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, if you could read back the motion.
The Clerk: The motion is to delete personnel policy and procedure manual, item 23. Mr.
Aitken.
Mr. Aitken: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Yes.
39
The Clerk: Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: Yes.
The Clerk: That motion carries. It’s 8-2.
Mr. Brigham and Mr. Jackson vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item as we speed through.
The Clerk: That would be item 31.
Mr. Johnson: We’ve got item 24 and, 25 I’m sorry.
The Clerk: That was added to the consent agenda.
Mr. Johnson: No, 25 wasn’t consented.
The Clerk: It was.
Mr. Johnson: Twenty-five was consented?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Twenty-five was.
Mr. Mason: We should be on 24.
40
Mr. Mayor: Just for the point of clarity if we could pull back up the screen showing the
items added to the consent agenda.
Mr. Hatney: What are doing now?
Mr. Mayor: Working it all out. Twenty-five, 35 and 36. So, yes, Madam Clerk, agenda
item 26.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
26. Discuss immediate hiring freeze on all non-essential employee positions with
commission approval being required for the employment of essential employees.
(Requested by Commissioner Bill Lockett)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This item was added to the agenda in response
to a January 20, 2011 legal opinion made by the general counsel. This legal opinion was
requested by Commissioner Mason and relates to a planned reduction in force and
reorganization. And the part of the legal opinion I was concerned with and I quote. Where a job
position is entirely eliminated for non-discriminatory reasons or an employee to prevail against
Augusta he or she must show that he or she was qualified for another available job with that
employer. Qualifications for his or her current job is not enough. Now the hiring freeze
recommendation was never intended to include the Sheriff’s Department, the Marshall’s
Department or the Tax Commissioners Office. I realize they all have elected officials in charge.
This recommendation is not an effort to curtail anyone’s authority or potential authority. My
desire is to assist those employees that may be displaced as a result of restructuring this
government. Many of those employees that could very well be displaced have given many years
of service to this government, often times underpaid and too often not given positive recognition
for there success and multiple accomplishments. This government has an obligation to go above
and beyond the call to assure that these loyal workers have a smooth transition. Since January
st
the 1 of this year 20-plus job announcements have been posted. Some of these could possibly
be filled by some of those positions not people positions that we expected or very well could
lose.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Lockett, that’s two minutes on that one. Can I
recognize you for next two?
Mr. Lockett: You may but I think they get the gist of what I’m talking about.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I get kind of the gist of it but I can’t see it. And I’d like to send
it back to committee. I’ll make that motion.
41
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second to refer it back to committee.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, that wasn’t the motion that was just primarily for
information and to focus our attention on it, that’s all.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, can you change your motion to amend your motion to receive as
information?
Mr. Bowles:
I can but I still think it’s worth talking about in Finance Committee.
motion was to refer it to Finance, Mr. Bowles?
The Clerk: Your
Mr. Bowles: Yes, ma’am.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a second to refer the agenda item to the next Finance
Committee meeting. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
28. An Ordinance to present proposal to amend the Augusta, Georgia Charter and Laws of
Local Application, Section1-40 relating to Equal Opportunity; to separate the function of
Equal Employment Opportunity from Minority and Small Business Opportunities; to
provide policies and guidelines; to create a Local Small Business Advisory Board; to repeal
all Charter, Code Sections and Ordinances and parts of Charter, Code Sections and
Ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide an effective date and for other purposes. (No
recommendation from Administrative Services Committee February 7, 2011)
The Clerk: With your approval would item 27 and 28 be companion items or would you
all like those addressed separately?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie, can you?
Mr. MacKenzie: Twenty-eight is actually a duplicative item of thirty. I would
recommend that you delete 28 since it’s included in 30.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, can I get a motion to delete item 28?
Mr. Bowles: So moved.
Mr. Johnson: Second.
42
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: Twenty-seven and thirty. Are they together?
Mr. Bowles: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, agenda item number twenty-seven.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
27. An Ordinance to amend the Augusta, Georgia Code, Article One, Chapter Ten, relating
to the procurement of goods and services and the Local Small Business Opportunities
Program so as to provide updates and to establish policies, procedures and guidelines
regarding the procurement process and the Local Small Business Opportunities Program;
to repeal all Ordinances and parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide an
effective date and for other purposes. (No recommendation from Administrative Services
Committee February 7, 2011)
30. An Ordinance to present an alternative proposal to amend Augusta, Georgia Charter
and Laws of Local Application, Section 1-40 relating to Equal Employment; to separate the
function of Equal Employment Opportunity from minority and small business
opportunities; to provide policies and guidelines; to create a Local Small Business Advisory
Board; to repeal all Charter, Code Sections and Ordinances and parts of Charter, Code
Sections and Ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide an effective date and for other
purposes. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to, I would like to request that agenda
item #31 be heard before these two because I think the two that were just read are a part of 31.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Lockett, we’ve already called 27 and 30 so. Anybody like to speak to
this? Well, make a motion.
Mr. Bowles: Motion to approve.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: If I could separate these items out. If you could approve 30 first I think
that would helpful because some of the items in 27 are included in thirty.
43
Mr. Mayor: Okay, is your motion to approve?
Mr. Bowles: So amended
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there’s no further ---
The Clerk: Mr. Jackson, did you second that?
Mr. Jackson: I so second thirty.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Lockett: What is the motion, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor: To approve agenda item 30.
The Clerk: Item 30. Mr. Bowles and Mr. Jackson.
The Clerk: That motion, Mr. Attorney, is this an eight vote?
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes.
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Hatney vote No.
Motion fails 6-4.
The Clerk: Now we’re back to item 27?
Mr. Mayor: Which I bet will probably go about the same round as 30. Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: Just to clarify. There is some terminology in 27 will need to be altered
since 30 was not approved. I will be happy to come back with the recommendation that includes
those changes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, so what would you like the motion to be on 27?
Mr. MacKenzie: To send it back to committee.
Mr. Hatney: So moved.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to refer it back to committee. Is there a second? Mr.
MacKenzie.
refer back to the next Commission meeting with
Mr. MacKenzie: Or you can
instruction for me to make the changes.
44
Mr. Mayor: Would somebody like to amend their motion to reflect that? Commissioner
Hatney, you made that motion.
Mr. MacKenzie: Whatever he wants.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: Okay, that was Mr. Hatney and who seconded that, I’m sorry.
Mr. Johnson: I’ll second that.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Johnson seconded it.
The Clerk: Refer it to the Attorney for the next Commission meeting.
Mr. Mayor: If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Mr. Mason and Mr. Smith vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
29. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the Augusta, GA Code Title Two Sections
1-7-11 through 1-7-21 to amend the personnel system; to repeal all code sections and
ordinances and parts of the code sections and ordinances in conflict. (No recommendation
from Administrative Services Committee February 7, 2011)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney or can I get a motion on this from anybody?
Mr. MacKenzie: If you have any questions relating to it I’ll be happy to answer them.
What this is, is a motion to amend the code to include the changes with regard to the personnel
policies and procedures; to include the changes in the employee disciplinary appeals process and
also the bylaws for the Personnel Board.
Mr. Bowles: Motion to approve.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
45
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Hatney vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Hatney: Question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Are you saying you can change the whole personnel system ordinance wise
with six votes?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: I’m saying the changes that you’re making to the code can be made
with six votes in this particular item.
Mr. Hatney: Come on does it have anything at all to do with the Charter?
Mr. MacKenzie: No, it doesn’t.
Mr. Hatney: Yes, it does. You’re going to change the whole personnel ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The General Counsel has confused me again.
Agenda item #30 the first sentence, an ordinance to present an alternative proposal to amend
August, Georgia Charter and Laws of Local Application. Are you amending the Charter?
Mr. Mayor: Okay, this was agenda #29 that we just voted on.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Okay, Madam Clerk, I believe we’re on 31.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
31. Revised Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual. (No recommendation from
Administrative Services Committee February 7, 2011)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mason, I believe you had.
Mr. Mason: I can speak to it, Mr. Mayor, certainly. On 31 well first of all I want to get
some clarity. You said this is a, what reading is this?
st
Mr. MacKenzie: This would be a reading of the revisions from the February 1
document that includes all of those revisions except for page 124 I believe it is which I provided
46
to the Commission that has a minor change. So this would be the most updated version that
includes the changes from the two committee meetings or Commission Special Meeting for the
review of the HR Policies and Procedures Manual as well as the recommendation made by
Commissioner Brigham to include the language with regard to the Administrator’s
recommending authority.
Mr. Mason: So what reading is this?
Mr. MacKenzie: So it would be the first reading of the version that includes all those
changes.
Mr. Mason: Okay. Now you said this included the motion that Mr. Brigham made on
st
February 1?
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes.
st
Mr. Mason: Let me read Mr. Brigham’s motion of February 1. Mr. Brigham’s motion
st
of February 1 states this. Substitute motion to approve the amendment to allow the
Administrator to have the exclusive right to nominate department heads and that the Commission
have the right to either accept or to reject the nominees presented by the Administrator. The
verbiage that’s in here now is the Administrator shall have the final authority regarding all
employment issues but for those pertaining to the department directors or employees who report
directly to the Commission including but not limited to hiring, firing, position classifications,
discipline and organization. While I somewhat agree with that that is not what Mr. Brigham had
st
in his motion on February the 1 number one. Number two as far as, well would you agree?
Mr. MacKenzie: Which page are you reading from?
st
Mr. Mason: I’m reading from the text of the minutes from February 1 which has a
substitute motion and I’m reading from page 124, well, the new one that you just passed out
today that we just saw for the first time. I’m reading from that one.
Mr. MacKenzie: All right. What was your question?
Mr. Mason: So what I, my question was would you agree that that’s not the motion that
st
Mr. Brigham made on February the 1.
Mr. MacKenzie: I’m going to defer to our staff attorney who actually did all the
revisions with regard to the exact changes. It’s my understanding that’s included but I’ll defer to
her for that question.
Ms. Smitherman: That change was made but it’s on page 11 not on 124. Page 11 covers
employees covered. And since department directors have a specific different rules that apply to
them those were set forth on page 11 as they always have been. If you read the second paragraph
under the heading Employees Covered says department directors are at will employees. The
Administrator shall have the exclusive right to recommend appointing and discharge other
47
department directors to the Commission and the Commission shall at its sole discretion approve
or deny such recommendations.
Mr. Mason: And you’re saying that’s page what?
Ms. Smitherman: Eleven.
Mr. Mason: So is that redlined?
Ms. Smitherman: We provided that change to you on a redline form. That was passed
st
out on February 1.
Mr. Mason: Can you point that out to me in here?
Mr. Mayor: Okay, and, Commissioner Mason, you’re getting close to the two minute
warning here.
Mr. Mason: I’d like to be recognized again, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Okay, Mr. Mason, you’re on the clock.
Mr. Mason: For sure. No, that’s not the exact same motion, the wording is different but
subsequently I guess it’s similar. The Administrator shall have exclusive right to recommend
appointment and discharge. This does not speak to discharge.
Ms. Smitherman: He just said he’ll have the right to recommend. He didn’t say whether
that recommendation was as to appointment and discharge. He just used recommend.
Mr. Mason: So you decided to add it in.
Ms. Smitherman: We followed up with the Commissioner and he said it was his intent to
have both.
st
Mr. Mason: So I’m going to say it again. This motion that was made on February 1 is
st
not encompassed in what I see here on page 11. Because it states on February 1 it speaks
specifically to nominating, it doesn’t speak to the firing as I see here.
Ms. Smitherman: His motion spoke to nomination it didn’t say whether that nomination
was for hiring or firing. He just said shall nominate. So we followed up to whether to determine
whether nomination was intended only for hiring purposes or whether that was intended for
hiring and firing purposes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: And forgive me for saying this but this is the kind of stuff we’re talking
about. This is just what we’re talking about. You know one thing is said and you assume that he
48
meant something and you call him. You don’t call no other Commissioners. In other words
you’re answering no other vote but his.
Ms. Smitherman: Absolutely not.
Mr. Hatney: First, then secondly the revision of the personnel, policy and procedure
manual is a Charter issue. Yes, ma’am, this is a Charter issue.
Ms. Smitherman: I know that there has been an opinion issued on that, that this does not
require a Charter change.
Mr. Hatney: How can it not require a Charter change when you’re not going to give a
Commissioner, the Administrator all this stuff y’all talking about and it does not appear in the
Charter?
Ms. Smitherman: Because the Charter sets forth specific duties for the Mayor and the
Mayor is not specifically given hiring or firing authority in the Charter. The Charter allows the
Commission to delegate any authority specifically given to the Mayor.
Mr. Hatney: You all are changing this without a vote. You’re doing it yourself.
Ms. Smitherman: No, we’re doing it with six votes of Commission.
Mr. Hatney: Oh, that ain’t right. It’s not right, no it’s not right. See one of the things ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay and let me just say I think we need to treat ---
Mr. Hatney: (unintelligible).
Mr. Mayor: --- I know but we need to treat our employees with dignity and respect.
Mr. Hatney: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Please, sir.
Mr. Hatney: I appreciate that but I think you ought to treat us with dignity and respect
too. If we’re going to uphold a vote on something we need to see it. You can bang that gavel all
you want, man.
Mr. Mayor: The crowd doesn’t need to be getting ---
Mr. Hatney: That’s just the problem ---
Mr. Mayor: --- out of respect ---
49
Mr. Hatney: --- I don’t have no problem working with anything that’s final. But you’ve
got bits here and bits here and you say that’s not what he meant. And you call him and he
changes his mind. Come on now. If you’re supposed to be serving this whole Commission
don’t you think we should have known that?
Ms. Smitherman: My understanding this language has been in there the whole time.
Since that motion has been made it has not been changed since this was given to you in your
commission books.
Mr. Hatney: Then you all are saying you can change, put all these changes in the
Administrator’s job without it affecting the Charter. Because the Administrator, what you all
are, what you actually are doing is putting the work on the Administrator that actually is doing a
city manager’s job.
Ms. Smitherman: As I stated the Charter sets forth specific duties for the Mayor. These
specific duties that are trying to be delegated to the Administrator are not specifically set forth to
the Mayor. The Charter specifically gives the Commission the right to delegate any authority to
the Administrator not specifically given to the Mayor. These particular tasks are not in the
Charter under the Mayor’s duties. So therefore it is our opinion it only takes six votes to
delegate those.
Mr. Hatney: Is y’alls opinion. Okay. Now the folks who put this together they might
have made some errors here and there and done some crazy things here but they protected this
Commission in one way is that any inkling of a change to the Charter there has to be a two-thirds
vote. They did that to stop this kind of stuff.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, would anybody like to make a motion on this?
Mr. Lockett: I already had my hand up, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: I’ll be brief. Just a week or so ago we were told that the Charter was
antiquated, obsolete and those that read it believed it was backwards thinking and now all of a
sudden you found something in it you like so you’re going to use it as authority.
Mr. Mayor: And please don’t, don’t get personal.
Mr. Lockett: I’m being mild and all along I’ve been saying the meeting between the
delegation and the Commission they spelled out the Charter but the General Counsel said, no,
you can’t use the intent. But now all of a sudden you get up here and you make reference to the
intent of my colleague Commissioner Brigham. You can’t have it both ways. And the last thing
I’d like to say is the change with the Personnel Board. You say personnel system but you’re
talking about the Personnel Board and you’re giving the Administrator authorities that he hasn’t
had. Now it’s been said over and over this evening that we are in agreement on the Personnel
Handbook. We’re not in agreement with the Personnel Handbook. I headed two workshops.
50
We agreed on quite a bit but there was lots of stuff that was in that personnel manual that we
didn’t even discuss for the simple reason of objections. Now it would be my recommendation as
one Commissioner that if we could do another workshop with all ten commissioners present
make those changes then and move on. But we’re doing it nilly willy and this is not going to
work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jackson: Motion to approve.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second? Is there a second?
Mr. Aitken: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. If there’s ---
Mr. Mason: Roll call vote, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Roll call vote, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: The motion is to approve item 31. Mr. Jackson and Mr. Aitken. Are you
waiving the second reading on this?
Mr. MacKenzie: I believe it’s included within that item.
The Clerk: He says it’s included in the agenda item. Okay, that’s to approve. I’ll let the
Attorney ---
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Speaker: This is the first reading but the Ordinance that was provided in your
commission books that requires those changes the second reading is waived.
Mr. Mason: By who?
Ms. Speaker: It’s on the Ordinance if it’s approved.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ve called for the vote. Okay, Mr. Aitken.
Mr. Aitken: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Yes.
51
The Clerk: Mr. Grantham, I’m sorry. Mr. Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason: Definitely not.
The Clerk: Mr. Smith.
Mr. Aitken: Mr. Grantham said yes.
The Clerk: Well, no, I was calling Mr. Guilfoyle. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Yes, ma’am.
Mr. Hatney, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Mason vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Attorney, that approves the item but they approved the reading
you need.
Mr. MacKenzie: I guess we’ll forward it on then for a second reading to make sure that
amendment is reflected in the record.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Madam Clerk, next agenda item.
52
The Clerk:
FINANCE
32. Approve implementation of firefighter wellness initiative for existing employees to
include wellness, physicals, occupational fitness and physical agilities testing. (Requested by
Commissioner Jerry Brigham)
Mr. Brigham: Motion to approve.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second for approval. Mr. Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: If I’m not mistaken that item was pulled.
Mr. Mason: Well, I asked for some discussion.
Mr. Mayor: No, it actually ---
The Clerk: It’s on the regular agenda.
Mr. Mayor: --- is on the regular agenda.
Mr. Lockett: Oh, okay. We’ll have some discussion, please, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mason?
Mr. Mason: Yeah um, on this wellness plan, who’s going to speak to this anyway?
Who? Is it the Chief? Who? HR? Don’t rush.
Mr. Speaker: Good evening Commissioners, Rod Powell, HR.
Mr. Mason: Good evening. The only question I have in reference to this is just to get it
on the record to be sure we have the clarity that we need. In terms of this, the wellness, the
physicals, occupational fitness and the physical agilities testing, who does that include in terms
of the personnel within the department?
Mr. Powell: This is something we talked about what probably a year ago. We talked
about the (unintelligible) testing was to have an active program that included all suppression
firefighters and the fire department which is probably about 95% or so of all the personnel. It
would exclude like administrative folks. It includes everybody and would be an ongoing
program. It would basically sync up with the testing we have for new recruits, which is
something you asked for earlier.
Mr. Mason: Right but I think I also and think if you remember also suggested very
strongly that it should include from the top to the bottom.
53
Mr. Powell: Yes, but it ---
Mr. Mason: But it doesn’t.
Mr. Powell: --- certified, you’ve got to be certified. Like we have administrative people
to do filing and personnel and admin work. It would not include them. They’re not certified
firefighters.
Mr. Mason: So this includes everybody but your admin folks is what you’re saying.
Mr. Powell: Also, sir, one other, the inspectors are not included because they’re not fire
suppression certified. So there’s just a handful of people that would be excluded, sir.
Mr. Mason: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion to approve and a second. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: I’ll be brief, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief Willis you were here on
rd
August the 3 of last year and I asked you about CPAD and so forth. And I would express my
heartfelt sorrow because of the loss of one of the fire personnel. But I understand what you’re
requesting and I can support that. But the only problem I have is we’re talking about $160,000
dollars at a time when we are laying off people or contemplating about laying off people. And to
make it brief my question is this. We have a wellness facility through Human Resources now.
But what these fire personnel need to do can be done on their own if they really want to, like
running, walking, steps, pushups and so forth. Is there any way that the timeline is going to
establish for them to get where they can pass the physical agility test and so forth? Can they do
it with the bad economy and the budget problems we have but at a later date to receive what
you’re requesting today?
Chief Willis: Yes, sir, I would love to see all of those people given an opportunity of at
least twelve months to go prepare themselves for this agilities tests and this wellness too. All of
us need to certainly address that. And doing exercises the physical fitness part of it going to the
gyms a lot of the firefighters do go to the “Y” and other places as well now to do fitness training.
We’re looking to initiate a fitness program that’s within the department to help all of those
firefighters meet this goal that we’re trying to set for them.
Mr. Lockett: Well, I received some communication from some of the people under your
command that was thankful that we are going to force them to do this because many of them said
they had wanted to do it all along but hadn’t. But this is some kind of incentive for them to do it.
But my question is do you really have to have the $160,000 dollars investment now or could that
be delayed until next year.
Chief Willis: In order to get these people into the physical training my understanding is
that we need to get a baseline physical on these people from everybody that’s going to participate
in this. That we can look at and determine what may be a problem for them to address those
54
problems if it’s something to do with the heart, it’s something to do with movement issues,
flexibility and all of that. To put them in the right program and put them through the proper
training so they will not injure themselves in this time frame. Now to get that physical, that
baseline physical that’s where the $160,000 will come in. We have to start doing that with those
people. Now my suggestion would be too is if we go forward with this program we’ll have new
incumbent firefighters coming in so it’s going to stagger a number of people over the years. One
year you might have sixty people, one year you may have 160 people. So it’s going, we going to
have to have the funding an ongoing funding source to continue this physical fitness program for
everybody.
Mr. Lockett: Okay. Thank you very much, Chief.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Yeah, just one final question. I just want to get some clarity. Is inspectors,
inspectors, are they certified?
Chief Willis: Some of them are certified but right now all they do is a forty-hour. They
are considered administrative people, they do not fight fires. They do not have turnout gear.
Mr. Mason: So there would never be a situation where if you needed them you would
place them in a situation to go out and do anything even though they’re certified.
Chief Willis: They do not have turnout gear so we would not put them in a firefighting
operation at all.
Mr. Mason: Strictly administrative is what you’re telling me.
Chief Willis: They’re strictly administrative people. They do inspections but they’re
issued firefighting equipment so they don’t do any firefighting operations.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Guilfoyle: I was going to ask Chief Willis something.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: As far as the exercise equipment you got in place right now you have at
each of the facilities, fire departments. What kind of rigid program did you have in effect to
make sure that the fireman does do their exercises while they’re carrying out their workday?
Chief Willis: That is the program that we want to establish for each individual. We have
to understand once they get the physicals and once we do the RFP on to get these people checked
out that each individual has a program that will be assigned for them through a fitness peer
counsel and we have people already, a few people already trained and we’ll need some more
55
trained to address to work with those people so they will be able to do those fitness programs and
bring them up to the levels that they need to be.
Mr. Guilfoyle: And an inspector does not go in on a ---
Chief Willis: They aren’t firefighters. They go out and do inspections or investigations
and all. They do not fight fires.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. Thank you, Chief Willis.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
38. Motion to approve releasing the City Attorney’s Legal Opinion regarding Augusta
local governmental reorganization. (Requested by Mayor Deke Copenhaver February 8,
2011)
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, my, I should have caught this when we were going through
the consent agenda but other business item #8 my request to release the city’s legal opinion. I’d
like to call that one and ask for a motion to remove that from the agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to that effect?
Mr. Hatney: So moved.
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.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you all. And, Mr. Mason, did you want to, Mr. Mason, your request
on 37 is similar.
Mr. Mason: Mine’s a little different. It talks about the process so I just want to get some
clarity on the process and then we can move on from that one. But I still need to touch on
something there.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, next agenda item.
The Clerk:
56
ENGINEERING SERVICES
33. Consider a request from Ms. Barbara Coping for a waiver from garbage collection fees
for the property at 1615 Cornell Drive. (No recommendation from Engineering Services
Committee February 7, 2011)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Johnson. Oh, yes, ma’am. Go ahead and if you could keep it to five
minutes, please.
Ms. Coping: My name is Barbara Sandra Coping, I have a property at 1615 Cornell
Drive. There has not been any garbage collection there over the year. Everybody’s talking about
saving money. Taxpayers have the right to save money as well as the government reconstructing
the city. And I’m asking for that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: After last committee we went back and looked at our customer
management software and we identified that on 4-20-2010 the customer had a night stand in her
court. It was not red tagged because the driver didn’t have any but we needed to notify them and
ask them to remove it. On 9-20-2010 yard waste was mixed with bulk waste at this address at
12:10 p.m. On 1-14-2011 our staff sent an email to the hauler with a notification that bulk waste
furniture was out for pickup. And on 1-14-2011 we got information back from the hauler at 7:50
a.m. that there was household trash on the ground that needed to be collected. So while it may
not have been her material at her address we are picking up material in that court that’s assigned
to the house, so on multiple occasions. So from that and the face value of our current resolution
I would recommend that we deny. But based on our last conversation and Commissioner
Johnson asking for additional input looking forward I think we can look at ways to address issues
where there’s low power consumption, there’s low utility consumption and it’s unoccupied or
uninhabitable property so that the issue Ms. Coping is addressing could be resolved.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Russell and Mr. MacKenzie, this will be to you guys and I always bring
this up when we talk about garbage. When will we create one tax base for all citizens for
Augusta rather than treating people in the old city differently than people in the old county?
Mr. Mayor: Don’t everybody jump at once on that one.
Mr. Bowles: Because this is the heart of that issue right there.
Mr. Russell: Obviously that’s a discussion we’ve had on more than one occasion and one
that we need to address. Obviously it’s probably as complicated as any issued we’ve addressed.
And as we look at some of the things we made pretty complicated it’s going to be tough. But if
it’s the will of the body to do that then we need to do that.
st
Mr. Bowles: Touch down January 31 2013 when I’m out of office and I can sue this
government.
57
Mr. Johnson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you. Ms. Coping, have you put anything out there service wise?
Are you using the can or bulk pickup anything in the last year?
Ms. Coping: No, sir.
Mr. Johnson: Is it in ---
Ms. Coping: Not even any yard waste.
Mr. Johnson: So is it possible that your neighbors have been utilizing that can? Have
you noticed any movement in that can ---
Ms. Coping: No.
Mr. Johnson: --- on a day, you know on a weekly basis if you will.
Ms. Coping: No.
Mr. Johnson: Call Mark.
Mr. Mayor: Mark?
Mr. Johnson: And based on the information that you collected, Mark, that garbage was
picked up at that address are they certain with that particular address or was it the neighbors that
you know might have put their can or in between the property lines?
Mr. Johnson: It’s referenced to this actual property. I mean anything in the world is
possible but it’s happened multiple times. So I mean you’re looking at four or five events in a
six-month window. I don’t know. I mean anything’s possible.
Mr. Johnson: Based on what we discussed as far the usage and things of that magnitude
you’re still recommending denying this case or would you look at it being a 50/50 situation?
Mr. Johnson: On a face value my recommendation across the board with the current
ordinance or resolution we have in play is to deny. I think if we start looking forward there are
things that we could do that addresses her court concern. Things like in a resolution we’re able
to charge at 50% for unimproved an unoccupied properties. If that was amended to say
something like with less than 250 gallons of water consumed and less that 250 kilowatts of
power that should address the light on for security. That should address the security system on
for vandals. That could address leaving the lights on to the sell the property through a real estate
agent. It’s low enough utilization that it’s not where somebody’s going to be living there but it’s
58
high enough utilization that it addresses the security issues to being able to sell real estate
reasonably and doing some of those. So with that on a forward-looking approach I would I think
we could do it. The downside from the upside for me is it’s additional revenue because when
you turn on all those fees or all unimproved property then it’s an enhancement. But we would be
providing both waste and yard waste service to all those properties as well.
Mr. Johnson: Yeah, I know we talked about this but that was just extreme to know with
her electrical bill and I think we saw it clearly that there was no one there. And she don’t have
water, correct connected to the property. And we talked about this I know a year ago and that’s
why I say we need to be proactive versus reactive. This could’ve been resolved some time ago.
We could’ve even made an amendment to just that because now we’re hearing this situation and
it’s possible. I know people that use other people’s garbage cans and they can do that. And I’m
thinking in that case that’s probably what’s going on with her because clearly she’s not there
outside of it to check on the property and clean it up a little and make sure things stay you know
I guess in the yard or what have you. But I just think that’s it fair to her to have to pay the entire
amount just because she didn’t even request the can. And that’s the concern that I have. So I
can’t support in denying it. I don’t know what my colleagues want to do.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Hatney then Commissioner Smith and then
Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Hatney: Young lady.
Ms. Coping: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney: I’m sorry to just say young lady but I don’t remember your name. Nobody
lives there. Do you have water there?
Ms. Coping: No, sir. And the windows are boarded up.
Mr. Hatney: Okay, if you got no water why is there a trash can there?
Mr. Johnson: Because there’s power there. And the way that the resolution is passed is
if there is domestic power or water then it is on.
Mr. Hatney: But there wouldn’t be nothing wrong with moving that can, would it?
Mr. Johnson: I don’t understand.
Mr. Hatney: If there’s no uses of the place just water and just lights and stuff but with no
activity just remove the can unless she requests it.
Mr. Johnson: It’s in a resolution that was passed by this body.
Mr. Hatney: This body passed (McCrae’s) resolution.
59
Mr. Johnson: I don’t have that authority to move.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Smith: I just would like to ask, thank you, Mr. Mayor, I would just like to ask if the
can if the homeowner or the property owner requests that you know they didn’t require the
service you know put the can up and then they would have to reapply if they rented it out or you
know like I say. It seems like nobody was there and the place was boarded up you know you
would and she consented to let the can go back then she’d have to pay a fee if she rented it out or
sold it. The new people would have to apply just like having your gas turned off, or your water.
Mr. Johnson: That’s one of the core reasons why the system came to inception was that a
lot of people weren’t paying for trash service and the material ended up in cul-de-sacs, vacant
lots. And so by requiring it as being a mandatory service and adding it to the tax bill that cleaned
up the city. And so by changing it and making it more of a subscription service you’re rewriting
the entire program, which I guess can be done. But right now it’s mandatory service on your
trash bill under this resolution and when you go back and alter that methodology your illegal
dumping’s going to go up your if you take it off the tax bill your payment for service, collection
rates are going to change. So there’s a lot of ramifications to what you’re proposing.
Mr. Smith: Okay, well, I was, I can see what she’s saying she owns a piece of property
and the next thing you know it’s boarded up and everything. Obviously nobody’s there but yet
somebody’s using her trash. Isn’t there a way she could get that ---
Mr. Johnson: For us ---
Mr. Smith: --- because she said she didn’t want it.
Mr. Johnson: --- for us to get the fees waived it’s unoccupied an no utility. So if she
elected to turn the utilities off we can waive the fees.
Mr. Smith: Well, so if she, it’s boarded up and everything so all she needs to do now is
go down and turn the power off the gas off and the water off and then boom, no trash.
Mr. Johnson: Leave the water on.
Mr. Smith: Water on right okay. If she turns the power off right now then she could ---
Mr. Johnson: Then we waive the fees from that day forward.
Mr. Smith: You board it up why don’t you turn the power off?
Ms. Coping: Because when I go down there to work ---
Mr. Smith: Yes, ma’am.
60
Ms. Coping: --- they will have to come out and re-inspect the property in order to get the
lights back on. That’s the only reason why the lights are on. But there isn’t any usage. I pay
$9.00 dollars a month for lights. That’s the minimum that they will lower the lights to. There is
not water there is no gas. And I’m the person who cuts the grass so there isn’t anybody else
putting grass collection in the garbage can.
Mr. Smith: So that’s or ordinance though, that’s in our ordinance about the power?
Mr. Johnson: It’s in a defining resolution that was passed by this body.
Mr. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll be brief again. Based on information that I
heard from both Ms. Coping and Mark I would like to move that her request be approved and the
outstanding balance of approximately $302.00 be waived. And that Mr. Johnson be, get with the
st
Law Department to draft up a 21 century resolution so that we won’t have this problem again.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Johnson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Colleagues, what we’ve got to understand what’s going to happen if we
continue making adjustments to what’s been put in place as far as rules and regulations and
guidelines that was given forth by the previous commissioners. We have to look at not only Ms.
Coping I’m sorry for what has happened to you but under our rules and under our guidelines
we’ve got to follow them. I believe in everything should be fair for everybody. If we do it for
this it’s going to continue happening. We have to look at rental houses. When somebody
doesn’t rent their house for two to three months, if they shut the power off naturally because the
renters had moved out the power went off. We can not with all the thousands of people that we
have in our area it’s going to work the waste utility having to go pick up and don’t when they are
going to rent or not going to rent. So it’s going to cost a lot of mass confusion for us.
Ms. Coping: May I say something?
Mr. Smith: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Coping: This isn’t two months this house has been empty for five years. That is a
big difference.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
61
Ms. Coping: If it was two months I wouldn’t even be standing here. If it was one year I
would not be standing here. This house has been empty for five years, boarded up. Nobody
lives there.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Brigham, then Commissioner Bowles, then
Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, given the, I understand the lady’s problem I want to help her I
can’t help her but we sitting in a situation that if we start making exceptions we’re going to be
dealing with exceptions every week here. No either we’re going to have to rewrite the rules or
not that I don’t, that if y’all want to do that we can do that. But for right now we have no choice
but make the motion to deny.
Mr. Mayor: Is that a substitute motion?
Mr. Brigham: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second for the substitute motion?
Mr. Bowles: I’ll second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Bowles, you had your.
Mr. Bowles: I would just also like to have the attorneys when they’re looking at the path
forward to consider that all citizens that own land in the old city whether there’s a house or not
or paying garbage fees so please include them in your consideration.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: I was attempting to, I just has some discussion with Mark and I was trying
to amend my motion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, if you wanted to amend your motion and the seconder is in agreement
you can do that.
Mr. Lockett: What I’d like to do is I would like to make a motion that Mark get
st
with the Law Department and if they draw up a new 21 century resolution. And at that
time have Ms. Coping consider coming back under the new law and presenting her case.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, you’re amending your motion to state that.
Mr. Lockett: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: And the seconder is okay with the amendment?
Mr. Johnson: (inaudible).
62
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion on the floor to deny. If there’s no further
discussion Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting.
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Hatney vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, what, okay so our next ---
The Clerk:
SUBCOMMITTEE
Augusta Municipal Golf Course Subcommittee
34. Report from the subcommittee appointed/tasked with developing a plan to operate the
Augusta Municipal Golf Course “Patch” at no cost to Augusta-Richmond County.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kendrick, I believe you’re on.
Mr. Kendrick: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: You’ve got five minutes and if want to do it faster than that that would be
great too.
Mr. Kendrick: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, thank you very much. On behalf of the
committee that came together for the last four months to work on trying to come to some
resolution for the Augusta Municipal Golf Course I’m here to today to read to you the executive
summary. I think each of you should have got a copy of this document already. First before I do
that let me thank you for allowing us to do this. And two thank the committee who worked so
diligently to get this done. It’s hard to put a value on the contributions by the Augusta Municipal
Golf Course the Patch has made to this community for than 80 years. And it’s important to
know that financial difficulties and expenses are similar to that of many other municipal golf
courses across the country. Augusta Richmond County Commission has always has insisted it
doesn’t necessarily want to close the golf course but to find a way to operate it without losing
money. We believe that we can show how this can be done. The Patch currently loses under
$100,000 a year however just a 5% increase in dues and a daily rate and just two additional
foursome per day will eliminate this deficit. We ask Affirmative Golf Partners the same
company that manages Forest Hills Golf Course to examine various options. One close the
course two lease the course to a private operator three turn the course into a nine-hole course,
four higher management to come to manage the course suspend operation of the course. It is a
joint assumption that the Patch should remain open as an 18-hole golf course, which leaves
number two and number four options to consider. The report outlines the pros and cons of each
of these options and provides general information on how to improve the possibility.
Affirmative concluded that the course operation must be managed more aggressively with
customer service and sales orientation. The financial situation directly related to the number of
rounds of golf played per year that are currently played there. The Patch currently play
approximately 20,000 rounds per year. Other similar size golf courses play approximately
63
32,000. The primary reason for the relatively low number of rounds is overall negative
perception the experience of the golf course, The Patch relative to other golf alternatives in the
Augusta area. While other revue streams such as range balls, food, beverages can be enhanced
the golfers are not there are not at the course to play a round if the bottom line cannot be
improved. An increase in rounds compared with an increase in dues and daily playing fees are
approximately 5% and will improve the financial burden to a breakeven position. These
increases still place the Patch well below competition in the Augusta area. I will now just jump
to the recommendations that we are prepared to make. One, that a professional golf management
company be hired to operate the golf course. It is our belief that hiring an experienced golf
management company has the highest possibility of improving the operation and financial
position of the course and thus insuring the long term viability of the Patch. Two, that a
commission be establish to oversee the management company in order to protect the interests of
the commission, taxpayers and constituents that currently utilize the Patch. This is similar to the
model currently employed by the policy of golf course which has recent success in increasing
both the profitability and improving the golf experience. Three, improve the cash control
measures be implanted. Four, that rates and dues be increased. Five, that a starter wing assistant
be implemented. Six, that advertising and promotion be increased to a reasonable level. Seven,
that the clubhouse presentation be improved. Eight, the staff appearance be enhanced. Nine,
that the pro shop be restocked. Ten, that food and beverage operations be extended. Eleven, that
the course officially be renamed The Patch. Finally, it should be noted that the representative of
this group, members of the Patch, Augusta State University, Paine College and the Richmond
County Board of Education and the First Tee all support these recommendations. Thank you for,
our appreciation for allowing us to do this. I will answer any questions that you all may have.
Mr. Mayor: And just one question I would have just in moving forward so we can do
have the best information available. Have budgets been developed to show costs associated with
doing the recommendations?
Mr. Kendrick: I’m sorry, please say that again.
Mr. Mayor: Have any budgets been developed to show any costs ---
Mr. Kendrick: In that package I gave you the new ---
Mr. Mayor: There are budgets?
Mr. Kendrick: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Kendrick: If you don’t have one I’ve got another one that you may have.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to commend Chairman
Kendrick and the others that worked with him on this. The Patch is very important to the people
64
in the community. I worked extremely hard on trying to save it. They up the baton and they
worked real hard and I just wanted to thank you all so very much for all your efforts. And even
using your money to get this report information that you provided. Thank you so much.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: I’d just like to say I commend you for your job and what you did because I
love the Patch. I grew up there but you know you had to walk from St. Joe’s Hospital over there
to play. That’s maybe why my handicap is so high, I was tired when I got there. But the thing is
I’m on the Forest Hills Management Committee and I’ll have to say the group you spoke with
out of Atlanta has done a real commendable job.
Mr. Kendrick: That’s the group we use.
Mr. Smith: That’s right and they know what they’re doing and they set policy and they
gave direction for what we were doing. And it made a difference. And I think with the Patch
some of the comments you made if we follow what they did look over at our neighbor and see
what they’re doing I think we’ll have an enjoyable place for everybody to play. The attitudes
and everything will go up and you know if you do it right they’ll come.
Mr. Kendrick: I think you’re right. I think as you say many of these folks in this room
represent that and play out there regular. And they do look forward to this thing staying pretty
much the way it is. Hopefully we can find a way to get that done.
Mr. Smith: Well, you know the thing about it is you know me being over there at Forest
Hills management committee you know I’m looking over there and saying you know it can be
done. And the thing about it is one tip you know put one hand in the cash register and then go
from there and follow those guys guidelines from Atlanta. And I’m going to tell you they know
how to run facilities and we’d be back in the black.
Mr. Kendrick: They gave us a very good recommendation and would like to go one step
further, Mr. Mayor, and thank Tom Beck for his commitment to helping us get through this. He
was very, he’s been very valuable in all the phases (unintelligible) helping us with a lot of stuff.
Everybody that’s had fun at the Patch raise your hand, please.
Mr. Mayor: Thank y’all.
Mr. Kendrick: Again thank you all for this. We do look forward to whatever y’all decide
to do.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles:
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Kendrick, I want to thank you and Dr.
Millender for the time that y’all have taken to put into this and taking the time to take me to
And I’ll make a
lunch and tell me what was going on and keeping us abreast of the situation.
65
motion that we receive this as information and hopefully use this as a guideline to move
forward.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Yes, as I’ve been able to share with a couple of you going along the line we
have gotten the RFQ’s back. We do have one compliant bid at this particular point I time. I
think what I’d like to do is look at that and compare that against the goals that this committee set
and see and look at the things that come together and mesh. And see if we can move forward. It
seems like that’s the direction they were going in to some degree. And see if we can mesh those
two together to come back with a appropriate recommendation that covers their needs plus our
needs to get out of the golf business and hopefully have a place that still maintains the historical
significance of the Patch and provides golf for most of our citizens who might not be able to
afford it otherwise or just enjoy playing the Patch. I guess if you could probably afford to play
any place you want to play you would but you want to play the Patch.
Mr. Mayor: That sounds good to me. We have a motion and a second. If there’s,
Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: Was there a change in what he was proposing about what Joe said?
Mr. Mayor: No, Joe made a motion to receive it as information but he’s, but the
Administrator is going to proceed to put a item together for us to once we get the RFP done.
Mr. Smith: I’ll second Joe’s motion.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second to receive this as information. If there’s no
further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you so much for your hard work, James. I know y’all and to the
entire committee as well. Thank y’all so much. Madam Clerk, I believe we’ve come to the end
of the road. Final agenda item?
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS
37. Discuss/approve the release of the General Counsel’s Legal Opinion dated January 28,
2011 and the process for any future releases. (Requested by Commissioner Alvin Mason
February 7, 2011)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason.
66
Mr. Mason: Okay, Mr. Mayor, obviously it’s already been done. And the only thing I
want to ask is what is the appropriate protocol and the procedures. As you well know we agreed
to release and then of course we got out here on the floor that didn’t happen. Then individuals
began releasing on their own. What is the protocol or is there one set or do we need to set one in
terms of releasing legal opinions from our general counsel.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: I’m not aware of any current procedure related to the waiver of the
attorney/client privilege. If you’d like I can come back with a recommendation along those
lines.
Mr. Mason: I’d like it if it’s the will.
motion to approve the attorney developing that
Mr. Mayor: Can I get a
recommendation?
Mr. Johnson: So moved.
Mr. Lockett: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Bowles votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: And 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
February 15, 2011.
_______________________
Clerk of Commission
67
68